hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________When programs have been developed, notably for Indigenous students, they have had ahealth rather than an educational focus and have promoted approaches modelled onservices for the smaller number of children with Sensori‐neural Hearing Loss. (That is, theyhave promoted amplification and individual support around language focussed teachingstrategies) It is my experience that the scale of the problem, and the different needs ofIndigenous children with Conductive Hearing Loss, means that programs based on a SpecialEducation model of service delivery have often had limited success.The manner in which educational special needs areidentified also serves to disadvantage children withlearning and behavioural issues that are related toConductive Hearing Loss. Children with schoollearning or behavioural difficulties are usuallyreferred for psycho‐educational assessment, which iscarried out one‐to‐one in quiet surroundings. Theresults of this testing determines the ability of thechild to access resources. Given the important rolethat background noise plays for children with theseThe manner in which educationalspecial needs are identified alsoserves to disadvantage childrenwith learning and behaviouralissues that are related toConductive Hearing Loss.types of listening difficulties and the prevalence of background noise in the classroomcontext, the results of tests that were conducted in a quiet environment, may often havepoor ecological validity ‐ they do not fully reflect the difficulties experienced by children inthe classroom.The learning and social capacity of a child with listening difficulties, as evidenced duringone‐on‐one testing in a quiet environment, are likely to be significantly different to thatdemonstrated by the same child when in a noisy, crowded classroom. The result of thefocus on out‐of‐class assessment to determine ‘educational need’, is that children withlistening problems will have their needs consistently underestimated. Consequently, theyare also disadvantaged when special educational resources are allocated. This creates asituation where special education resource allocation unintentionally discriminates againstchildren with listening problems. The children who are the victims of this ‘discrimination’are usually from disadvantaged and Indigenous backgrounds.… educational discrimination experienced by Indigenous students with ConductiveHearing Loss are multi-staged … a chain of neglect …The origins of educational discrimination experienced by Indigenous students withConductive Hearing Loss are multi‐staged. The end point of Indigenous children withConductive Hearing Loss being poorly supported is derived from a chain of neglect thatincludes: Classroom teachers having almost no training in the educational issues aroundIndigenous Conductive Hearing Loss; There being few Indigenous educators or tutors available to support Indigenouschildren with Conductive Hearing Loss;_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________42 Phoenix Consulting
Senate Inquiry March 2010_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Conductive Hearing Loss not being considered in school resource allocation;The classroom needs of children with Conductive Hearing Loss being underestimatedby the out‐of‐class special needs assessments;Poor, and in some areas deteriorating, Conductive Hearing Loss identificationprocesses;Limited availability of Conductive Hearing Loss advisory support;Limited training of advisory teachers in the educational issues around ConductiveHearing Loss;Educational policy being based on research that has limited relevance to thispopulation group;An absence of research into policy and practisein the area of Indigenous Conductive HearingLoss.Hearing loss and the dynamics ofcross-cultural communication areoften invisible factors that areinteracting with other more visibleaspects of Indigenous disadvantage.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, I would like to emphasise that Indigenousover representation in, and disadvantage with, the criminal justice system is complex andmultifaceted. Many of the submissions I have seen highlight the various factors involved inthat over representation and disadvantage.This submission seeks to highlight factors that I have observed to be missing, or not fullyoutlined, in other submissions. It is very important that we get schooling right, and that we‘take note of’ and address hearing loss as an important issue when considering the dynamicsof cross‐cultural communication. Hearing loss and the dynamics of cross‐culturalcommunication are often invisible factors that are interacting with other more visibleaspects of Indigenous disadvantage. Substantive solutions to Indigenous disadvantage andthe over representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system must addressthe impacts of hearing loss and include ways of increasing understanding about thedynamics of cross‐cultural communication.I would also like to comment on the ways that different commonwealth programs often dobusiness around Indigenous issues. This relates to the following terms of reference.• The extent to which current preventative programs across government jurisdictionsare aligned against common goals to improve the health and emotional well‐being ofIndigenous adolescents, any gaps or duplication in effort, and recommendations fortheir modification or enhancement.In this document I have outlined the neglect of some key issues. However, even in thoseareas that the Commonwealth does prioritise, the picture from the service delivery levellooks like this: Commonwealth funded programs increasingly involve cumbersome applicationprocesses where concerns over probity in some sectors have led to applicationdocuments that are incomprehensible, so that those who can access insiderknowledge, in relation to priorities and expected information, are unduly favoured._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________43 Phoenix Consulting
Page 6 and 7: Senate Inquiry March 2010__________
Page 52 and 53: Harrison, B. T., Partington, G., Go
Page 54 and 55: Miller, P. M., & Ingham, J. G. (197
Page 56 and 57: North Australian Aboriginal Justice
Page 58 and 59: elationships with teachers 6 . A 20
Page 60 and 61: 2. Prejudices within the Justice Sy
Page 62 and 63: And finally, the location and circu
Page 64 and 65: interpreter was driving N home, wit

hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?