Return to Agenda

ITEM EX15

EXECUTIVE – 27 MAY 2003

USE OF THE STANDARD MANUAL ALPHABET & BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE IN SCHOOLS

Report by the Director for Learning & Culture

Introduction

  1. The Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee on 10 December 2002 adopted the following motion by Councillor Brian Hodgson which had been referred to it by the Council:

    2. "This Council welcomes the fact that all our local schools are involved in the active development of an up-to-date and effective curriculum in the field of disability awareness and practice. The Council therefore invites the Executive:

    1. to plan to ensure that all pupils are taught the Standard Manual Alphabet, as a basic signing medium for communicating with deaf people; and

    2. to urge the government to provide funding:

      1. for an Oxfordshire pilot project for the teaching in school of the basics of British Sign Language (BSL); and

      2. to help the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID) in its efforts to train more BSL interpreters nation-wide."

  2. The Executive received an initial report on the matter at the meeting on 4 March 2003, but deferred consideration ’to enable officers to prepare a more detailed report (to be submitted to the Executive within 2 months) on the implications of introducing courses in schools on deaf awareness, British Sign Language and the Standard Manual Alphabet; the relationship with other areas of disability; and the present and planned activities of schools in these fields’.

    3. The Implications of Introducing Courses in Schools on BSL and the Standard Manual Alphabet

  3. As detailed in the March 2003 report to the Executive there are approximately 70,000 BSL [deaf] users in the U.K.. The only accredited BSL courses available to children/adults are organised by the ‘Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People’ (CACDP). No other locally or nationally approved courses exist or are accredited for the teaching of BSL.

  4. The costs of attending a CACDP Stage 1 [introductory level] courses is based on the following:

    1. Each course member undertakes a minimum of 60 hours teaching/theory, usually consisting of x2 hr lessons per week for 1 year.

    2. Course fees are based on 12 students per class at approx. £120 per student.

    3. Each student then pays an additional cost of approximately £90 at the end of the Stage 1 course to pass /to be accredited with a CACDP level 1 qualification.

  5. There are higher BSL levels, Stages 2 – 5, beyond which are accredited interpreter level qualifications. It costs in access of £1,500 to qualify as a Level 1 Interpreter.

  6. The level of time allocation required to deliver an introductory CACDP BSL Stage 1 Courses i.e. x2 hrs week, is so high that it makes it unfeasible to incorporate BSL courses within the statutory requirements placed on schools to delivery the National Curriculum (which requires 23 hrs. 20 min. per week).

  7. BSL Stage 1 classes could not be taught on a whole class basis in Oxfordshire Schools unless the class consisted of approximately 12 – 13 pupils. Anything larger would NOT be permitted by CACDP.

  8. The delivery of a CACDP BSL Stage 1 course would represent a loss of approximately 12% of any School’s curriculum delivery time. Such a requirement would significantly impact on the school’s/ individual pupil’s attainment and progress within the curriculum.

  9. Logistically, a separate room would be required to teach each BSL class as well as a qualified Deaf CACDP approved tutor. The LEA does not currently employ an accredited Deaf CACDP tutor. The number of Deaf tutors required to delivery CACDP BSL Stage 1 course to all children attending Oxfordshire Schools would be so great as to be prohibitive.

  10. Any other hybrid BSL courses would have to be devised and approved by CACDP. In order to devise/provide an alternative BSL course existing specialist support to deaf children/schools would have to be reduced thus affecting the progress and attainment of deaf children currently supported.

  11. The teaching of the standard manual alphabet [finger spelling] requires no formal training or approval by an accredited body. It involves pupils/students learning the 26 letters of the English alphabet using the standard 26 finger spelling letter shapes.

  12. The acquisition of finger spelling as an individual skill would NOT enable the user to communicate effectively with a deaf child/adult. It would correspond to asking a normally hearing person to communicate with another hearing person by writing down, in full grammatical English, their conversation. For someone who does not sign most of the time it would be more effective to communicate in writing with a deaf person than to use finger spelling.

  13. The only alternative opportunity to learn the standard manual alphabet is to attend formal CACDP BSL Stage 1 class. The standard manual alphabet is taught as an integral skill within these classes. However, the standard manual alphabet is often simply taught to children who attend Beavers/Cubs/Scouts/Brownies/Guides.

  14. The organisation and delivery of simple short courses to children and schools in Oxfordshire would present certain intrinsic difficulties. The use of the standard manual alphabet requires quite high order literacy skills i.e. competent and transferable knowledge of spelling strategies and spelling skills. This requirement would exclude the majority of children in Key Stage 1, all children with literacy difficulties/SEN across all educational phases and many children in special schools/units.

