British Sign Language and Linguistic Access Working Group ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

There is UK-wide evidence that underpinning conceptualisations of deafness itself (linguisticdeficit or linguistic difference) can affect not only the range of choices available to families,but the attitude with which they are presented (Young et al, 2006). Furthermore, themedical environment surrounding early diagnosis and amplification can lead to animmediate expectation of ‘cure’ – of ‘catching it in time’ - which encourages a deficitrather than a linguistic perspective (op cit).As has already been demonstrated, language policies of local authority services vary amonglocal authorities and staff in individual services have developed different positions inresponse to the above arguments. Thus, even where BSL is offered as a linguistic choice,it could be offered in a discouraging rather than encouraging way and/or the resourcesfor supporting the family in developing the language may be so limited that it is not arealistic possibility.Underpinning this is a positioning of BSL within a communication support context, ratherthan a linguistic framework, in key documentation relating to language diversity withineducation (Scottish Executive, 2006:13). An explicit listing of BSL as part of the ‘richdiversity of language’ within Scotland would provide a lead in reframing it as a languagerather than as a means of remedying a deficit.NDCS, in collaboration with Manchester University, recently produced guidelines on theprovision of ‘informed choice’ to parents of deaf children, including language andcommunication choices (DfES, 2006:27).In the light of these developments and dilemmas, this section aims to explore brieflywhat is known about linguistic choices and assessments offered to deaf preschoolchildren and their families in Scotland.8.2. LANGUAGES USED WITH PRE-SCHOOL DEAF CHILDREN IN SCOTLAND(ADPS, 2001)ADPS has data on languages used with preschool children at home and among a rangeof professionals working with the child. For most years, the data is unexplored. In 2001,out of 211 survey responses (88% response rate), ToDs reported that the main homelanguage of 94% of the preschool deaf children was English. 4% of families used BSLand the others used equal levels of Urdu and Punjabi.Records were completed for 179 deaf preschool children on the languages used byparents and professionals with the child. Table 8 shows that all of the children wereexposed to English and 37% (67) of them were exposed to BSL to some extent. Dataare also available on the break-down of extent of usage of individual languages/modesby each type of professional.39
CHART 8 Languages/language modes used by parents and professionalswith deaf preschool children in 2001 ( =179)200180160140120100806040200BSLSpoken EnglishOther spokenlanguageSSE, SE,Paget GormanMakaton,signalongLanguages/language modes8.3. UNHS IN SCOTLANDAll Scottish Health Boards have been screening in the newborn period since 2005.However, a recent clinical audit of NHS Audiology Services in Scotland found that, while‘UNHS is a successful national programme’, there were regional variations in service anda need for standardisation of protocols, monitoring arrangements, information andcommunication systems (Davis et al, 2007:36).Crosshouse cochlear implant service reports geographical variation in the number ofinfant referrals coming from Health Boards, suggesting variation in referral procedures.Although the audiology audit made reference to early intervention, SaLT services andFamily Support Services, audition was not placed in the context of a spectrum oflinguistic choices and permutations.8.4. EARLY INTERVENTIONThere is currently no national framework for early intervention. At the time of writing,NDCS is currently campaigning for this to be addressed.Where babies are identified through UNHS, they are likely to receive hearing aids ataround 4 months. Concerns are expressed in the audiology audit report that amplificationshould be offered earlier than this where there is very early confirmation of deafness(Davis et al, 2007:46).40
Page 1 and 2: BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTI
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are very gratefu
Page 6 and 7: CONTENTS (continued)THE FURTHER AND
Page 8: 1.INTRODUCTIONThis study, conducted
Page 11 and 12: 2.METHODS2.1. STATISTICAL INFORMATI
Page 13 and 14: Interviewees were selected on the b
Page 15 and 16: TABLE 1Type of approach‘Natural a
Page 17 and 18: 3.3. ‘NO SPECIFIC POLICY’Betwee
Page 20 and 21: THE SCHOOL SECTOR:LINGUISTIC ACCESS
Page 22 and 23: 5.3. PRESENTING STATISTICS ON THE P
Page 24 and 25: 6.THE NUMBER OF PROFESSIONALS WHOPR
Page 27 and 28: 6.1.3. RECOMMENDATIONS■■■■T
Page 29: CHART 4 Location of deaf ‘other p
Page 32 and 33: 7.THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PROFESSIONA
Page 34 and 35: There are a limited number of types
Page 37 and 38: Table 7 BSL qualifications among To
Page 39: ■■As has already been demonstra
Page 42 and 43: The title ‘Communication Support
Page 44 and 45: 8.PRE-SCHOOL ISSUES: INFORMED CHOIC
Page 48 and 49: ToDS (who may be Educational Audiol
Page 50 and 51: Table 8 Types of assessment done by
Page 52 and 53: 9.SCHOOL YEARS: LINGUISTIC ASSESSME
Page 54 and 55: 9.3. LATE DIAGNOSISThe cochlear imp
Page 56 and 57: 9.7. ASSESSMENTS OF LINGUISTIC STRA
Page 58 and 59: 10.SCHOOL YEARS: ACCESS ISSUES10.1.
Page 60 and 61: 10.2. STAFFING ISSUES10.2.1.THE ToD
Page 62 and 63: 10.4. ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENTSThe Disa
Page 64 and 65: CHART 9 Instances of special arrang
Page 66 and 67: CHART 11 Instances of special arran
Page 68 and 69: ■■■■■■There is a need f
Page 70 and 71: The wide range of types of informat
Page 72 and 73: A ToD currently visits three times
Page 74 and 75: 12.2. THE NUMBER OF DEAF STUDENTS I
Page 76 and 77: Table 14 compares selected qualific
Page 78 and 79: Table 16 All students* 2001/2002-20
Page 80 and 81: CHART 13 Age groups of deaf/hearing
Page 82 and 83: 13.THE NUMBER OF PROFESSIONALS WHOP
Page 84 and 85: ■■ways in which the current str
Page 86 and 87: They all indicated some kind of fas
Page 88 and 89: ■■■■■■More staff are op
Page 90 and 91: 15.ISSUES RELEVANT TO BOTH FE ANDHE
Page 92 and 93: It is known that it can sometimes b
Page 94 and 95: The Association of Notetakers does
Page 96 and 97:
Bearing this in mind, between 200 a
Page 98 and 99:
Qualifications relating to other ta
Page 100 and 101:
Communication Support Workers■ Th
Page 102 and 103:
One college, which attracts a high
Page 104 and 105:
Table 22 Deaf/HI FE student enrolme
Page 106 and 107:
■■■■■■■■All college
Page 108 and 109:
The validation processCurrently, 30
Page 110 and 111:
A related issue is the lack of stan
Page 112 and 113:
■■There is a need for robust qu
Page 114 and 115:
19.FULL LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONSTHE
Page 116 and 117:
7.2. OTHER PROFESSIONALS■There is
Page 118 and 119:
■■■■■■■■■■There
Page 120 and 121:
■Equality Forward’s ‘Deaf Stu
Page 122 and 123:
■There is anecdotal evidence that
Page 124 and 125:
Knoors, H. (2007) ‘Educational Re
Page 126 and 127:
Scottish Parliament (2006) ‘Acces
Page 128 and 129:
APPENDIX 2GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS CO
Page 130 and 131:
) Competency in BSL/English interpr
Page 132 and 133:
The word ‘deaf’ is used through
Page 134 and 135:
APPENDIX 5RELEVANT SQA QUALIFICATIO
Page 136 and 137:
APPENDIX 7PROPOSED SQA QUALIFICATIO
show all

British Sign Language and Linguistic Access Working Group ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?