Quality standards – Resource provisions (deaf)
The revised quality standards for resource provisions (deaf) are supported by the following organisations:
National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) Scottish Sensory Centre
All descriptors and measures should be interpreted in the context of local circumstances, cohort complexity, and agreed commissioning arrangements.
NB: BATOD terminology: deafness denotes all levels and types of deafness.
This domain evaluates the quality of educational intent and implementation, and the physical/cultural environment needed for deaf learners to access the curriculum fully (Aligned with the Education Inspection Framework (EIF): Curriculum, Teaching, and Inclusion).
| Description Specific to Resource Provisions | Narrative |
|
Exceptional Exceptionally high standards are sustained across the curriculum and teaching, having a transformational impact on the learning of deaf pupils. The environment reduces barriers to learning exceptionally well, ensuring highly positive outcomes. Teaching is highly responsive and quickly secures the complex knowledge and skills deaf pupils need. The school environment serves as a model for external improvement in inclusive practice, particularly acoustics and communication.
Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 1 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and provision is consistently high quality. Leaders make astute decisions about how the curriculum and teaching adapt and evolve based on insight into deaf pupils’ learning. Highly effective teaching is embedded across subjects, consistently developing language, vocabulary, and reading competency for deaf pupils. Strategies systematically and skilfully enhance opportunities and experiences for deaf pupils (including those with complex special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)). Acoustic environments meet or exceed minimum national standards, and noise management strategies are routinely and effectively implemented across the school.
Indicative QS‑Resourced provision (RP) good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 1. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Leaders ensure the curriculum is suitable, well planned, and differentiated to be accessible across the full range of subjects and activities for deaf pupils. The curriculum is taught well, drawing on an evidence-informed understanding of effective teaching, adapting practice to meet pupils’ needs, and considering Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). Teaching reflects high expectations for all deaf children. Linguistic access reflects the pupil’s preferred method (eg providing sign language support or auditory-oral approaches). Reasonable adjustments (eg acoustic improvements, deaf awareness training) are generally considered and implemented carefully.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 1. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 1. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met due to inconsistencies or weaknesses in implementation. Adaptations for deaf pupils are considered but are not always well matched to their needs. Collaborative planning between specialist and mainstream staff may be inconsistent. Acoustic adaptations are limited or fail to meet the needs of pupils, impacting their ability to access verbal information. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Curriculum and teaching need urgent action. The curriculum lacks ambition, structure, or coherence for deaf pupils. Reasonable adjustments are not being made, or failures in teaching mean pupils’ experiences do not effectively help them learn what was planned. Teaching expectations are too low for deaf pupils.
|
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain evaluates the impact of provision on academic progress and attainment, focusing on rigorous, specialist-informed monitoring (Aligned with EIF: Achievement).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS04)
|
Narrative |
| Exceptional
Exceptionally high standards of achievement are sustained. Leaders’ actions have a transformational impact on achievement for all deaf pupils, who achieve consistently high outcomes. Any attainment gaps are far narrower over time than the national gap for deaf pupils.
Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 2 provides indicative enhancements.
|
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and deaf pupils consistently achieve well, developing detailed knowledge and skills across the curriculum. Progress rates are often above national averages for similar cohorts of deaf pupils. Pupils are consistently well prepared for the next stage. Specialist assessments are used forensically to describe development, anticipate needs, and rigorously evaluate the success of individual learning programmes.
Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 2. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Pupils generally achieve well, making suitable progress from their starting points. Attainment and progress in core subjects (English/Welsh/Irish, maths, science) are broadly in line with hearing pupils of similar ability. Any gaps in knowledge or skills are closing quickly. Detailed specialist assessments and analysis are used to set challenging but realistic targets (particularly for language/literacy, numeracy) and monitor progress rigorously.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 2. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 2. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. A significant minority of deaf pupils have learning gaps that hinder achievement. Progress is inconsistent or not as good as it needs to be over time. Specialist assessments may be carried out, but the resulting actions or interventions are insufficiently effective to close attainment gaps quickly.
|
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Achievement needs urgent action. Deaf pupils lack the foundations of communication, reading, writing, or mathematical knowledge (where applicable), and gaps are not tackled quickly or effectively. Pupils have not gained the knowledge and/or qualifications they need to progress.
