Statement by Elmfield School for Deaf Children following Bristol s response to the HI review undertaken in 2010

Transcription

1 Statement by Elmfield School for Deaf Children following Bristol s response to the HI review undertaken in : The Elmfield School community has been deeply disappointed by recommendations relating to the school contained within the published response from Bristol following the review of HI provision which Elmfield Governors and the previous Head Teacher had been requesting for some time and which finally took place in early : It is also very disappointing that the LA is making recommendations for Deaf and Hearing Impaired provision, including the possible closure of Elmfield, before reviewing and revising its own current policies relating to Deaf and Hearing Impaired children. The Specialist Provision Strategy document (CYPS website: contains recommendations for Hearing Impaired/Deaf provision which, because they have never been implemented, have had a considerable impact on the number of children attending Elmfield and the vision for Deaf and Hearing provision in Bristol. If there is to be a significant strategy change then this needs to be reviewed and agreed with stakeholders before changes to provision are imposed. 1.3: The recommendations contained within the LA response document mean significant changes need to be made to the Specialist Provision Strategy and it is critical, if the needs of all Deaf and Hearing Impaired young people are to be met appropriately, that there should be a clear strategy in place, clearly identifying the educational rationale behind recommendations which significantly change provision and choice for parents and children. 1.4: Elmfield school leaders, with specialist expertise in the field of Deaf education, would expect to be involved in reviewing and revising the strategy and working with the authority in shaping the future. We are concerned that our input has not been sought and that recommendations are being made without our input. 2: Quality of Elmfield Provision, student achievement and its capacity for improvement: 2.1: We are pleased that there is acknowledgement of the hard work of the school team in improving relations with Fairfield School but do not 1

2 consider that the full impact of this and the effect it has had upon provision has been considered. Similarly the very successful OFSTED report which the school was given in May 2010 does not appear to have been factored into recommendations along with successful regaining of Investors in People, positive reports from our School Improvement Partner, significant development in increasingly effective inclusion and the increasingly positive profile the school has within the Deaf community locally, Nationally and Internationally. 2.2: The school has been independently judged (and this has been consolidated by the LA appointed School Improvement Partner) as being a Good school. It is also a school judged to be improving and a school where children make Good and sometimes Outstanding progress. Leadership of the school by staff and governors has been judged as Good with roles carried out with energy, enthusiasm and skill. The school considers (and are confident that further inspection would confirm this) that the school has already secured improvements since these judgements were made, less than a year ago and is continuing to improve despite the impact of the stance that Bristol has chosen to take following the HI review. 2.3: The school continues to offer access to the full curriculum across five phases of education. This includes sustaining and developing the quality of partnership arrangements with other schools rather than being dependant on them as John Ward and Nick Batchelor have both suggested. Children are able to access the full National Curriculum in each phase and additionally, at KS4, access the full range of GCSE and equivalent options. This is ensured through partnership work with Fairfield High School and wider partnership arrangements, including placements at City of Bristol College and was set up at the start of the co-location. It is significant that although the amount of time that Elmfield children work alongside mainstream children has not changed since the co-location was first established, student and parent perceptions of this have improved considerably. A recent review of inclusion, undertaken by the school, shows that all stakeholders (students, parents and staff) now hold dramatically improved views about being co-located. In some cases the confidence ratings have improved by over 70% and we are very concerned that, changing the provision in the way that Bristol recommends, will mean that these improvements will not be sustained or improved upon further. 2

