Goal fulfilment in school for the deaf and hearing impaired - batod

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7. Distribution of responses to the questionnaires.ParentAntalquestionnairesTotal 1687 % Girls BoysOf which Special school 238 14 124 113Schools for the hearing 211 13 114 97impairedIndividually placed 1090 66 543 547Compulsory school for 121 7 56 65pupils with learningdisabilitiesNon-response 27 837 822SchoolquestionnairesTotal 1317Of which Special school 203 16 102 101Schools for the hearing 133 10 72 61impairedIndividually placed 854 66 419 435Compulsory school for 109 8 44 65pupils with learningdisabilitiesNon-response 18 637 662by the hearing centres has not affected thenumber of grades from special school nor fromthe schools for the hearing impaired.By comparing the number of grades thatStatistics Sweden found on the basis of thepersonal details from the hearing centreswith those we received from the schools forthe hearing impaired and the details that theNational Agency for Education registers in theSIRIS/SALSA database, we can show that underreportingdid occur.Basis for comparison of questionnaireresultsThe parent questionnaires were addressed tothe total population of parents of children andyoung people whose civic registration numbersthe hearing centres had submitted. Apartfrom the over-coverage reported by StatisticsSweden and the over-coverage revealed bythe questionnaire responses (upper secondarypupils), there is also, as mentioned above, acertain under-coverage of the number of civicregistration numbers from the hearing centres.The parent questionnaire was returned by 68%of the parents. The degree of non-response tothe parent questionnaire is slightly greater inrespect of parents of boys with an immigrantbackground and of parents who live in majorcities and larger municipalities. This is, however,only a question of a few per cent difference incomparison with the group that did respond.75% of the pupils’ teachers responded to theschool questionnaire.32 Goal fulfilment in school for the deaf and hearing impaired
As with other questionnaire assessments, weprobably have an internal dropout caused byparents and schools not recognising themselvesin all the questions. We wanted to come incontact with several different types of hearingloss in many different contexts. This resulted ina certain number of specifically asked questionsand the questionnaire’s degree of internal nonresponseto those questions was high. Gatheringschool addresses from the parents involvedan initial non-response of about 30% but theprocedure was necessary as there is no nationalregister combining both disability and school.On the other hand, gathering addresses meantthat we could give the parents information aboutthe assessment at an early stage, thus giving themthe opportunity to decide whether to participate.The result was that we have pupils for whom thedetails come from both the parent and the schoolquestionnaire, pupils for whom the details onlycome from the parent questionnaire and somepupils for whom the details only come from theschool questionnaire.The responses we received were divided by typeof school. We then saw that the parents of pupilsin schools for the hearing impaired respondedto a slightly greater extent than the same pupils’teachers did (see table 7). As regards specialschool and school for pupils with learningdisabilities, the situation was the opposite: moreteachers than parents responded. But if we madea comparison with the population of pupils inschools for the hearing impaired and specialschools, we saw that the degree of response washighest for parents of children in schools for thehearing impaired while it was lowest for thosepupils’ teachers (59 and 37% respectively). Inthe autumn term, 464 pupils were in years 2‐10of special school and 360 pupils in years 2‐9 ofschools for the hearing impaired.According to the Association of Hard of HearingPeople’s statistics, 68% of the pupil group arewhat we call ‘individually placed’, 17% attendspecial school and 12% attend schools for thehearing impaired (HRF 2007). Bearing in mindthat in this report we also account for schoolfor pupils with learning disabilities, and thatthe Association of Hard of Hearing People inits statistics also reports on another group ofpupils who attend mainstreamed schools withan audiotory profile 3 , which constitutes about3%, it can be stated that the distribution in ourunderlying data reflects in general terms thesituation for deaf and hearing impaired pupilsin school. Although, as table 6 shows, we onlyhave a coverage ratio of just over 50% for theschool questionnaire, we have, on the otherhand, a distribution between the types of schoolsthat coincides with the Association of Hard ofHearing People’s statistics.A non-response analysis that the SIT conductedshowed that the difference between thegroups – those that responded and those thatdid not respond – was less than expected. Theconclusion was that the responses received inthe survey could, in spite of everything, beregarded as representative for the population(Coniavitis Gellerstedt 2007b). But there is stilla risk that non-response of the size in the currentstudy may contain systematic errors. It could,for instance, be expected that parents of highersocio-economic status were those who responded(Fortnum, Stacey & Summefield 2006).In our questionnaire, the rate of non-responseby parents and schools can therefore be deemedto be too great to allow any confident statementsto be made about the whole population. It is, onthe other hand, possible to make descriptionsof and comparisons between those who didrespond.The purpose of the questionnaires was to give anin-depth picture of and provide underlying datafor analysis of the results received in the gradecomparison. The numerical collection, in spite ofnon-response, provided sufficient data for this.3Audiotory profile = Schools where they make temporary arrangem,ents for hearing imaired pupils. E.g. Sign Language andcommunication classes, encourage hearing impaired pupilsGoal fulfilment in school for the deaf and hearing impaired33
Page 2 and 3: This is a translation of main parts
Page 4 and 5: Goal fulfilment in school for the d
Page 6 and 7: Table of Contents, contd.Concluding
Page 8 and 9: Abbreviations and terms 1SPMSVSITTh
Page 10 and 11: The Swedish Compulsory SchoolCompul
Page 12 and 13: of teaching in different subjects,
Page 14 and 15: The SPM has in the report “Pupils
Page 16 and 17: In addition to the variation in typ
Page 18 and 19: Attitudes to sign language, long re
Page 20 and 21: Compulsory school for pupils withle
Page 22 and 23: In 2007, the SPM reported to the Mi
Page 24 and 25: impaired pupils’ reading levels i
Page 26 and 27: Method and implementationMethodPrev
Page 28 and 29: Figure 1. Flow chart of the collect
Page 30 and 31: 3,503,002,50Prevalence2,001,501,000
Page 34 and 35: ResultsTypes of schoolsSchools in S
Page 36 and 37: 100908070Procent60504030Mild hearin
Page 38 and 39: the 16 best grades in a pupil’s l
Page 40 and 41: Table 10. The proportion (%) of pup
Page 42 and 43: Table 14. Proportion (%) of boys aw
Page 44 and 45: EnglishThe goals for the learning E
Page 46 and 47: Table 22. Proportion (%) of pupils
Page 48 and 49: It is also important to note that t
Page 50 and 51: Table 26. Proportion (%) in respect
Page 52 and 53: TeachersParents91878176 76726564Per
Page 54 and 55: other types have used spoken langua
Page 56 and 57: On the basis of the assessment resu
Page 58 and 59: For instance, it can be mentioned t
Page 60 and 61: Special Schools for the Deaf and Ha
Page 62 and 63: LiteratureUnpublished sourcesConiav
Page 64 and 65: Specialskolemyndigheten. . Hämtad
Page 66 and 67: se>. Välj rubrik “Publikationer
Page 68 and 69: Appendice I1II. Compulsory School (
Page 70 and 71: Appendice IVIV. Special school for
Page 72: The National Agency for Special Nee

Goal fulfilment in school for the deaf and hearing impaired - batod

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?