|
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain evaluates the provision for character development, emotional health, and specialised safety measures for deaf pupils (Aligned with EIF: Personal development and well-being; Note: Statutory Safeguarding status is always reported separately as Met/Not Met).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS05, QS06, QS07) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
Exceptionally high standards of personal development are sustained. Leaders’ actions have a transformational impact on well-being, ensuring deaf pupils feel a sense of belonging and thrive both in school and beyond. Safety policies reflect the unique vulnerabilities of deaf children (QS06) and are exemplary in practice. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 3 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and deaf pupils are confident, resilient, and independent. Pastoral support is highly effective; leaders anticipate and proactively address potential emotional or social needs linked to deafness. Deaf identity, confidence, and self-esteem are consistently promoted, ensuring pupils are enabled to take responsibility for their deafness. Anti-bullying policies are rigorously implemented to prevent and address bullying or teasing related to deafness. Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 3. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
A coherent and appropriate programme develops pupils spiritually, morally, socially, and culturally. Pupils develop a clear understanding of deaf identity and meet deaf peers/role models regularly. Effective pastoral support meets pupils’ needs, and they are confident in accessing it when required. Anti-bullying and discrimination policies ensure that incidents are dealt with and recorded appropriately. The behaviour policy strikes a balance between maintaining high standards and making reasonable allowances for communication needs. Safeguarding policies meet the needs of deaf children and staff are aware of greater risk factors.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 3. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 3. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Weaknesses or inconsistencies in provision negatively impact deaf pupils’ personal development or well-being. Support programmes (eg social skills, confidence building) are not well matched to the evolving needs of deaf pupils. Anti-bullying policies may exist but lack sufficient monitoring or effective implementation regarding deafness-related incidents. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Personal development needs urgent action. Deaf pupils do not receive the pastoral support they need. Leaders fail to promote equality and diversity. Leaders may establish an environment that undermines emotional health or safety (eg failure to address bullying or communication issues causing isolation). |
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain assesses the effectiveness of preparation for life after school, including careers advice and transition support (Aligned with EIF: Personal development and well-being, post-16 provision).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS08) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
Students are exceptionally well prepared for their next steps and later life, demonstrating a transformational impact on their transition outcomes and future success. Destination data shows sustained high performance. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 4 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and students proceed to highly appropriate education, employment, or training destinations. Deaf young people have wide-ranging opportunities to encounter the world of work and receive tailored, impartial advice that meets or exceeds the Gatsby Benchmarks in England. They are fully informed about specialist support schemes like Access to Work or Disabled Students Allowance and how to access support from a specialist professional (QToD). Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 4. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
The careers programme, where relevant, generally prepares pupils for future steps. Effective transition arrangements are in place for young people aged 14+, involving both mainstream and specialist advice. Deaf young people are positive and ambitious about their future, and destination data is similar to that of hearing students. They have access to deaf role models and relevant work experience opportunities.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 4. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 4. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Transition support or careers education is not well matched to the needs of deaf students. Information on post-school options (eg Access to Work) is available but delivered inconsistently. Work experience and enterprise opportunities are limited or fail to apply core skills in real-world contexts. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Provision needs urgent action. Students have not attained the necessary skills or qualifications needed to progress. The curriculum or guidance fails to prepare students for adulthood. Students lack access to unbiased information or high-quality careers guidance. |
|
|
Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain evaluates the strategic direction, commitment to standards, and resource management within the RP and the host school (Aligned with EIF: Leadership and governance).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS09, QS10, QS13) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
Exceptionally high standards of leadership and governance are sustained. Leaders’ actions have a transformational impact on outcomes for deaf pupils. The Head of Provision (QToD) is fully integrated into strategic leadership, driving sustained high standards. Financial resources are managed with exemplary efficiency, demonstrating outstanding value for money. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 5 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and leaders use detailed and insightful analysis to evaluate the RP’s effectiveness. Improvement priorities are accurately identified and monitored, leading to consistently Strong standards. Resources allocated to the RP are strategically used to maximise impact on outcomes. The governing body provides robust challenge and support regarding the RP’s performance. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) is rigorously monitored and reviewed annually. Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 5. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Leaders understand the RP’s context and have a clear rationale for improvement priorities, taking largely appropriate action to drive improvement. The RP vision is clear, ambitious, and reflected in planning. The QToD in charge has input into decision-making regarding allocation of funding and staffing. Governance ensures resources (including digital technologies) are used effectively. Effective monitoring includes lesson observation and scrutiny of attainment/progress data for deaf pupils. The SLA is clear and monitored.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 5. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 5. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Leaders’ actions lack precision or do not identify the underlying causes of weaknesses within the RP. Financial oversight may be insufficient to demonstrate how resources improve outcomes for deaf pupils. Monitoring arrangements (eg lesson observations of mainstream staff regarding deaf pupils) are inconsistent. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Leadership needs urgent action. Leaders do not identify and/or prioritise the right issues or take suitable action. There are serious breaches of legal responsibilities or statutory duties related to the RP provision or its funding. The capacity of the school to improve the RP provision is poor. |