3 2.4: Teaching and Learning has been judged, as part of the school s own monitoring, as being consistently good or better and OFSTED has confirmed the accuracy of these judgements. Excellent progress is being made towards achieving both School Improvement and OFSTED targets. 2.5: It is therefore surprising to us, as well as to a great many others, that Bristol recommends that this successful and high achieving school should be considered for closure. 3: Pupil Numbers and Financial Management now and in the future: 3.1: The school is very aware that the number of students attending the school is currently low and knows that this has to be closely scrutinised and addressed in terms of budget allocation to the school. However the school considers it is able to bring costs down whilst maintaining high quality provision. Additionally we consider that successful marketing, supported by the LA will increase numbers in the future particularly when a successful co-location is found. This will also result in a reduction of infra structure costs when building and caretaker costs, for example can be appropriately shared. Bristol will also benefit from the revenue income generated by the sale or alternative use of the Primary site, playing field and buildings. It should also be acknowledged that there can be considerable fluctuation of numbers due to Deaf and Hearing Impaired children moving between settings and that with improved working partnership arrangements between all the settings in Bristol, this is also likely to have an impact on future numbers. 3.2: It has been useful to discuss this with LA officers and the school is confident that through a stringent managing change process savings can be made which more accurately reflect the number of children currently on role as well as building in the capacity for future growth. The school is confident that, if the number of places is cut as the draft proposals suggest, there will be no reduction in the breadth and range of curriculum opportunities, access and accreditation. 3.3: We would ask, however, that we are sympathetically supported through this process by the LA to minimise the impact on individual staff and to ensure that valuable expertise and experience is not lost to Deaf young people. The school is confident that, following this process, continued high quality provision will be maintained and sustained across all five phases. 3

4 3.3: However, there also needs to be an acknowledgement that because Elmfield children are being successfully included within mainstream lessons for a percentage of time, that interpretation costs will not necessarily be covered by the current banding system. The level of inclusion at Secondary has remained consistent at approximately 30% since the move to the shared Fairfield site and we are now also developing opportunities for appropriate inclusion for our Primary pupils. For Deaf children, inclusion may be a more expensive option than being taught in a special discrete class. It is also likely to be more expensive than special provision for students who have other types of need but do not additionally require interpretation support. A Deaf child in a mainstream class requires the language interpretation provided by a Communication Support Worker or BSL interpreter plus, for many children, a dedicated Learning Support Assistant. 3.4: The school would also like to address the issues of future numbers with support from the LA and with the shared aim of increasing the number of children attending the school as opposed to taking up places at other often expensive or out of county provision. The impact of the school website, launched in July 2010, has already been considerable (Over 70 hits a day since the site was launched in August 2010). We consider that with further pro-active marketing and support from the LA in recognising the success and value of the school as a regional resource that numbers are likely to rise in the future. Since September 2010 three new children have been admitted to the Early Years department and, as the school continues to improve in terms of public awareness and perception, this is a trend we hope to sustain. 3.5: There is a concern that signposting to Elmfield as a possible provision for Deaf children is not actually taking place, or is not taking place as well as it could. It is significant that the Sensory Support team website contains no link to Elmfield School site despite this being the regional school for Deaf children. 3.6: Furthermore, it is important to remember that when current figures are presented showing the budget for Elmfield school that this figure also includes the funding allocation for the existing Secondary inclusion class or HIRB. There are currently four staff employed in the Secondary inclusion class at Fairfield and the funding also pays for the shared site costs that the inclusion class uses as well as Elmfield children. This means 4

5 that this is actually a funding allocation for two distinct provisions and not just funding for the twenty nine children who currently attend Elmfield School. 4: Language choices: acquisition and fluency: 4.1: As professionals in the field of Deaf education we are very aware of the advances in medical technology and the impact that these can have on stimulating hearing for some children. We also fully recognise and understand that some parents want this for their children. However, the medical model is not the only model for Deaf children and for some children it is also not a model that can ever give access to hearing and thereby communication. For these children the socio/linguistic model (as identified within the OFSTED report) is the more appropriate model for education. What is important to consider is the dominant model that children are able to access fluently whilst they are also supported, by specialists, in developing either BSL or Speech as appropriate. It is very important that there is an understanding of these differences, as the education of Deaf children is a complex field and many people, who are not experts, may believe that because there are deaf children who can learn to communicate aurally and orally that this is the case for ALL Deaf children. This is simply not the case. 4.2: Access to the hearing world for many Deaf people now and in the future will only be through interpretation and not through speaking and listening; for many this will be a necessity because of the nature of their deafness. It must also be acknowledged that for some children, the medical model, despite giving some access to hearing, has not meant that children become fluent and articulate communicators in English. Evidence from the Inclusion class at the Secondary site suggests that there are significant gaps in vocabulary and conceptual understanding for some Hearing Impaired children and that these children, where BSL interpretation is already in place for Elmfield children, are choosing to access their learning through BSL rather than through the use of technology because it does not provide them with enough access to hearing. 4.3: We know there are parents who have asked for shared placements for their children (we have a letter from a parent which states this explicitly) but have been advised by the Sensory Support Team, that this is not possible. Shared placements already operate very well for some 5

