The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

7. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PROFESSIONALS WHO PROVIDE LINGUISTIC ACCESS AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR DEAF PUPILS IN SCHOOLS

' SCoD urges the Scottish Executive and employers to ensure that all who work directly with deaf young people have high-level linguistic skills so that full communication can take place.'

SCoD Position Statement on Education ( SCoD, 2005)

7.1. QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS OF DEAF CHILDREN (ToDs)

Recent legislation (Scotland, 2005) has made it compulsory for teachers who work 'wholly or mainly' with deaf pupils to have an appropriate qualification. Implementation guidelines to local authorities define the qualification in terms of a range of competencies (Scottish Government, 2007b).

Competencies relating directly to linguistic access include: basic audiology; linguistic assessment; language and literacy development; linguistic potential and barriers to development; understanding of key differences between BSL and English and between modes of both languages; knowledge of key linguistic strategies.

Information on possession of postgraduate qualification in deaf education (or equivalent) was given for 231 of the 240 ToDs (including the 8 qualified Learning Support Teachers). 159 of these possessed a specialist ToD postgraduate qualification (or equivalent) and a further 9 were reported to be working towards the qualification. This amounted to a total of 168 (73%) qualified or in training. This is the same percentage as that reported in 2003. However, it may be that there are more staff enrolled on ToD training courses, as the survey did not ask for details of current training - the 9 who provided this information volunteered it as additional detail.

Also, given the age profile skew towards older staff, as already noted, there is an unknown number of recently-employed staff who have replaced those who have retired. One service indicated that this was a particular reason why a relatively high proportion of staff were in training rather than qualified.

7.1.1. ToD QUALIFICATIONS RELATING TO DEAF CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO SPOKEN/WRITTEN LANGUAGE

It can be taken for granted that most ToDs have English language skills to at least Higher level (initial teacher training demands this level of English, although).

It can also be assumed that those who have a specialist ToD qualification will also have received training in basic audiology and in deaf children's English language development and assessment. Educational Audiologists will obviously have a higher degree of knowledge, understanding and skills in audiology.

7.1.1.1. SCOPING STUDY SURVEY 2007 DATA

The level of skills and knowledge in these areas which is normally part of a postgraduate qualification in deaf education can be assumed for 73% of 231ToDs at the moment (bearing in mind that 9 of these are in training).

One ToD reported a professional qualification in notetaking for deaf people, compared to two in 2003.

7.1.1.2. ADPS DATA (2003)

The ADPS 2003 teacher survey additionally asked for details of qualifications and current training in 'language/linguistics' and for details of other areas relating to accessing spoken language (audiology, notetaking and lipreading/teaching lipreading).

• Only 3 ToDs reported specific qualifications/training in language/linguistics - in the form of delivery of spoken language assessments (Derbyshire Language Scheme and Reynell Development Language Scales). One ToD reported a qualification in teaching speech-reading and 13 had additional training/qualifications in audiology. Two reported specialist qualifications in notetaking. However, it is important to bear in mind that:
  - The data do not include details of previous un-certificated training;
  - Staff may often 'cascade' training (eg in use of language assessments or hearing aid technology);
  - As explained above, training in key areas is usually included in specialist ToD training.

It is also the case that other professionals are likely to specialise in specific aspects and collaborate with ToDs: for example, speech and language therapists in assessments and monitoring of spoken language development.

Qualifications in sign systems which support spoken English

Information was reported on qualifications in the use of manually coded systems, which 'borrow' individual signs from BSL, but not grammatical features, to support spoken English. Respondents were asked to specify the sign system and to detail qualifications and current training.

There are a limited number of types of accreditation in the use of manually coded English systems - the training for which is usually of short duration (each course of the main training provider cited, WPSE, is 12 hours in length, over a period of three days). 18 teachers reported some level of certification in the limited number of available systems. Table 6 shows the break-down of the type of system.

Table 6 Sign System qualifications of ToDs in 2003

Almost two-thirds of these staff (11) were concentrated in two local authorities and one school for deaf children. The remaining seven teachers were the only representatives of their services to report sign system qualifications. Only one teacher out of the eleven 'no specific policy' services had one of these qualifications - in Signed English.