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain focuses on the quality, quantity, training, and deployment of specialist and mainstream staff to meet the needs of deaf pupils (Aligned with EIF: Leadership and governance – Professional Learning).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS11) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
An exceptionally high culture of expertise is sustained. Staffing levels and qualifications (QToDs, specialist TAs/CSWs) are exemplary. The RP actively shares its learning and best practice externally. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 6 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and a highly effective culture of professional learning is established, where staff continually improve expertise. Professional learning is precisely matched to specialist expertise (eg acoustics, technology, communication methods). Communication support workers (CSWs) supporting sign language users consistently hold advanced qualifications (eg British Sign Language (BSL) Level 3/Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) Level 6 or higher. Staff deployment is highly effective, maximising impact across the school. Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 6. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Staffing levels (QToD ratio) are at least consistent with minimum recommendations (eg one QToD to six pupils). Specialist teaching staff hold the mandatory QToD qualification or are in training. Professional learning is evidence-informed, of high quality, and designed to build expertise. Staff deployment is matched to the assessment of needs of each deaf pupil. Mainstream staff receive routine training to support the inclusive environment.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 6. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 6. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Professional learning is overly generic or insufficiently targeted to specialist deaf education needs. Specialist staff competencies are inconsistent; for example, CSWs may lack the required BSL proficiency (eg below Level 3 or SCQF 6) to accurately translate complex curriculum content. Staff deployment may be compromised, with specialists sometimes diverted to tasks unrelated to supporting deaf pupils. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Staffing needs urgent action. The number of specialist staff (QToDs) is significantly below minimum requirements, impeding pupils’ access to the curriculum. The professional learning programme is weak, failing to address core expertise gaps.
|
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain evaluates the policy, provision, management, and troubleshooting of hearing technologies and specialised resources (Aligned with EIF: Curriculum and teaching; Leadership and governance – Resource Use).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS12) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
Technology use is seamlessly integrated and leads to transformational outcomes in curriculum access and independence. The maintenance and investment programme is exemplary, ensuring zero downtime for critical equipment. Deaf pupils demonstrate exceptional independence in managing their technology. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 7 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and technology resources consistently enable pupils to achieve curriculum aims. Staff are highly skilled in troubleshooting all hearing technologies (including assistive technologies) daily. The audiology policy is robustly managed and regularly reviewed. QToDs actively evaluate and trial new technologies to maximise learning potential. Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 7. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
There is a policy promoting a rolling programme of maintenance and investment in technological equipment. Current assistive technology is available and maintained. Staff are trained in the use of wireless remote microphone systems and understand the importance of noise management. Deaf children are supported to maximise technology use and develop independence in equipment checks. Daily checks, or checks as appropriate in line with the needs of the child or young person, are carried out by staff with the required skills.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 7. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 7. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Technology is available but maintenance or management procedures are inconsistent (eg equipment checks are irregular or lack specialised input from an educational audiologist). Staff training on technology use is insufficient. Failures lead to periods where pupils cannot use their equipment optimally. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Technology provision needs urgent action. Critical technology required for accessing the curriculum is routinely unavailable, faulty, or staff fail to ensure its correct use, significantly impeding learning. |
|
|
Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This domain evaluates engagement with parents, pupils (pupil voice), and the multi-agency network supporting the deaf child’s holistic needs (Aligned with EIF: Inclusion; Leadership and governance).
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS14, QS15, QS16) |
Narrative |
|
Exceptional
Partnerships achieve a transformational impact, ensuring holistic needs are met exceptionally well. Leaders facilitate involvement with other professionals and the community that drives external system-wide improvement. Parent and pupil feedback is continually sought and informs the RP’s strategic direction. Exceptional typically evidences all Strong standards plus sustained, embedded practice and wider system impact; Annex 8 provides indicative enhancements. |
|
|
Strong Standard
The Expected Standard is met, and collaboration with external agencies (eg audiology, speech and language therapy (SaLT), Deaf Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (DCAMHS)/CAMHS, cochlear implant (CI) centres, National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) Community Connectors, BSL tutors/ear, nose and throat (ENT)) is highly effective, resulting in swift, co-ordinated plans and a shared understanding of desired outcomes. Parents receive extensive, accessible information on technology emotional well-being and language development to support their child at home. Interpreters/access arrangements are routinely provided for deaf parents and carers when required. Indicative QS‑RP good practice items that typically characterise a Strong Standard are in Annex 8. |
|
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Leaders work closely and effectively with parents and pupils, ensuring their views and aspirations are generally included in decision-making. The RP maintains positive relationships with necessary external services (audiology, Specialist SaLT, CI centres, etc). There is a co-ordinated plan to meet complex needs that is monitored regularly. Parents are involved in planning their child’s individual learning programme. Pupils are fully involved in identifying support and target-setting.