6 children with other learning differences or disabilities within the city. Elmfield has already initiated opportunities for primary aged children from other settings to learn and practice BSL within a signing peer group as well as providing these children with access to professional Deaf role models. This happens already for Secondary children because the Inclusion Class, Elmfield Secondary Department and Fairfield High School, are all on the same site and are able to work effectively in partnership. As the recommendations for establishing the same model at a Primary site have unfortunately not been carried through, Elmfield school staff have taken the lead role in instigating these opportunities and enabling partnerships between settings to take place. This work is highly valued by parents and should form part of the future strategy for Deaf and Hearing Impaired children in the city. 4.4: We also know there are children in HIRBs who have moved or need to move into Elmfield provision because they do not have sufficient hearing to access learning and thereby make progress and, in some cases, communicate at all. Thirty one children have moved into Elmfield from either Resource Base or Mainstream provision in the last ten years, Many of these children have experienced difficulties with learning or behaviour before being placed at Elmfield where their language and communication skills are developed and they are then able to make progress. 4.5: There are also children whose priority need is not Deafness, for these children different specialist provision is needed to ensure needs are fully and appropriately met. At Elmfield our foremost concern is that children get the best possible education that is right for them, rather than taking a polarised stance on models of Deafness in education. 5: Equality of informed choice for parents: 5.1: We propose, as part of the follow up to the HI review, that instead of closing the school, the expertise of Elmfield staff is explicitly valued and utilised by the Sensory Support Team from the very earliest days to help parents in making decisions about education for their children and that visits to all possible local provision are made as a matter of course. 5.2: We also consider that parents who would prefer a shared placement should be supported in this choice and are confident that, with improved partnership working as described in the LA recommendations, this could easily be achieved. 6

7 5.3: We would also ask that the Sensory Support Team gives equal status to the socio/linguistic model of Deafness as it currently does to the medical model. Parents need the full range of information by which they can make informed choices for their Deaf children. 6: Ensuring and developing appropriate provision: 6.1: There are two other major factors impacting upon numbers at Elmfield and these are both related to the provision at Secondary. These are firstly, appropriateness of provision for all children and secondly, securing a viable sustainable peer group. 6.2: When the Secondary department moved to the shared Fairfield site there was considerable speculation and uncertainty. The impact of this was greatest during the period of indecision prior to the identification of Fairfield as the Secondary co-location and resulted in numbers of parents moving their children out of Elmfield School. These children all moved to Schools for the Deaf in other authorities. 6.3: It is also the case that, despite the best efforts of the school leadership at the time of the secondary school set up and design, the physical environment of the secondary site has been considered, at annual review meetings, by SEN case officers and Educational Psychologists from Bristol and other authorities, as being unsuitable for some Elmfield existing pupils who have additional needs. As a result, since 2006, five children from the Primary department did not transfer to Secondary and are now educated in expensive, out of county, provisions. This was a concern which we hoped would be addressed as part of the HI review in order to ensure that the Secondary department could actually admit the pupils it was purpose built to cater for. 6.4: It has also been the case in recent years, as was identified in the independent HI review, that a few Elmfield parents did not want their children to attend a school co-located with Fairfield High School and that these parents, even when there was clear evidence at annual review meetings showing the outstanding progress their children were making, continued to ask for their children to be placed in an out of county, independent grammar school for Deaf children. As Elmfield was fully able to meet the needs of these children we were surprised that case officers, instead of working with the school to reassure parents by highlighting the strength and quality of Elmfield provision, agreed these 7

