HC Deb 28 November 1955 vol 546 cc2079-90

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I wish to address to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education some questions concerning the education of the deaf. It is well known how terrible an affliction deafness is, how it may well impose upon the sufferer an inability to use language and a cutting off from human intercourse more terrible perhaps than that imposed by any other disability.

The subject of methods of overcoming this disability has been examined for a considerable time, but it is still in a fairly fluid state. New discoveries are constantly made as to the best methods of teaching those who suffer from this affliction. I shall be hesitant, therefore, in expressing any dogmatic opinion on these matters.

I think it will be generally agreed, however, that there is one essential to the good education of deaf children, and that is that they should be taught in small classes. If that is true of all children, it is far more true of these. The Ministry establishes a standard of ten as the standard size for classes for deaf children, and classes over ten are described in the Ministry's own reports as over-sized. It is somewhat disquieting to observe that of the 481 classes for deaf children referred to in the Ministry's last Annual Report, nearly half—221—are recorded as being oversized, and we ought to notice that even the standard size of ten is larger than would be considered really desirable by many who have studied this problem. However, if we could agree that we should keep all classes down to that standard size to begin with, we should make good progress.

My first question, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary is: what can he tell us of steps being taken to reduce the rather regrettably high proportion of oversized classes for children of the deaf, which we now see to prevail? This matter of size of classes is likely to affect the methods adopted for the teaching of the deaf. As I said, it is unwise to be dogmatic, but this general proposition could be put forward: that where there are classes that are rather too large, it is more difficult to take advantage of new discoveries in methods of teaching the deaf.

I understand there is some conflict of opinion about the various parts which oral methods and manual methods ought to play. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry has any definite view on that matter, and whether it could be maintained that the existence of a number of over-sized classes does result in manual rather than oral methods being used to an extent which would not be approved by the most modern opinion on the subject.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, concerned with the methods of teaching children. The fact that the method of teaching deaf children is a subject in which improvements are constantly being made makes it desirable that the education of very young deaf children should be kept as far as is reasonably possible separate from the education of older deaf children. Let us suppose, for example, that to an existing school for the deaf a nursery department is added, to which children may come at the age of two.

I suggest, and in this I should be supported by at any rate one very eminent authority on the subject, that it is desirable that the nursery department should be as separate as possible from the main school, so that the tiny children who go there can start with, if one may put it that way, a clean slate. and get the full benefit of the newest methods of teaching, because it may happen that young children go to a nursery department like that, are taught by modern methods, and then later on in the life of the school are in contact with children who have been taught by earlier methods, and some of the value of the instruction they are getting is lost. I believe it is the case that there have been instances recently of nursery departments being built without any regard to this principle. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give the Ministry's view on that question.

There is another matter connected with the method to which I should like to refer. I believe it is held in some quarters that a young child of about two or three, by receiving a certain amount of instruction at a speech clinic, and then subsequently being taught by its mother—the mother having advice from the speech Clinic—can in those circumstances make good progress.

Here I believe that there is a nice balance of argument. Some, I think, would take the view that the best progress can always be made with a young deaf child if it goes to a nursery school. In view of the fact that children's schools are necessarily few in number, some children cannot go to them unless they go as boarding pupils, and psychological arguments are advanced against separating children from their parents at an early age. On the other hand, if such a child is not boarding at a nursery school and is being helped by the method of occasional attendances at a clinic, with instruction given by the mother, is that method likely to produce the best results and enable the child to overcome its disability? Is it possible in the present state of knowledge for the Ministry to express a judgment in this matter and say whether it pursues any definite line of policy?

I turn now from the question of methods in the schools to the question of organisation of the deaf as a whole. Reference again to the Annual Report of the Ministry will show that the great majority of children listed there as being either deaf or partially deaf are taught in schools which cater for the needs both of the deaf and the partially deaf. It may be that in such a school the teaching of children with different types of disability is kept separate, but I do not think that I should be far wrong if I said that one of the problems in the teaching of the deaf today, and one of the things to which we ought to give attention, is the fact that not infrequently children of widely different ranges of disability are being taught together, and we cannot get the best results in that manner.