It may be that staff have 'cascaded' training to colleagues; as already noted, training courses in manually-coded English tend to be of limited length, and are always based on English, which is most likely to be the first language of the trainee. Therefore, there may be some level of under-reporting of knowledge and skills.

7.1.2. ToD QUALIFICATIONS RELATING TO DEAF CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO BSL

'Opportunities should be provided for staff to obtain education and appropriate qualifications in BSL. In situations where a teacher without the relevant linguistic skills is nevertheless employed, appropriate interpreting arrangements should be put in place.'

SCoD Position Statement on Education ( SCoD, 2005)

BSL is a full, visual-spatial language in its own right, as distinct from the sign systems, listed above, which support spoken English, and which require a small number of hours of training.

Appendix 3 provides details of accreditation in BSL language fluency and in BSL/English interpreting. As can be seen, the lengths of training required for completion through to level 3 (advanced) fluency vary from 260 hours ( CACDP) to 360 hours ( BDA). See also section 15.2.2., which addresses the availability of provision at advanced levels.

The ToD qualification guidelines to local authorities specify that all teachers of deaf children should hold a minimum of Level 1 (Foundation) BSL, specifying that 'teachers working with learners who use BSL (should) become qualified at an appropriate level in the language. This may be to level 1, 2 or 3, as appropriate' (op cit: para 17). There is therefore an implication, in the guidance, that it may sometimes be appropriate for a teacher to have a low level of competence in the language of access of the pupil they are supporting. The NDCS and the BDA are both currently campaigning for staff who provide direct linguistic support to deaf pupils to be qualified to a minimum of Level 3 ( NDCS, 2007; BDA, 2007).

The BDA is considering developing specifically tailored BSL curricula (language and linguistics) for professionals working with deaf children, including teachers.

7.1.2.1. SCOPING STUDY SURVEY 2007 DATA

Respondents provided details on BSL qualifications of 233 ToDs (including the 8 qualified Learning Support Teachers). Chart 5 shows that 8% have accredited advanced of fluency at level 3, and a further three are registered interpreters. None was reported to have Level 4. This is double the percentage of advanced level ascertained in 2003. However, just over a quarter have no qualifications in BSL and a further two thirds have maximum of basic or intermediate level of fluency. It may be that some with intermediate qualifications have higher levels of fluency which have not yet been examined and accredited, due to shortages of training courses.

Chart 5 Percentages of highest levels of BSL qualifications held by ToDs in Scotland, 2007 (=205)

7.1.2.2. ADPS DATA (2003)

While four years old, ADPS data provides more depth of information about qualifications and more possibilities for cross-referencing with service and pupil data. Table 7, uses ADPS data to explore the relationship between service policies and levels of BSL of teachers of deaf children in 2003. See Appendix 1 for explanations of the policy categories. Overall, out of 255 responses (including 7 within FE) only 11 reported BSL qualification at advanced level, 4 of whom were BSL/English interpreters - one of the latter describing themselves as 'lapsed'. All but one of those at advanced level were employed by services which included BSL in their language policy categorisation. Teachers in services which declared 'no specific policy' and in services with explicitly monolingual policies (Natural Aural, spoken/written English and TC/a) had particularly low levels of BSL.

Table 7 BSL qualifications among ToDs in specialist educational services for deaf pupils in Scotland (2003)*

* 'Stages' equate to the CACDP levels as detailed in Appendix 1
** both services joined by + are located in the same local authority
† at least one of these is in training for the next level of qualification
†† indicates that the policy covers all the specialist educational provision for deaf children in that local authority

Table from Grimes et al, 2007:544

7.1.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

• More detail is needed on the national picture regarding specific training and qualifications relating to linguistic assessments and language planning (both spoken language and BSL).
• A focus is needed, at both national and local authority levels, on the generally low levels of BSL qualifications among ToDs, and on the wide geographical variation, which indicates variation in linguistic choice.
• There is a need for the Scottish Government to re-consider the implication, in the competency framework guidance for the mandatory ToD qualification, that it may sometimes be appropriate for local authorities to employ ToDs who have low levels of fluency in BSL, when supporting a pupil who uses BSL.
• Few teachers in few services have any form of qualification in English-based sign systems. Yet there is widespread use of Sign Supported English (ie within the 'T/Ca' and 'T/Cb'. Services in table 7) and some reported use of Signed English. There appears to be a need for more study on the use of such systems in Scotland: for example, the extent to which the use of SSE may be related to limited availability of advanced levels of BSL training, rather than being a linguistic strategy. There also needs to be guidance on relevant training and qualifications, appropriate to the application of the system as a specific strategy.