8 expensive, residential placements. Although one case (from a South Gloucestershire parent) was only agreed following a tribunal, it is the case that for two Bristol children the decision to change the placement was simply agreed and funded without a tribunal even taking place. This has clearly had an impact on the number of children in the Secondary phase as well as creating a misconception for other parents about the quality of provision available at Elmfield. 6.5: As school leaders we expect the LA to be supporting placements at our school, particularly when the appropriateness of those placements is firmly backed by both assessment evidence and the judgements of professionals contributing to the annual review process. 6.6: Elmfield believes that the negative perceptions of parents, noted by the independent review of education for D/deaf children in Bristol, that Fairfield is a weak school, is being overcome. Relationships between Elmfield and Fairfield have improved considerably since the co-location began and there is considerable goodwill on the part of both schools that is making the co-location succeed for both deaf and hearing children. Children at Fairfield have learned BSL and children have therefore been able to socialise as well as learn together. A number of Fairfield parents chose the school for their hearing children because Elmfield was colocated on the same site. We believe that the properly planned and resourced co-location of the Early Years and Primary departments of Elmfield within a good school which naturally feeds into Fairfield will be an attractive proposition for parents of Deaf children. 6.7: We achieve no purpose in apportioning blame for past mistakes, but the establishment of the Secondary department of a school for the Deaf on a site which is unsuitable for significant numbers of children surely must be considered to have been, at the very least, an economic error judging by the high costs that alternate placement has incurred. 7: Meeting the needs of all Deaf children and improving future provision: 7.1: Elmfield School very much wants to provide continuity of provision (and therefore a sustainable, signing peer group) across all phases and has the expertise in place to do this were this to be in a suitable environment. 8

9 The good relations between Elmfield and Fairfield, alongside the mutually successful resolution of a longstanding budget dispute, mean that both schools are well placed and willing, with LA support, to address this long standing issue. 7.2: It should be that one of our shared aims is to ensure that Bristol provision CAN meet the needs of all Deaf young people so the establishment of appropriate Secondary provision within a suitable environment which secures a viable peer group is a necessity and one which we consider Elmfield has the most appropriate specialist expertise to establish, lead and manage. 7.3: The recommendation for the establishment of a suitably well chosen Primary co-location with hearing children learning BSL alongside Deaf children is something the school embraces wholeheartedly (with the proviso that it should be a genuine co-location and not a specialist base) and is what we have consistently been asking for. This would also mean a reduction in costs to the authority as a shared, co-located site would result in similar shared costs to those on the Secondary site which represents a considerable saving when compared to the costs of the Primary and Early Years site. 7.4: It will be important that the issues which arose at the time of the Secondary co-location are resolved so that the partner school is high achieving, appealing to parents, accessible to all pupil groups, and, importantly, provides the opportunity for learning and social interactions between Deaf and hearing young people which can be sustained from KS2 to KS3 thus addressing the issue of a viable peer group. 8: Early Years and co-location: 8.1: It is also important to remember that Elmfield school has a thriving Early Years department and that a successful co-location would need to also be a suitable and safe environment for Nursery aged children with a variety of needs as well as providing inclusive opportunities with children of the same age. 9

10 9: The impact of Specialist Leadership and Management to drive and sustain school improvement for low incidence needs: 9.1: Contained within the LA response and referred to in many of the responses made to the many concerns raised by Elmfield stakeholders is the description of the Resource Bases as being Specialist resource bases. Although the full details of the nature of this proposed provision have not been made clear, one of the key points has been identified as being that the overall leadership and management of the specialist bases will be by the mainstream school on which the base is sited. The school community is concerned that this will not, therefore, result in Specialist provision for students as the leadership and management team will be mainstream specialists, with a mainstream school to lead and manage, as opposed to being specialists focussing on the needs of Deaf young people. 9:2: There is considerable evidence that school leadership has significant impact on pupil outcomes. ( The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes Research report: DCSF-RR ). Achievement at Elmfield has been consistently described as good, OFSTED reports from 2001 and 2006 as well as the most recent 2010 inspection show that children at the school have consistently achieved well and quality of school leadership has been a significant factor in this success. 9.3: The current Elmfield leadership team, although an acting team, comprises senior leaders with considerable experience and expertise in both teaching and leadership within mainstream schools, special schools and resource bases. As a result, the team is very aware of the demands and priorities of mainstream school leadership teams and the difficulties that addressing a specific set of very different minority needs and provision poses in terms of organisation, budget, professional development, curriculum design, pedagogy and above all school improvement and focus. This is equally true of the Elmfield Governing body which again, contains a wealth of experience and expertise specifically in the field of Deafness and Deaf education. 10: School leadership, pedagogy and decision making: 10.1: Deaf children do not learn in the same way as hearing children, and this learning difference is more than just a difference in the language medium of learning. There is a vast amount of research material which 10