QS‑RP baseline requirements for this domain are in Annex 8. Meeting these is required for the Expected Standard (secure fit). Minimum measures/evidence for this domain are also listed in Annex 8. |
|
|
Needs Attention
The Expected Standard is not met. Engagement with parents or external services is limited or inconsistent. Multi-agency input is sought, but follow-through on advice (eg ensuring necessary SaLT is delivered or facilities are provided for professionals) is sometimes inadequate. Communication methods for parents (especially deaf parents) may be inaccessible. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Partnership working needs urgent action. Failure to work effectively with external agencies results in significant unmet needs for deaf pupils. Statutory requirements for parental or pupil involvement (eg review of statutory plans) are consistently neglected. |
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
The original Quality Standards were combined into larger domains for alignment with the EIF.
Below are the specific details for the remaining two EIF-aligned areas (Attendance/Behaviour, and Inclusion):
Attendance and Behaviour (Integrated into QS 3)
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (Aligned with QS04, QS06) |
Narrative |
| Expected Standard (Baseline)
Leaders establish high expectations for all pupils about behaviour. Leaders analyse attendance information closely, identifying patterns and intervening early. Any reasonable adjustments or adaptations to attendance and/or behaviour strategies are timely and appropriate, considering communication needs or concentration fatigue related to deafness. The behaviour policy ensures deaf children are held to the same standards as peers while allowing for instances where they may have misunderstood instructions. |
|
| Urgent Improvement
Leaders do not take effective action to secure positive attendance or behaviour. Attendance is consistently low, showing little sign of improvement. Incidents of bullying or prejudiced behaviour (related to deafness) are frequent and/or tolerated, and leaders fail to tackle concerns effectively. |
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
Inclusion (Specialised Integration)
| Grading and
Description Specific to Resource Provisions (QS01, QS03, QS08, QS15) |
Narrative |
|
Expected Standard (Baseline)
Leaders ensure that the inclusion strategy begins with everyday high-quality inclusive teaching. Leaders quickly and accurately identify needs and ensure appropriate reasonable adjustments are made in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and respective code of practice in each nation. The use of external specialists (QToD, SLT) is generally effective in providing advice. The resource provision is embedded within the mainstream school. |
|
|
Urgent Improvement
Leaders do not identify and assess pupils’ needs effectively, having a significant negative impact. Support for deaf pupils is ineffective. Leaders do not meet statutory requirements for pupils with SEND, significantly impacting their learning. |
|
| Actions – for Improvement Plan
Comment
|
Reviewed: Date |
This Quality Standards Report Card is a professional self-evaluation and improvement framework. It is not statutory guidance, nor does it constitute inspection criteria or a compliance checklist. References to expectations, indicators, and benchmarks are intended to support professional judgement and reflective discussion. All descriptors and measures should be interpreted in the context of local circumstances, cohort complexity, and agreed commissioning arrangements.
Why this matters: Every deaf pupil should be able to take part fully in lessons, feel included in school life, and have their learning needs properly met. The curriculum should not just be accessible – it should also be ambitious and meaningful.
Minimum expectations
Planned curriculum access: Mainstream and specialist staff must jointly plan how lessons are made accessible.
Linguistic access: Pupils must receive teaching and support in their preferred communication mode (spoken, Sign Supported English (SSE), BSL/Irish Sign Language (ISL)). Specialist staff must demonstrate robust training in the required communication modes, particularly BSL, commensurate with the assessed needs of the pupil cohort (Referencing competence standards in Domain 6).
Acoustic access: Teaching rooms used by deaf pupils must meet in-use acoustic expectations.
Dedicated space: The RP must maintain a communal, accessible, safe resource base or unit for specialist support, withdrawal, deaf identity development, and peer networking, preventing the displacement of essential specialist functions into the general mainstream environment.
