Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 53: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if she will clarify her position regarding the education of the deaf community in view of comments made during a debate on 30 June 2004 which suggested that there were mutually exclusive arguments within the deaf community regarding education models; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that there are not such major disagreements within the community, but rather between service providers and the deaf community; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13426/05]

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 395: To ask the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to the anger and frustration at her decision to disband the advisory committee for the deaf and hard of hearing; the number of persons on the NCSE tasked with advising her Department on policy matters and who come from a deaf or hard of hearing background; the effort she made to ensure that the committee finalised its report; and if her attention has further been drawn to the two bodies of opinion shared by the committee; and if, in the absence of compromise, it was asked to produce a majority and minority report. [13427/05]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 395 together.

The advisory committee for the deaf and hard of hearing was established in December 2001. The committee held 38 meetings over a three-year period as well as a number of other meetings at subcommittee stage. However, from an early stage in the committee's deliberations it became apparent that there were entrenched, divergent views among representatives of deaf and hearing persons and their families on approaches to the teaching of the deaf and hard of hearing and that there was little willingness to reach consensus.

One group, which came from an oralist tradition, favoured a focus on teaching deaf and hard of hearing children to speak and to understand spoken language. The emphasis in the oralist approach is on the use of residual hearing and has been assisted by advances in audiology and technology. Another group strongly advocated sign language as the appropriate and exclusive means of communication. The opposing viewpoints of these groups made it very difficult for the committee to reach decisions. In some cases, decisions arrived at sub-committee stage were challenged at plenary level by members who were involved in the decisions of the sub-committee.

While various chapters of the committee's report were drafted, including chapters on early intervention, primary education, post-primary education, visiting teacher service and communication issues, no consensus was reached on any of these due to the divergent views of members of the committee. To progress matters, and as two previous deadlines which had been set for finalisation had not been met, my predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, met the committee in June 2004. At that meeting, he stressed that its report should be completed by October 2004. This did not materialise. In the circumstances and following consultations between my officials and the chairperson of the committee, I formed the view that there was no prospect of the advisory committee reaching an agreed position in the foreseeable future. Given this position, I recently wrote to the chairperson of the committee and informed her of my decision to disband it. I have no plans to change that decision.

In disbanding the committee, however, I requested that all of the material produced by it to date be sent to my Department and this has been done. I now intend to discuss the very important issue of deaf education with the National Council for Special Education with a view to carrying out research initially and devising policy on issues relating to deaf and hard of hearing pupils.

I am disappointed that it was not possible for the committee to complete its work but the reality was that, over three years after its establishment, there was no prospect of its doing so. Rather than continue down the cul-de-sac that the committee's work had become, I have decided that a different approach is required and this approach includes involving the National Council for Special Education, which has a remit to advise my Department on policy matters.

I am confident the National Council for Special Education, which has a research function and part of whose remit is to advise my Department on policy matters, will be in a position, after undertaking appropriate research and analysis of this matter, to advise my Department on policy and other issues relating to the education of deaf and hard of hearing pupils.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to the Minister's comments about the entrenched views on the committee. However, would she accept that there is anger and frustration among the deaf community at her arbitrary decision to disband the committee? Was the committee asked to produce a majority report and minority report? I am informed that there were too many professionals on the committee, as opposed to people from the deaf or hard of hearing community and that the difficulty arose from this preponderance of professionals. I accept that there were two groups with opposed views; one favouring the oral tradition and the other favouring sign language. Did the Minister attempt to get the two bodies of opinion on the committee to produce a majority report and a minority report in order for the committee to finalise its report? One can argue that enough time was given to the committee but the decision to disband it appeared to be arbitrary to many people. Has the Minister reached a decision with regard to Irish sign language? Will Irish sign language be promoted and supported or will the oral tradition be favoured?

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After three years, it was evident the differences between the two groups on the committee were not only insurmountable but historical and deeply felt. At no stage was there any possibility of progress being made. Even if things were agreed at the subcommittee level, differences emerged once decisions were brought back to plenary level. There are two very fundamental differences between the two groups. One concerns the oral method and mainstream schools, while the other concerns Irish sign language. There was little point in leaving the two groups to work together when there was no prospect of agreement between them and they had not been able to come forward with reports. Producing majority and minority reports would not have helped because that would have solved none of the problems.

What is important now is that since the original establishment of the committee — which was very broadly based and represented parents, teachers and deaf and hard of hearing people — the National Council for Special Education has been established. The council has the expertise in special education and the ability to carry out research and drive policy. I hope it will be able to work with the groups. It is an issue in which I have long been interested. My decision to disband the committee was not an arbitrary one. It was based on the recognition that the two sides would never agree and that it was better to try and move the issue forward rather than leave in existence a committee that could not agree.