11 explains this and is one of the reasons why there is a mandatory qualification for teaching Deaf children. (Marshank and Hauser Deaf Cognition 2008) Therefore, although Elmfield School, like all others, has high achievement for young people as its priority target, the way this is achieved will be significantly different from that of a mainstream school. 10.2: Elmfield school leaders have the experience and expertise, as do other leaders in schools for Deaf children, nationally to make informed decisions and choices about appropriate courses, accreditation, curriculum content, structure and pace, specialist and adapted resources and materials, which may not necessarily be the same decisions as those for other children in mainstream classes. Specialist leadership can focus professional development towards the specific needs of Deaf young people and can deploy staff specifically to meet those needs. 10.3: It is critical that Deaf children have access to the right provision during their school years so that they are able to learn, progress and develop positive self- esteem in readiness for the future. Successful provision for this particular group of children is expensive but longer term costs also need to be factored, particularly with reference to mental health needs in the future. Research (Hindley, Hill, McGuigan Psychiatric Disorder in Deaf and Hearing Impaired Young People 1994) shows that the incidence of Mental Health issues for Deaf and Hearing Impaired people is significantly higher than that of the general population.(33-42% compared with 25-30%). Additionally, the research, shows that Deaf and Hearing Impaired children who were educated in mainstream schools have an even higher incidence of mental health issues in later life. (57-61% compared with %). This means that statistically Deaf and Hearing Impaired children educated in mainstream schools are almost twice as likely to experience mental health problems as the hearing population. 11: Deaf and Hearing equality and the importance of this for the aspirations of Deaf young people: 11.1: At Elmfield, as in all schools, the culture and climate of the school is critical to the success of the students. Successful communication is a key factor in ensuring that the school climate and culture are positive. Deaf young people need access to positive Deaf adult role models and at Elmfield this is exactly what they have. Communication between staff and governors at Elmfield is bi-lingual so that every member of staff, Deaf or 11

12 hearing, has equal access to communication. Specialist school leadership both enables this and models bi-lingual communication in a way that would be extremely difficult to recreate in a school led and managed by mainstream staff and governors. This is very important for the aspirations of Deaf young people who have a right to see Deaf and hearing adults treated equally with languages given equal status. 11.2: At Elmfield the leadership team is continually striving to improve learning and opportunities for Elmfield students. As well as strategic school leadership focussing on school improvement there is the continual assessment of whether situations or opportunities are appropriate or not for our students. The team constantly assesses the auditory content of learning experiences and identifies whether and how auditory input can be adapted or made accessible for Deaf children. A simple assembly, for example, where a piece of music sets the tone or communicates a message, will not do so for children who cannot access hearing; safety systems reliant on sound do not work for Deaf children; course content where colloquialisms or metaphors are part of the programme of study are not accessible to Deaf young people. Yet hearing children should not be denied access to the auditory world because they share a site with Deaf children and it is the awareness and expertise of specialist school leaders that is essential to address these issues as part of the broader picture of leading and managing the whole school. 11.3: Elmfield staff and Governors are very proud of leading an improving school. The specialist expertise and experience that current and future school leaders have means that monitoring systems are extremely accurate and well matched to the actual needs of Deaf children. At Elmfield the SLT and Governing body are well qualified to judge the quality of teaching and learning in every phase of the school and to take appropriate action as a result. A non-specialist team would be unlikely to have a similar understanding of either the pedagogy or the language of lessons for Deaf children, risking inaccurate judgements and subsequent actions which may not be appropriate and would therefore be detrimental to the students. 12: Forthcoming National guidance and legislation on Special Schools and inclusion: 12.1 Staff and governors at the school are additionally concerned that the Bristol response and recommendations have been made in advance of 12