Consistent technology use: Radio aids, soundfield, and other technology are checked and used consistently; all media used in the classroom must be captioned by default.
Inclusion beyond lessons: Clubs, trips, assemblies, and informal times are planned for deaf pupils’ safe and equal participation.
Whole-school deaf awareness: All staff must receive training; governors and peers must understand their role in making the school inclusive.
Good practice
Shared access plans and recording templates utilised jointly between mainstream and RP staff.
Routine, sustained opportunities for deaf pupils to meet deaf peers and role models, and to learn about Deaf culture.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
≥90% of observed lessons, including interventions and activities delivered by internal and external specialists, meet the agreed access arrangements.
≥95% of lesson videos and classroom media used in teaching sessions are compliant with mandatory captioning requirements.
Noise management routines observed consistently (≥90% of lessons).
Deaf pupils’ participation in extracurricular activities matches that of their hearing peers.
What evidence will be collected
Co-planning records and observation notes.
Communication/linguistic access plans, explicitly detailing staff competencies in required modalities.
Acoustic access checklists integrated into routine planning documents (serving as a quick reference/log, thus minimising paperwork burden).
Technology check logs and captioning compliance records.
Participation data for trips and clubs.
Why this matters: Deaf pupils should make progress at least in line with their ability and starting points. Outcomes are not only about exam results, but also language, communication, confidence, and well-being.
Minimum expectations
High expectations: Ambitious targets must be set, including for the most able.
Specialist assessment: Regular deaf-specific assessments must be used alongside mainstream measures. A national core set of high-quality, recommended assessments (eg covering language skills like British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS), Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fifth Edition (CELF-5), or similar tools appropriate to the communication mode) should be used nationally to ensure consistency, supplemented by locally chosen tools based on cohort needs.
Single picture of progress: Academic, language, and well-being data must be combined. The definition of progress for pupils with complex profiles must be holistic, considering language deprivation, emotional well-being, adverse childhood experiences, and additional learning needs, informed by specialist professional judgement.
Use of data: Results must shape teaching adjustments and interventions.
Attendance/exclusions: Rates for deaf pupils are comparable with peers (allowing for necessary health factors).
Good practice
Termly Pupil Progress Meetings (PPMs) with RP staff to review data and inform next steps.
Annual cross-school/provision moderation of assessment judgements.
Pupil voice included in target-setting and reviews, captured creatively by trusted adults.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
Deaf pupils’ progress matches hearing peers; attainment gaps narrow year-on-year.
Language assessments show positive gains, and these are moderated at least annually with other provisions or schools.
≥80% of interventions achieve intended outcomes or are adapted quickly.
Attendance/exclusion rates are in line with whole-school averages.
What evidence will be collected
Assessment calendar (listing mainstream and nationally and locally chosen deaf-specific tools).
Moderation records and review notes (including annual cross-school moderation evidence).
Dashboards showing integrated academic, language, and well-being data.
Attendance/exclusion reports with context notes.
Pupil target reviews linked to teaching adjustments, supported by creative pupil-voice artefacts (eg questionnaires or summaries from key working sessions).
Why this matters: Deaf children and young people must feel safe, develop social and emotional skills, and grow in confidence and identity. They face additional risks due to communication barriers, and resource provisions have a duty to ensure their personal development and safeguarding needs are met.
Minimum expectations
Safeguarding: Clear safeguarding routes must be established in pupils’ preferred communication modes; all staff must be aware of deaf children’s specific vulnerabilities.
Trusted adult: Every deaf pupil must identify at least one trusted adult in school with whom they can communicate effectively.
Anti-bullying: Policies must explicitly address deafness-related bullying; incidents logged and responded to within agreed timeframes.
Emotional well-being: Pastoral systems must address confidence, self-esteem, and mental health, with accessible referral routes to specialist counselling if needed. Proactive emotional check-ins (eg using tools like Zones of Regulation) must be embedded into daily routines to ensure early intervention.
Peer and social opportunities: Regular, sustained opportunities must be provided to meet deaf peers, deaf role models, and develop social skills.
Personal safety and independence: Pupils must be taught skills such as online safety, peer pressure resistance, and safe use of technology.
Deaf identity: Dedicated time and space must be allocated to support deaf identity development, emotional literacy, and belonging.
Good practice
Utilisation of dedicated programmes (eg specific deaf well-being curricula such as the Leeds Peri Well-being Curriculum) to develop deaf identity and emotional literacy.
School-wide inclusion of deaf awareness and identity in personal, social, health, and economic (PSHE)/relationships, sex, and health education (RSHE) curricula.