7.2. QUALIFICATIONS OF OTHER PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH DEAF PUPILS

7.2.1. SCOPING STUDY SURVEY 2007 DATA

BSL qualifications

Chart 6 shows the highest levels of BSL qualification of each type of professional, other than ToDs, who work with deaf pupils in schools. Registration status as a BSL/English interpreter is classed as the highest level, although it also indicates additional skills in interpreting (see Appendix 3).

As with the data on ToDs, above, these data should be seen in the context of:

• The fact that information on current training was not specifically requested;
• The paucity of BSL training opportunities at advanced level.

Bearing these factors in mind, the level of BSL qualification among staff is generally low, as it is with ToDs. Out of 173 staff:

• Two are registered BSL/English interpreters (one Communication Support Worker and one specialist nursery nurse);
• Eight have advanced level 3: a Learning Support Teacher; 2 Communication Support Workers; 3 Deaf Tutors; a specialist Nursery Nurse and an Educational Audiologist.

The generally low levels have significance in relation to the relatively high numbers of Learning Support teachers and assistants working with deaf pupils, as noted above, and especial significance for those working directly with pupils who use BSL. Of particular note are the following details, which include additional relevant information on work setting and language used:

• 58% of the 37 Learning Support Teachers (excluding the 8 counted as ToDs) have no BSL qualifications. Of the twenty who work in schools for deaf children, eighteen have levels 1 or 2 BSL qualification, and one has level 3. Among the seventeen who work in other settings, none report that they are currently using BSL and three (18%) have basic levels (maximum level 2)
• 77% (10) of the Communication Support Worker staff have maximum level 2 BSL. As at least 82% (14) use BSL to some extent in their work with deaf pupils, and are likely to provide some amount of BSL/English interpretation, this is of concern. The percentage may actually be higher than this, as information on language was not provided on the three remaining staff. See also later sections on Communication Support Workers ( sections 10.2.4 and 15.5)
• As has already been demonstrated, Learning Support Assistants ( LSAs) provide a high amount of in-class support for deaf pupils. The title alone does not indicate the nature of any linguistic access/support provided, nor the amount of direction they may receive from a specialist professional, such as a ToD. There are indications that, in 2007, a higher proportion of staff in this role have qualifications in basic levels of BSL competency than was the case in 2005. However, no LSAs in either 2005 or 2007 were reported to have BSL qualifications above Level 2 (although two in 2007 were reported to be training for advanced/interpreting level at Heriot Watt University and one in training for level 3). Meanwhile, 39% (27) of the LSAs currently use BSL with deaf pupils and a further 13% are reported to use SSE (language information was not provided for 33%). Again there are likely to be a number of these who are expected to provide BSL/English interpretation (see also 10.2.3, below)
• As noted earlier, there is likely to be a significant under-reporting of Speech and Language Therapists. Just over half (9) of the 17 reported, have either a level 1 or a level 2 BSL qualification

Chart 6 Proportions of highest levels of BSL qualifications held by 'other professionals' working with deaf pupils in Scotland, 2007 (=173)

* 54% (20) of the Learning Support Teachers are in schools for deaf children.
The 8 Learning Support Teachers with a postgraduate diploma in deaf education were excluded, as they were counted within the ToD total.
** One of the level 2 staff is training for level 3 and two for advanced level/interpreting
*** One of the level 2 staff is training for advanced level/interpreting
**** There is likely to be some under-reporting of Speech and Language Therapists

Other Qualifications: Learning Support Teachers ( LSTs)

Again, it should be borne in mind that that 8 LSTs were counted as ToDs, in this report, because of their postgraduate qualifications in deaf education. Of the remaining 37, in addition to the BSL qualifications noted above, 11 of the LSTs reported postgraduate diplomas in Special Educational Needs (or equivalent). So, there is little indication of specialist qualifications and experience relating to linguistic access among LSTs - particularly among those working in mainstream settings.