I wonder whether this possible remedy could be considered: if one looked at all the schools in the country which cater for children suffering from this disability in varying degrees, might it be possible to designate them—to say that this school deals solely with the congenital and totally deaf, and that school deals with the partially deaf, and so on? I believe that there are many gradations of this disability, but could it be arranged so far as possible for children to go to the school dealing with the particular degree of type of disability from which they are suffering? I recognise that, as a matter of geography and administration, and the wishes of parents, that could not be provided as a universal remedy, but it might be possible to make some progress in that manner.

The other organisational problem to which I wish to refer is that of the inspectorate for the teaching of the deaf. It was some time ago that an educationist was appointed for the inspection of children suffering from various degrees of disability, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) was not unconnected with that desirable development. But, if I understand it aright, the position now is that there are two of these inspectors and both are concerned not only with schools for the deaf, but with schools for children suffering from various other kinds of disability.

I think it a matter for consideration whether there is not now sufficient work in the inspection of schools for the teaching of the deaf to warrant the whole-time employment of, at any rate, one inspector. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us, for example, how frequently on the average any one school for the teaching of the deaf gets inspected? I think it would be true to say that it is at rather infrequent intervals, and that it is not possible for the teachers, who greatly value the visits of the inspectors, to profit fully from the help which the Ministry can give unless the visits become rather more frequent than they are at present.

Another question about the inspectorate is this: if it is considered desirable that somebody who inspects schools for the teaching of deaf children should also do some other kind of inspecting work, might it not be better for his other work to be concerned with normal children rather than with children suffering from another kind of handicap? Might he not be better able to give constructive advice if he could tell the teachers in schools for the teaching of the deaf how the progress their children were making compared with the progress of normal children? That might surely be much more helpful than any possible comparison one might draw with children suffering from a totally different kind of handicap.

I have put a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I realise that many of them are problems that will be with us for a long time, but I hope that he may be able to say something which will give encouragement to people who suffer from this disability. I mentioned at the outset of what I had to say how terrible the disability could be, and perhaps all the more so because it is not a disability that strikes the imagination of those of us who have the good fortune to enjoy all our faculties in the same way that some other disabilities do. It does not at first glance strike us as so terrible an affliction as blindness, yet in fact it is usually a greater deprivation.

In the English language, the affliction of the blind has been immortalised in the works of one of the greatest wielders of the weapon of English verse. The deaf, because of their dreadful difficulty in acquiring even enough language for utilitarian purposes, have never yet produced a spokesman of that calibre, but I hope that what the Parliamentary Secretary may have to tell us tonight will offer something of interest and value to those who have, in Milton's phrase, Wisdom at one entrance quite shut out.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)

I think I should be failing in my duty if I did not attempt for one or two moments to intervene in this debate. I wish first of all to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for the interest he has taken in these afflicted children belonging to a category probably the least understood and the least sympathised with of any disabled persons in the world. I am very glad he did not venture into the very turbulent waters of the technical approaches to the teaching of the deaf, into pure oralism versus the use of mechanical signs. He painted a picture which, if he had his way, would be, I should imagine, the Eldorado of any educational activity. I have just come back from Denmark, which is very advanced, and to supplement what my hon. Friend said about small classes I would point out that there the standard class is five as against ten in this country.

My hon. Friend made many valid points, one on the question of the inspectorate. I would suggest that it is not so much the inspectorate who need to be in constant touch with the normal child as the teachers of the deaf themselves, who ought to be able, by their contact with the normal child, to evaluate their own work and to get an appraisement of their own endeavours. If the Minister could by some means give teachers the advantage of a kind of sabbatical year in which they would be seconded to ordinary schools, I am quite sure that would be a great advantage to the education of the deaf.