Proactive mental health support, including trained mentors or deaf role models, linked to trauma-informed approaches.
Dedicated ‘deaf time and space’ for pupils to communicate freely with trusted adults in their preferred mode, supporting genuine pupil voice.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
≥95% of deaf pupils report they feel safe and can name a trusted adult.
All incidents of bullying/discrimination are logged and resolved within five school days.
Emotional well-being surveys show positive year-on-year improvements, supported by data from routine check-in tools.
Evidence that pupils have participated in deaf peer/role model activities (tracked participation).
≥90% of safeguarding actions addressed within agreed timescales.
What evidence will be collected
Pupil-voice surveys and focus group notes (using accessible formats/trusted staff).
Safeguarding and bullying incident records.
Mapping of PSHE/RSHE curricula showing explicit inclusion of deaf identity and well-being objectives.
Logs of peer/role model opportunities and participation rates, supported by national/local networking initiatives.
Records of routine, proactive check-ins (eg notes from key working sessions or simple charts).
Why this matters: Deaf young people should leave school with the skills, confidence, and support needed to move successfully into further education, training, or employment. Preparation for adulthood must begin early, include ambitious aspirations, and be informed by both specialist and mainstream careers advice.
Minimum expectations
Early aspiration building: Conversations about future aspirations and preparation for adulthood must begin from the primary years, and certainly no later than years 7/8, promoting ambitious goals.
Formal planning: Transition planning must begin no later than Year 9 (or nation equivalent), involving the pupil, parents, and multi-agency professionals.
Specialist careers advice: Access to impartial careers advice tailored to deaf young people’s needs is mandatory, including awareness of assistive technology, workplace rights, and diverse career options.
Transition plans: Individualised plans that detail support arrangements for post-16 pathways (further/higher education, apprenticeships, employment) must be in place.
Sustained destinations: Schools must track destinations at 6 and 12 months to ensure transitions are maintained, in partnership with local authorities (LAs).
Accessibility: Transition activities (visits, interviews, work experience) must be made fully accessible, with appropriate communication support provided.
Good practice
Work experience placements linked to pupils’ interests, with appropriate communication support.
Access to a wide range of diverse deaf role models in diverse careers, facilitated by local/national networking initiatives.
Information for parents about financial support, disability rights, and schemes such as Access to Work and Disabled Students Allowance.
Transition reviews involving future providers to ensure smooth handovers.
Annual cross-agency transition meeting/day where post-16 destinations are discussed between the school, college, and the LA to ensure continuity and shared responsibility.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
Sustained positive destination tracking: Year-on-year improvement in sustained positive destinations (eg aiming for the 95% aspirational goal), with flexibility applied for pupils with complex profiles where progress toward independent living is prioritised.
Transition plans are in place and reviewed for 100% of pupils by the statutory deadline.
Careers interviews and planning sessions include deaf-specific guidance in 100% of cases.
Positive feedback from pupils and parents on preparedness for next steps.
What evidence will be collected
Transition plans and review meeting records.
Records of early aspiration discussions (eg PSHE integration or key working session notes).
Careers advice logs and tailored guidance notes.
Destination data at 6 and 12 months.
Work experience records and evaluations.
Why this matters: Strong leadership is essential for sustaining high-quality provision. Leaders must set a clear vision, embed deaf provision in whole-school priorities, and ensure resources are allocated effectively. Governance and financial oversight should demonstrate value for money, accountability, and continuous improvement.
Minimum expectations
Vision and planning: The school must have a clear, ambitious vision for its RP, reflected in improvement plans and policies.
Leadership involvement: The RP lead (QToD) must be part of the senior leadership team or represented at that level.
Monitoring and accountability: Governors must receive regular reports on the academic, language, and well-being outcomes of deaf pupils, ensuring accountability and informed decision-making.
Financial oversight: Funding for the RP must be transparently managed, targeted at pupil outcomes, and demonstrate value for money. Mechanisms must be implemented to monitor the correct allocation of RP funds (eg rigorous tracking by governors/commissioners, potentially including ring-fencing arrangements) to prevent diversion, especially within multi-academy chains.
Improvement planning: Annual self-evaluation and a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) are produced and monitored termly.
Assurance cycle: External peer reviews must take place at least every three years, led by specialists in deaf education (eg QToD leaders, LA specialists, or external experts).
Good practice
Leadership champions inclusion of deaf pupils across all aspects of school life.