    15. The Present and Planned Activities of Schools in these Fields: a Local & National Perspective on the use of BSL

  15. Analysis of communication approaches and methodologies used in the education of deaf children across the U.K. evidences a highly emotive and controversial area with polarised views on philosophy and practice in relation to the communication systems used with deaf children.

  16. Nationally reported data indicate that the majority of LEAs in the U.K. provide a ‘comprehensive’ range of services/provision vis-à-vis communication methodologies for deaf children. They support individual families’ preferences for either an auditory-oral approach [spoken] or a signed [manual] approach to the development of communications skills.

  17. Despite extensive research into the merits of the different communication methods NO empirical data exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of one communication approach over another, thus the debate persists.

  18. The result is that the majority of LEAs endeavour to provide a range of communication approaches for children, their families and schools based on individual pupil need.

  19. Research for this paper strongly indicates that no LEA has ever embarked on the systematic delivery of BSL courses to schools within an authority as a strategy to promote the awareness of BSL/Standard Manual Alphabet and thus improve the communication skills between normally hearing and deaf children.

    20. BSL in Relation to Other Areas of Disability

  20. The use of BSL by children [and adults] is relatively low in occurrence in relation to many other areas of disability. Some disabilities have a much high frequency of incidence and thus attract higher levels of interest, support and in some cases funding.

  21. Conversely, other areas, such as blindness, are significantly lower in incidence than deafness but attract much higher levels of interest and financial support e.g. the level of public contributions to Guide Dogs for the Blind places this charitable trust at the top of the league for financial assets.

  22. It is not feasible to draw any direct comparisons between individual disability groups, their status and recognition in relation to educational and societal provisions.

    23. Conclusions

  23. The cost of delivering accredited CACDP Stage 1 BSL courses [which include the teaching of the standard manual alphabet] to children in Oxfordshire Schools is so high and would impact so significantly on a school’s ability to deliver the National Curriculum as to be unfeasible and unrealistic.

  24. With a school age population of approximately 80,000 in Oxfordshire the provision of formal CACDP BSL Stage 1 classes would equate to costs in excess of £900,000.

  25. No equivalent in-county ‘off the shelf’ sign language or standard manual alphabet courses exist which compare to the content and quality of CACDP’s BSL Stage 1 course.

  26. In addition, with no current qualified staff available, it becomes impractical to consider offering any viable alternative to a CACDP BSL courses. Indeed, at present there is no manifest evidence that a demand exists for the introduction of courses on the teaching of BSL/Standard Manual Alphabet to schools in Oxfordshire.

  27. It could be perceived that teaching the standard manual alphabet to children in Oxfordshire Schools might be an appropriate vehicle for raising awareness on the communication needs of Deaf children. However the pre-requisite skills and level of reinforcement/ repetition required to facilitate even a rudimentary competency in manual communication would not reflect an effective or value for money approach to this strategy.

  28. Feedback from Schools, LEA OfSTED Inspection and consultation with head teacher groups indicates that at present, Oxfordshire County Council provides via its SEN Support Service, a satisfactory range of training and in-service to schools/staff on deafness and its implications for teaching and learning.

  29. In addition, a second tier of deaf awareness training is available from both the Access Officers and/or the Social & Health Care Sensory Impairment Team. Indeed, the latter jointly provides, in conjunction with Learning & Culture Directorate, funding and support to schools where there is an issue of access to the provision of BSL interpreters.

  30. Notwithstanding this, and especially given recent changes in legislation, the proposal for a short term project to offer deaf awareness/BSL training involving a small number of schools [primary & secondary] subject to the availability of funding, could be considered as one way of exploring how best to promote the needs of deaf children in Oxfordshire schools.

  31. The original motion also requested Oxfordshire County Council to ask the government to support RNID in its efforts to obtain additional funding to train more BSL interpreters. Following the recent announcement by government that BSL is now recognised as a language in its own right; Andrew Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and MP for Oxford East, announced that ‘this will mean increased educational opportunities for deaf children to learn BSL, and an additional £1 million is being provided by the government to train teachers and interpreters in BSL’.

    32. RECOMMENDATION

  32. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to consider in the light of the report what response to make to the issues raised in the motion referred by the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee relating to:

          1. planning for the teaching of the Standard Manual Alphabet;

          2. government funding for an Oxfordshire pilot project for teaching BSL;

          3. government funding to help RNID training of BSL.

KEITH BARTLEY
Director for Learning & Culture

Background Papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Mark Geraghty, Head of Service, Sensory & Language Support Services (01865 875165)

May 2003

Return to TOP