13 the publication of the Government Green Paper on Special Educational Needs which is looking at a range of options including: Giving parents a choice of schools for children with SEN and disabilities, Transforming the funding mechanisms in the system Preventing the unnecessary closure of special schools Supporting young people aged over 16 with disabilities Improving diagnosis and assessment. ( snsp pdf) 12.2: Staff and governors at Elmfield school are very concerned that the recommendations relating to Elmfield contained within the LA response will not give parents a choice of schools and will result in the unnecessary closure of special schools. 13: Specific response to each LA recommendation as contained within the LA response document. We therefore make the following statements in respect of each of the recommendations contained within the LA response and very much hope that in the light of our statement and specific responses the LA rejects the current suggestion of closing Elmfield and looks instead to working with the school to create a viable and sustainable school which continues to provide the high quality of learning that our Deaf young people are entitled to. (Recommendations (From the LA response)we have numbered each recommendation for ease of reference.) Elmfield responses made in bold. 1: Introduction 1i: The Report commissioned by Bristol Local Authority has been valuable in giving priority to this area of education and in the development of the Local Authority s approach to its provision and practice over the next few years. 1ii: The review of deaf and hearing impaired provision gives the City a good opportunity of ensuring that we retain the expertise we have developed over years in deaf education and British Sign language but within organisational structures which reflect, more accurately, actual need. Our vision for deaf and hearing impaired children and young people must be to ensure that there is high quality support in place with provision which spans pre-school as well as post 16 provision in schools and the Bristol of City College. 13

14 13.1: We agree that there needs to be a strategy in place which meets the needs of all Deaf young people and that it is crucial that teaching and learning bi-lingually, in English and in BSL is an important part of the full range of provision for Deaf young people. We consider that, as specialists in the field of Deaf education, that we should be involved in developing this strategy. 1iii: In order to achieve these outcomes the following proposals are outlined and will be subject to consultation and approval. 1.2: Elmfield School s provision will be safeguarded and developed further by developing, in its place, primary and secondary deaf and hearing impaired resource bases on the site of mainstream schools. This will require the school to close and be redesignated as primary and secondary resource bases at a time when a mainstream primary school has been identified for its primary department, For secondary pupils the resource base will be part of Fairfield school. The resource bases would be managed by specialists in deaf education although part of the organisation of the mainstream schools. 13.2i: Staff and governors at the school do not consider that the recommendations related to Elmfield School are in the best interests of children currently attending Elmfield School or for those children with similar needs who would attend Elmfield School in the future. We do not consider that equal or better provision for Elmfield students will be created by re-designating the school in this way. There is a high risk of specialist staff leaving as many staff have experience of working in resource bases and will not wish to be part of such a proposal knowing that this will be detrimental to the needs and learning outcomes of Deaf young people. We are particularly concerned that decision making, which is critical to the needs of a vulnerable group of young people, will ultimately cease to be the responsibility of those with the appropriate expertise. 13.2ii: We also consider that parents will be unhappy with the redesignation from a school with its own independence and focus to a specialist base so the number of children attending this provision will again fall. Where these children are also Bristol children, there will be a cost implication for providing places at out-of-authority schools for Deaf children which are also likely to be residential thereby impacting negatively on family relationships and circumstances. 1.3: These changes will require a statutory school organisation process to be undertaken: 1.3i: Closure of Elmfield School 1.3ii: Establishment of specialist deaf / HI resource bases as part of Fairfield School and a primary school to be agreed. 14

