Debate contribution: Support for Deaf Children
Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Deaf Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4604152
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and thank the Member who moved it. I thank Déirdre and the wider team at the National Deaf Children's Society, who campaign tirelessly for the best support for deaf children in Northern Ireland. As Members referenced, when deafness is identified in a child, even in infancy, they will ordinarily be assigned a teacher of the deaf who will start working with them and their family from that early stage. At the outset, I express thanks and pay tribute for the work of the EA sensory service and the specialist teachers of the deaf who deliver that vital work and intervention at that early stage. It is, perhaps, a model of support that we could learn from for all children with SEN. As Members have referenced, access to that vital support is not without challenge and, indeed, threat to the service. Members have mentioned the decline in the number of teachers of the deaf, which is in the region of a 32% decline since 2011. Concerningly, as we look to the future, 30% of those teachers are potentially in line to retire in the next decade. There is a clear need to focus on meaningful and engaged workforce planning, if the service is to continue providing the support that it does for our deaf children. Despite the decline in the workforce and the imminent challenges, there is no route to qualify as a teacher of the deaf in Northern Ireland, as was mentioned. To generate the teachers of the deaf that we need, we will need qualified teachers to travel across the water to GB for their postgraduate qualification or to incentivise teachers who already have that qualification to come to Northern Ireland. Both approaches will require strategic workforce planning by the Department, and I hope that the Minister will outline what specific work is being undertaken in that regard. There may also be a need to look at the model of support itself and at other roles, as well as the vital resource of teachers of the deaf, who are highly valued by children and their families; the value placed on that role cannot be overstated. However, other roles could be explored to deliver support. Potentially, specialist classroom assistants or communication support workers could have a focus on the appropriate use of technology for some of the children. I would like to hear from the Minister whether those alternative roles are being actively considered. Depending on their level of deafness, children will see their teacher of the deaf with varying frequency. For some, that may be only an annual visit, so being assigned that specialist teacher is not a passport to regular support. Well-trained teachers and classroom assistants who can utilise technology effectively and roll out whole-school approaches to ensure that the needs of a deaf child are met in every aspect of their school life are essential. We need better training at initial teacher training stage, in continuing professional development (CPD) and in the upskilling of our classroom assistants. That training and awareness is not just about the technical knowledge that a teacher needs to teach a deaf pupil in their class. It has been referenced by other Members, but it is important to highlight again that a 2023 report carried out by Queen's University, Belfast, found that around 20% of deaf children experienced at least one psychological disorder. That compares with 12% of their hearing peers in the classroom. Anxiety disorders have already been highlighted as being prevalent. Such factors as listening fatigue, communication barriers and social isolation can exacerbate those challenges, so, as far as I understand it, it is vital that teachers properly understand those additional needs: not just the barriers to learning caused by the deafness but the additional psychological issues that can arise. Teachers need to be properly trained to reflect the very best practice when they have a deaf child in their class. I want to be clear: the current system of support has the potential to provide and, in many cases, does provide the right assistance for deaf children in Northern Ireland. However, the service is experiencing pressure and cannot stand still. I hope that that is the message that comes through today. I want to highlight the research commissioned by the National Deaf Children's Society in partnership with the EA — David Brooks mentioned it — which will look at the current provision of the EA sensory service and what the future of that service might look like. I hope that the report and findings will be available soon. I strongly urge the Minister to take that on board when considering future interventions by the Department. We look forward to the publication of that research. There can be no complacency in the service that is provided to meet the needs of deaf children. Longer-term planning is vital to support our deaf learners in Northern Ireland. I support the motion and hope that it will receive support across the House.
832 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:25 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.