I should like very much to follow my hon. Friend along the very interesting paths he has opened up for us, but I must allow time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. Once again I would say how much we in the deaf world appreciate his interest in this subject. We are very grateful for the interest that the Parliamentary Secretary has already evinced in this particular type of disabled child, and we wish him every success in the future.

11.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper)

I, too, should like to say how much I welcome this opportunity for a short debate on the education of deaf children. I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) regarding the terrible disability which these sufferers do incur, and I think we both welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), whose knowledge and experience of, and work for, the deaf is well known to the House. It is seldom that we get a chance to discuss this particular handicap, and this is a very opportune moment to do so because of important developments now taking place.

Before dealing with the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Fulham—and I am grateful to him for the notice which he gave of them—perhaps I might say a word about the general background, so that we can get the problems into perspective. The important thing is that, in the last 20 years, there have been three important developments in the education of deaf children. The first is that, since 1937, the compulsory minimum age for the education of deaf children has been five years, whereas previously it was seven years. In addition, since that year, considerably more children under the age of five have come into the schools.

The second development is that, following the 1944 Education Act, we have begun to re-organise into separate schools—and about this I shall have something further to say—the deaf and the partially-deaf children. That development, however, is of recent origin. The third matter, not generally realised, is that the year 1940 saw an abnormally large birth rate of deaf children.

In the light of those three developments, which have made the problem much larger than it was 20 years ago, the programmes both of the present Government and that of which the hon. Member was a distinguished member have been considerable, and, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft knows, we have for some years given high priority to the provision of schools and the training of teachers. As evidence of that progress, it is important to understand that since 1947—a matter of eight years—the number of deaf and partially deaf children in special schools has gone up by no less than 50 per cent.

Mr. E. Evans

Post-meningitics, unknown before the war, are also a factor.

Mr. Vosper

Yes.

As I say, the numbers have increased by 50 per cent. during the past eight years, and it is worth while placing the figures on the record. In 1947 there were 3,500 children in the schools; by January, 1955, the number had risen to 5,200.

During the same period, the number of teachers has gone up from 374 to 585. The numbers in training at Manchester University have gone up from 30 or 40 a year to 65. That is in addition to those getting the diploma of the National College of Teachers of the Deaf.

The other development in progress is that, in 1946, there were no schools reorganised into separate establishments for the deaf and for the partially deaf. Today, there are 14 schools catering for deaf children only and four for the partially deaf; 31 still take a mixture of both, but of those half are day schools, about which I shall say something more in a moment.

This brings me to the first of the hon. Member's questions: What is the Ministry's policy about re-organisation into these separate categories? I accept immediately that it should be my right hon. Friend's policy to separate boarding schools as fast as possible into schools for the deaf and for the partially deaf. In passing, I should like to mention that a few weeks ago a new technical school for deaf children only was opened at Burwood Park, and two more schools are soon to be re-organised. The regional conferences which my right hon. Friend's advisers have been holding in recent months will, I hope, enable us to continue the re-organisation of the boarding schools. The only exception to this principle is in the case of denominational schools and, perhaps, in the case of the grammar school for deaf children.

I think, however, that the hon. Member will agree that day schools may have to be treated differently, in the first place because there are not enough pupils, except in the large cities, to run separate schools. The second point which I should like the hon. Member to consider in the case of the day schools is the educational argument that there children can spend a large part of their time at home in a normal speaking and hearing environment. Therefore, for that reason, I should not like to go so far as to say that in the immediate future we should reorganise or separate the day schools.

The hon. Member wishes to separate further categories still. I should not like to comment on that suggestion now, but it will be considered. There are two separate schools which have come into operation for deaf children who are educationally sub-normal. It may be that there will have to be developments on the lines which the hon. Member suggested for other multiple handicaps, but I could not give immediate hope that that will be done in the near future.

At the end of last year there were, according to authorities' returns, 530 children awaiting admission to these special schools, a considerable drop compared with the previous year. Half were probably under five years of age, and I believe that during the last year considerable progress has been made in reducing the waiting list. As far as I can say at this stage, with the buildings provided since the war and those now in hand. there is a real prospect of there being enough overall places in 1957 for all deaf and partially deaf children needing education at special schools. The only reason for my exercising caution is that the ascertainment of partial deafness may change. There may be in 1957 more partially deaf children than we now expect.