15 1.3iii: This will involve a full consultation process with schools, staff, parents, pupils, trade unions and the deaf and hearing impaired communities, followed by the publication of statutory notices, before a final decision can be taken by the Local Authority. 13.3: The response to the recommendations by all the groups referred to here is already very clear. Over 4,000 people have already signed the petition to keep the school open. The petition contains responses from Doctors, Mental Health professionals, Educational Professionals, MPs as well as significant numbers of responses from parents, students, staff and members of the Deaf community and their families locally, nationally and internationally. These responses have been sent separately as part of the feedback process. Additionally the BDA (British Deaf Association), RNID (Royal National Institute for the Deaf), NDCS (National Deaf Children s Society) and WFD (World Federation of the Deaf) oppose this recommendation. 1.4: The Resource bases would have an agreed service level agreement to include the need to maintain the use of BSL as well as aural /oral approaches as part of its provision. It would be constructed in agreement with the leadership at Elmfield School, Local Authority Officers- including the Sensory Support Service and the mainstream schools. The SLAs of all HIRBs would be monitored on an annual basis by the Sensory Support Service in conjunction with the senior school Improvement officer [SEN]. 13.4i: Elmfield school leadership do not agree that the establishment of specialist resource bases is the appropriate way to proceed to ensure that Deaf young people have high quality appropriate provision, however, should this decision ultimately be carried forward all members of the Elmfield community would work to achieve the best possible provision for our Deaf young people. 13.4ii: The proposal to replace a Bilingual School for the Deaf with Specialist Resource bases significantly changes the specific nature, expertise and specialism of the school. Staff and governors do not consider that the proposals allow a genuinely bilingual and bicultural education for Deaf children. 1.4 : The provision of BSL teaching will remain at both resource bases and these will become our city wide provision for pupils who require BSL in addition to other approaches. 13.5i: BSL is the language OF communication for Elmfield children and all lessons must therefore be delivered or interpreted in BSL so that children can access learning. BSL provision is not about teaching children BSL although this is part of the developmental process in the 15

16 same way as English users are taught to develop and extend their linguistic fluency. We are concerned that there seems to be a lack of understanding of why some Deaf children are BSL users rather than English users and it needs to be made clear that although for some children access to hearing is not an option, other children and their parents actively choose BSL as their first language as it is the language of the Deaf community and a critical part of their Deaf identity. We would also consider that a significant number of Deaf children are considerably more fluent, have a greater vocabulary and greater conceptual understanding in BSL than many hearing impaired children have in English. 13.5ii: Additionally, we are grateful to the LA for funding a BSL teacher for Fairfield children at Fairfield High School, thereby enabling Fairfield and Elmfield children to be able to communicate directly with each other. This has been critical to successful social inclusion and we would hope that funding for the continuation of this provision will form part of future planning for Deaf young people in all phases of their learning. 13.5iii: We must also clarify however, that this funding was for BSL teaching to students in our co-located school and its feeder Primary schools as agreed prior to the move to the shared Fairfield site. 13.5iv: Additionally the LA has, until last year, funded Teacher of the Deaf training for Elmfield teachers. This is a mandatory qualification for teachers working with Deaf young people and is therefore not unique to Elmfield teachers. Due to the national shortage of teachers of the Deaf, there are still six teachers without this qualification at the school and we seek clarity on how funding for this qualification is going to be allocated in future. 1.5: To determine whether deaf pupils with complex and severe needs can be admitted and retained at Elmfield School or if an identified provision for deaf pupils with additional needs can be identified within one of Bristol s SLD/PMLD schools. 13.6i: Elmfield School currently meets the needs of ten pupils with additional complex needs. Staff and governors share the LA concern that provision for Deaf children with additional/complex needs has been difficult to secure on the Secondary site largely due to the physical layout and arrangement of the building. This is a concern that the previous Head teacher has raised on many occasions and it is 16