Annual public summary report on RP outcomes shared with stakeholders, focusing on accessible, holistic outcomes (eg dashboard format with BSL/Plain English summary).
Budgeting includes forward planning for technology lifecycles and staff continuing professional development (CPD).
Governors (particularly the named link governor) and Head Teachers undertake specific, mandatory training in deaf education to strengthen scrutiny and understanding of specialist provision.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
RP priorities are clearly embedded in whole-school improvement plans.
≥85% of QIP milestones achieved on schedule.
Governors/commissioners confirm funding decisions are linked to impact evidence and appropriate financial oversight mechanisms are operating effectively.
Peer reviews highlight strengths and areas for improvement, with action plans implemented promptly.
Stakeholder feedback (parents, pupils, staff) shows confidence in leadership and accountability.
What evidence will be collected
School and RP improvement plans.
Leadership and governance meeting minutes (detailing oversight of RP outcomes and financial transparency).
Budget reports linking spend to outcomes and evidence of fund monitoring.
QIP documents and termly monitoring reports.
Peer review reports (led by specialists) and follow-up actions.
Why this matters: Skilled, sufficient, and appropriately deployed staff are the backbone of a successful RP. Quality, continuity, and the right competencies (including language access and audiology routines) determine whether pupils can access learning every day.
Minimum expectations
Staffing levels: At least the baseline specialist teaching ratio (eg ≥one QToD per six deaf pupils) is mandatory. This baseline ratio must be flexibly adjusted to account for pupil complexity (eg younger pupils, those with additional needs, or communication modality) and age. Sufficient CSWs and specialist teaching assistants (TAs) must be matched to assessed need; contingency cover plans are documented.
Qualifications and competencies: All RP teachers must hold (or be in funded training for) the mandatory QToD qualification. Where BSL is required for access, CSWs/TAs must be at BSL Level 3 (or Level 2 working towards Level 3). The time-limited pathway from Level 2 must be rigorously monitored and enforced to ensure consistent quality of access within an agreed timeframe.
Deployment matched to need: Staff allocations must derive from individual access plans and are not diverted to unrelated tasks.
Protected co-planning time: Co-planning time with mainstream staff must be timetabled and protected, with a minimum of 30 minutes per pupil per week being allocated for specialist/mainstream staff collaboration.
Performance management: Appraisals must include input from a specialist in deaf education; objectives link to pupil outcomes and the QIP.
CPD programme: Annual CPD must cover deaf awareness, language/communication access, safeguarding, audiology routines, technology, acoustics, and inclusive pedagogy for mainstream staff. Mainstream staff teaching deaf pupils must receive a minimum national CPD set (content/hours, eg three hours annually) delivered by deaf education specialists.
Induction: All new staff receive induction on deaf awareness, communication modes, device set-up/checks, classroom acoustics, and safeguarding pathways for deaf pupils.
Audiology leadership: A named lead for audiology is identified; daily equipment checks and escalation routes must be in place and evidenced.
Good practice
Succession planning and a ‘grow-your-own’ pathway (eg TA → CSW → qualified teacher (QT) → QToD), with funded qualifications.
BSL tuition pathways for mainstream and RP staff to widen linguistic access capacity.
Professional supervision for CSWs/TAs engaged in intensive in-class access roles, mirroring teacher appraisal structures and led by QToDs, focusing on reflective practice and quality assurance.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
Ratio compliance: Termly verification that specialist staffing meets or exceeds the baseline and aligns with measured pupil complexity and need.
Qualification coverage: 100% of RP teachers QToD-qualified or in training; 100% of BSL-access roles at Level 3 (or Level 2 on a monitored, dated plan to Level 3).
Co-planning: Timetabled minutes per pupil achieved in ≥90% of weeks.
CPD completion: ≥95% completion of required RP and mainstream staff modules; knowledge checks show improvement.
What evidence will be collected
Staffing matrix and timetables; deployment planner aligned to access plans.
Job descriptions; qualification certificates (QToD, BSL Level 3, other access modalities); monitored pathway plans from Level 2 to Level 3.
Appraisal records with specialist input; professional supervision logs for access roles.
CPD programme, attendance, and impact evaluations; induction checklists.
Why this matters: Technology is a lifeline for deaf children and young people, enabling access to spoken language, the curriculum, and wider participation. Daily functioning of equipment, skilled staff, and independent pupil use determines whether deaf learners can access lessons fully.