As to the size of classes, my figure differs very little from that given by the hon. Member. The latest figure I have is that 209 of the total number of classes are oversized. The regulation size is ten, and I am informed that of the over-sized classes the vast majority are of an average size of eleven or twelve. There has been an improvement, though possibly not as much as my right hon. Friend would like, in the last eight years. The percentage of over-sized classes has fallen from 54 per cent. to 41 per cent. During those eight years attention has been concentrated on finding places, and despite that policy the staffing ratio has fallen from 1:9.6 to 1:8.9.

I hope that now, having reached this stage, the additional teachers who are coming forward will enable us to reduce these staffing ratios further and that, as a consequence, the size of classes will be reduced. That is most important in relation to this handicap. I fully accept the hon. Member's point about the effect of over-sized classes on oral instruction.

There seems to be a little confusion about this matter of instruction. Therefore, I feel I should make it clear that all special schools make it their aim to teach their pupils to speak, that is to say they rely on oral methods and none use, or should use, manual methods. I accept that over-sized classes considerably hamper the use of oral methods, but, with additional staff coming forward with higher qualifications, and with modern methods of teaching, I hope that there will be considerable improvement in the standard of instruction.

There are now considerable developments in the use of group and individual hearing aids, which are all part of this method of instruction. Great strides have been made in electronics within the last few years and that has permitted more deaf pupils to make use of residual hearing. Some teachers in our schools have found this of outstanding benefit in the improvement of children's speech. I believe that the potentialities of this approach have not yet been fully explored and that it holds out considerable hope of improved results in future. This, together with a reduced size of classes, should do much to improve the standard of education.

The hon. Member raised two points about deaf children under five. On the first, it is generally agreed that a nursery unit at a boarding school should be to some extent separate from the main school—in day schools that may not be practicable—and I understand that in recent years it has been the practice for nursery units at boarding schools to be planned as separate blocks. Indeed, I have no knowledge of any nursery schools that have been planned as part of the main block. I do not think it is possible to secure greater separation than that.

On the second point, relating to clinics, I know that many children have derived great benefit from attendance at clinics but I do not think they have been working long enough for me to pronounce in this debate as to what they can achieve. They are in the experimental stage, and I hope they will continue to contribute whatever they can to deaf education—we are watching them with interest. I do not think they are in competition with nursery schools. I appreciate very much the points put by the hon. Gentleman in this connection. We will look at them, but I regard the clinic as possibly the first stage and think that the nursery schools would, at the appropriate stage, be the logical follow-on in many cases.

I will deal now with the question of inspection. On this point only there is possibly a difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham. I am advised that inspectors of schools for the deaf are also well able to carry on inspections of schools for other handicapped children. At this stage I cannot give the frequency with which the schools for deaf children have been inspected, but I would hazard that it is far more frequently than is the case with ordinary schools.

It is true that there has been recently a re-shuffle of the inspectorate, but the two inspectors on this aspect of our work have been inspecting schools for deaf children for seven years and twenty-five years, respectively. They themselves inform me that they feel best able to do their job if they can visit schools for other handicapped children. Again I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman about keeping in touch with children at ordinary schools, but I assure him that I have no evidence to suggest that the standard or the character of schools for the deaf will suffer as a result of the recent change in the inspectorate, and I have looked at that point with special care.

I am convinced from the examination I have made of this problem that great progress has been and is being made in the care of deaf children. It is not a subject on which the last word has been said; our views are constantly changing and, I hope, changing for the better. In that connection, I welcome very much the different views which the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

Finally, I am sure he joins me in paying tribute to the work being done in these schools, many of them voluntary, and by the National College of Teachers of the Deaf and the National Institute for the Deaf, who with other bodies have for many years done pioneer work in this important branch of education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.