17 unfortunate that this was not sufficiently considered and addressed before Elmfield Secondary department moved to the Fairfield site in This issue is currently being discussed with the Head Teacher at Fairfield and is part of Elmfield School s ongoing drive for improvement. We would welcome a discussion on how Elmfield could change to meet the needs of more pupils with additional/complex needs, particularly those of secondary age. 13.6ii: The impact of this issue on pupil numbers and viable peer groups is further referenced above. 1.6 : Both resource bases should develop further their oral/aural approaches as part of a more personalised approach which focuses on individual communication needs. 13.7: There is already solely oral/aural provision available within Bristol. Elmfield already meets the individual needs of deaf children and, where appropriate, develops spoken language skills. We are aware that the use of the term sign bilingualism may have led to the erroneous belief that Elmfield does not value the development of English skills. The School is committed to on-going improvement and a review of bilingual policy and practice with the aim of developing access to both English and BSL as separate languages forms part of the current School Improvement Plan. 1.7: The current inclusion class at Fairfield School should be included as part of the deaf and hearing impaired resource based provision and should change its designation to be consistent with other HIRBS. It will remain the City s only secondary HIRB. 1.8: The primary resource bases at New Oak and Henbury Court should remain as part of these schools and under the leadership and management of the Headteachers and governors. 13.8i: Staff and Governors fully believe that because there is a range of children with needs related to their Deafness, there should also be a range of provision to include Primary HIRBs and the Inclusion class at Fairfield. It is, however, the responsibility of the School Improvement Service and OFSTED rather than members of the Elmfield School community to make judgements about the quality of provision, achievement or leadership and management at the two Primary HIRBs. 13.8ii: Elmfield School does, however, manage the support for Fairfield students within the Secondary Inclusion Class and has 17

18 stringent Performance Management procedures in place for Inclusion class staff which give an accurate picture of the high quality of support provided. Annual reviews consistently indicate that parents are very pleased with the support provided by Elmfield even when they are less happy about other aspects of the setting. 13.8iii: Staff and Governors consider that there is no need to change the name of this provision and that the inclusion class should continue to operate as part of Fairfield school but with the support, expertise and day to day leadership continuing from Elmfield. The school would be interested in developing this role with primary HIRB provision in the future. 1.9: There should be discussions with the resource bases and the Elmfield provision, as an outcome of review and as part of a Service Level Agreement, to develop flexible working practices and for staff to additionally support pupils in mainstream provision when numbers are lower than the planned place allocation in the resource bases. 13.9: Staff and Governors at Elmfield are interested in the recommendation that suggests staff from all provision in the city could support Deaf or Hearing impaired children in mainstream schools but feel that arrangements and agreements for this must be fully explored and agreed in consultation with staff and unions to ensure that the specific needs of children at Elmfield are not compromised and that staff specialism and expertise is efficiently and appropriately directed There should be better co-ordination between all providers of deaf and hearing impaired support and provision through a new structure which meets 3 times a year. The main functions of this group will be to discuss referrals and the implications for service providers, identify improvements to practice and consider strategic developments which can support the Local Authority s continuing commitment to this aspect of special education i: Staff and governors at the school agree fully that partnership working between different types of provision for Deaf children should be improved. Elmfield has already initiated opportunities for children from the Primary HIRBs and Pre-School Settings to benefit from partnership work with Elmfield children and staff ii: Staff and governors at the school are concerned that little actual data has been made available by the LA to support the different recommendations made within their response. The school has repeatedly requested data related, in particular, to pupil 18

19 progress which would support the proposal to change significantly the provision offered at Elmfield School. There is concern that citywide tracking and analysis of the achievement and progress of Hearing Impaired and Deaf pupils is not consistent with the tracking, analysis and intervention provided for other pupil groups within the city iii: Elmfield School has done considerable work on target setting, progress and data tracking for different groups of Deaf children and would welcome the opportunity to inform good practice by sharing this work which is already being used by some mainstream school colleagues. 1.11: To review provision for post 16 hearing impaired and deaf students as part of the Local Authority s new commissioning responsibilities i: Elmfield School has very good relationships with Connexions and has ensured for many years that every student leaving school at the end of Y11 has gone on to post 16 education. High levels of support and guidance are given to young people and families as part of this process. Additionally, the school has been successful in ensuring that student aspirations have not been adversely effected because of their Deafness ii: However, we agree that there is a need for post-16 provision itself to be reviewed to ensure that all Deaf children can achieve their potential and secure appropriate qualifications to enter the labour market. Staff and Governors of Elmfield School for Deaf Children February