Minimum expectations
Daily checks: All personal hearing technology (hearing aids, implants) checked at start of day; records logged. Radio aid/remote microphone and soundfield systems checked daily in rooms used by RP pupils. Daily checks must be evidenced through simple, routine logbooks or tick sheets integrated into established staff routines.
Troubleshooting: Staff must be trained to identify faults, undertake first-line fixes, and escalate within 24 hours. Spare devices and batteries must be available.
Access to lessons: Radio aids, soundfield, captioning, and visual access strategies used in line with pupil access plans. Captions are mandatory for all video/media content in class.
Pupil independence: Deaf pupils must be taught to check their own equipment, identify problems, and advocate for support, with expectations tiered by age and developmental stage.
Policy: The RP must have an audiology/technology policy covering roles, responsibilities, maintenance schedules, escalation, and review, updated annually.
Good practice
Rolling programme of technology upgrade and evaluation of emerging devices. Planned replacement cycles of three to five years should be integrated into the budget.
Links with educational audiologists and technicians for complex troubleshooting and training.
Regular acoustics audits (BB93 in England; national equivalents elsewhere) to maintain favourable listening environments.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
≥95% days recorded where all required pupil technology is working and used appropriately.
≤24h median time-to-fix for reported faults (with clear escalation routes documented for external provider dependencies).
100% compliance with captioning/video access checks.
Pupil surveys show age/stage appropriate independence achieved in device checking and problem reporting (eg ≥90% can independently check their devices and know what to do if problems arise).
What evidence will be collected
Daily tech check logs signed by staff/pupils.
Records of faults, fixes, and time-to-fix metrics.
Policy documents (audiology/technology policy; upgrade plan detailing planned replacement cycles).
Pupil and parent feedback on independence and accessibility.
Why this matters: Strong partnerships with parents/carers, deaf children and young people, and external agencies are essential to deliver joined-up support. Accessible communication, co-production, and clear commissioning arrangements ensure that plans are implemented consistently.
Minimum expectations
Parent partnership and communication: Co-produce plans and reviews with parents/carers and the young person (where appropriate) at least termly.
Accessible communication options: Provided for families (eg captions, plain English, email/text/relay). BSL/ISL interpreting must be provided for all key meetings (eg EHCP reviews, parental consultations) and funded via the SLA.
Commit to response-time standards: For example, acknowledge within one working day; substantive reply within five working days.
Young person voice and participation: Ensure deaf children and young people can express views in their preferred communication mode; provide interpreting/communication support as needed.
Evidence of pupil voice: Show how the pupil voice has influenced targets, access arrangements, and wider school life in ≥90% of reviews, using creative, accessible methods.
Multi-agency coordination: Nominate a lead professional/keyworker to coordinate education, health, and care inputs and information-sharing (with consent).
Agreed referral thresholds: Timelines, and feedback loops for support services (SaLT, audiology, mental health); track timeliness and follow-through.
Align with statutory/commissioned plans: For example, EHCP/IDP/CSP/Statement and local equivalents.
Service Level Agreement and assurance: Maintain a commissioner–school SLA specifying scope, funding model, places, admissions, QS, key performance indicators (KPIs), reporting cadence, and review process.
Annual Commissioner meetings: Hold at least one formal annual commissioner meeting to review performance, risks, and improvement actions.
Good practice
Parent/carer advisory group (or regular forums) to shape provision priorities and review accessibility.
Co-designed parent training on key areas such as hearing technology checks, communication strategies, and navigating post-16 support (Access to Work/Disabled Student Allowance), delivered in accessible formats (BSL, captioned video, written guides).
Routine involvement of deaf role models and third-sector partners in enrichment and transition activity.
How we will know it’s working (measures)
Parent/carer satisfaction: ≥90% report communication is accessible and timely; ≥90% feel involved in decision-making.
Response-time SLA met in ≥95% of tracked contacts.
Evidence that pupil voice influenced targets/access in ≥90% of reviews; young people report they can express views effectively (survey/focus groups).
Multi-agency timeliness: ≥90% of referrals acknowledged within five working days; first contact within locally agreed timescales; recommendations implemented or responded to within agreed windows.
What evidence will be collected
Communication preference records; interpreting/translation bookings and invoices, especially BSL/ISL provision.
Parent/carer survey results; focus group notes; complaints/compliments log and resolutions.
Pupil-voice artefacts (surveys, signed/video statements, advocacy reports) linked to plan updates.
Multi-agency meeting minutes; referral and outcome logs tracking timeliness.
Current SLA/specification with commissioners; termly KPI reports; annual SLA review minutes and actions.