Other qualifications: Learning Support Assistants ( LSAs)

38% of the 65 LSAs have an SQA Professional Development Award for classroom assistants. Just over a quarter of them have no BSL qualification and 97% are not reported to have Higher English, although a significant proportion of these were 'not known' responses. A summary of this is provided in Chart 7. In addition, 2 reported nursery nurse qualifications and one a BSc.

Chart 7 Qualifications of Learning Support Assistants who work with deaf pupils in Scotland, 2007 (=65)

* Two of the unqualified staff were reported to be in training for the PDA
** One of the Level 2 staff was reported to training for level 3 and two for advanced level/interpreting

Other qualifications: Communication Support Workers

In addition to the BSL qualifications, 4 were reported to hold the PDA for classrooms assistants. None was reported to have Higher English.

Other qualifications: Deaf Tutors (+ 1 Deaf Sign Language Assistant)

In addition to BSL qualifications, the following qualifications were reported:

• 3 of the 10 staff reported qualifications as Sign Language Tutors, one of whom also reported a diploma in training BSL tutors;
• 1 accreditation as a BSL assessor and a certificate in counselling;
• 1 Edexcel qualification in Communication Support Work;
• 2 PDA qualifications for classroom assistants.

It is likely that the impact of recent injection of funding into tutor training will be noticeable among this group.

Other qualifications: Specialist Nursery Nurses

In addition to BSL qualifications, the following qualifications were reported among the 20 staff:

• 3 PDA qualifications for classroom assistants;
• 2 Higher English;
• 3 HNC in Childcare and Education;
• 1 HNC Supporting Special Learning Needs;
• 1 SNEB Certificate in Childcare

There were no details of training for Educational Audiologists or Speech and Language Therapists, other than the specific professional training and BSL qualifications already mentioned.

7.2.2. MOST RECENT ADPS DATA (2004/2005)

As explained above, the ADPS data on support provided to individual pupils does not yet allow for a headcount of staff. However, it is still possible to get a picture of the range of qualifications among staff who provided linguistic access/support during the five years of the project.

ADPS Teacher Survey data has already been explored, above, in relation to ToD qualifications. ADPS data on Speech and Language Therapists ( SALTs) qualifications, shows that, as with the 2007 data, they are usually employed by the health service; therefore the detail of their qualifications was not necessarily available to ToD respondents in the ADPS pupil survey. Often the phrase 'appropriate qualification' would be entered. However, some references were made to SALT graduate and postgraduate qualifications. In addition, one SaLT was reported as having a 'Certificate in BSL/English Interpreting Studies' and there were two incidences of BSL Level 2 and one of BSL Level 1.

Table 8 show ADPS information on qualifications of a selection of other staff who provided significant levels of support/access to severely deaf/profoundly deaf/cochlear implanted pupils in 2004/2005. These data do not include staff who work in schools for deaf children. Again the totals do not necessarily represent total number of staff, as the same member of staff may appear twice (as having provided a service to more than one pupil).

As with the 2007 information, this data shows little evidence of qualification relating specifically to linguistic access for deaf pupils, among Learning Support Teachers and Assistants, apart from a small number of BSL qualifications at basic and intermediate levels of language fluency.

The title 'Communication Support Workers' ( CSW) more clearly suggests a specific, specialised access service. However, as with the 2007 data, it is of concern that there is only one instance of a CSW who is training in interpreting skills, and none of the others have qualifications above intermediate level in BSL language fluency. It is likely that attendance on an audiology module provided training in basic technical support for pupils who use audition for access (for example, maintenance of amplification equipment etc). There is no evidence of notetaker qualifications.

Table 8 Qualifications of specific access/support staff who provided a service to profoundly deaf/severely deaf/cochlear implanted pupils who received a visiting service in 2004/2005Learning Support Assistants (=80*)

* As with table 5, these totals represent the number of commitments of service provided by one professional to one pupil throughout 2004/2005

7.2.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

• There is a need for an exploration of the specific nature of in-class linguistic access provided to deaf pupils by Learning Support staff and by staff known as Communication Support Workers across Scotland. It would seem helpful to have clearer and more consistent role definitions, alongside recommended specialist qualifications and training, which distinctly match the specialist nature of the posts.

« Previous | Contents | Next »