Education for the Deaf

Four educational methods are used to teach deaf students to communicate: cued speech, the oral method, signed English, and the bilingual approach. With the varying degrees of disability within the deaf community, there are multiple classifications of deafness and educators have long debated the methods used to teach and communicate with deaf students. Each method has its advocates and opponents and no single method has emerged as the most effective. Advocates of sign language, also known as "deafhood enthusiasts" and detractors of sign language, the "oral methodologists," have been in conflict over deaf education since the late 19th Century. Though many advances have been made, a conclusive decision concerning a definitive educational model for the deaf and the role of sign language in their education has not been definitively determined.

Keywords American Sign Language (ASL); Bilingual Approach; Cochlea; Cochlear Implants; Cued Speech; Cues; Deaf; Deafhood Enthusiasts; Gallaudet University; Hard of Hearing; Native Tongue; Oral Method; Sign Linguists; Signed English

Overview

Only recently have there emerged methods of instructing the deaf that have not only allowed for their collective enrichment, but also have contributed to their assimilation into the hearing society. In past years, deaf children were offered two choices in education. One option was the education of the deaf person strictly among other deaf people. The other choice was the integration of the deaf person among hearing students. Though both choices had positive and negative aspects, the deaf, their families, and concerned pedagogues were not satisfied with the limited nature of these choices.

Traditionally in the 19th century, deaf children were educated primarily in sign language. Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone and the husband of a deaf woman helped champion the oral method. Other backers of this approach argued that sign language was "a form of savagery that kept its users isolated from the rest of humanity." (Bollag, 2006, p. 34). Proponents of this approach battled so furiously for the advocacy of oral speech in deaf education, that oral methodology was declared to be the decisive methodology in deaf education. Despite the position of the oral school of deaf education advocates, who wanted to eliminate the use of sign language, many deaf people took pride in their signing. Though untraditional, many deaf people and their advocates pushed to make sign language an established language. William J. Stokoe, a published professor who taught at Gallaudet University, the United States' premier school for the deaf and hard of hearing, advocated for the absolute admission of sign language into the category of foreign language. Attaching his platform to the already growing civil rights movement of the 1960's, he lobbied vehemently for both hearing and deaf society to recognize sign language as a bona fide language.

Stokoe's push for sign language was a multi-faceted endeavor. He not only insisted that sign language united and defined a culture of people, but also maintained that it was imperative for successful communication by the deaf. He expressed this point by illustrating that sign language was not a derivation of English, but a language all its own. In 1965, he stated, "Indeed scholars, and deaf people fluent in both languages, say American Sign Language (ASL) is as rich a medium as English for conveying even complex, intellectual ideas" (in Bollag, 2006, p. 34). Furthermore, Stokoe insisted that due to its erratic and inconsistent nature, the exact emulation of English syntax through sign language would be impossible. Sign language, unless it is Signed English, discussed below, does not share the same syntax and grammatical rules as English.

There exist four primary methods of educating the deaf. Though these methods are by no means certain or foolproof, they are the most accepted methods in modern-day deaf education. Different methods appeal to different people, but none of the methods are tailor-made. Bollag (2006) states, "For more than two centuries, educators of the deaf - and the college departments that train them - have debated the best way to teach deaf children. At one end of the spectrum are those who favor the 'oral' method, training teachers to concentrate on developing speech and hearing skills. At the other end are those who advocate a 'bilingual' approach, teaching primarily in American Sign Language (ASL) and promoting English as a second language" (Bollag, 2006, p. 34). In addition, a debate over sign language has recently emerged as well. Many deaf people and advocates resent the suggestion that sign language be abandoned in order to promote the assimilation of the deaf community. As a result, there exist both advocates and opponents of sign language.

Applications

With regard to the four methods of instruction, the use of sign language is a predominant factor in determining which instruction method is implemented.

Cued Speech

The first method of deaf education is called cued speech - a hybrid of sign and spoken language. Instruction through cued speech requires the teacher to "cue" or gesture to represent the sounds that they make as they speak. For example, if an instructor were to use a word with a 'long O' sound, they would cue the deaf person using an ASL sign for the corresponding sound. By doing so, the deaf person also reads lips, allowing him or her to communicate with the hearing community. Because cued speech relies heavily on gesture, many anti-sign language lobbyists do not approve of its use in the educational institution. However, cued speech allows the deaf person to participate in the English language. As mentioned previously, a main concern in the deaf community is alienation from the hearing community when using sign language exclusively.

The Oral Method

The second method of instruction is the oral method, which concentrates on the hearing and speaking skills of the deaf person, and as a result, sign language is rarely implemented. Though hearing and speaking may appear contradictory to the capabilities of a deaf person, advocates of the oral method firmly believe that the key to deaf integration lies within the ability to master the English language. Gabriel Martin, the chair of deaf education at Lamar University explains that sign language is the "native tongue" of all deaf people. However, advocates of the oral method hold contrary opinions. "The issue is highly controversial. Opponents say that concentrating on signing can undermine young children's acquisition of English, and largely relegates them to being able to communicate only with other deaf people" (Bollag, 2006 p. A20).

Signed English

The third method of teaching is called Signed English. Signed English - often referred to as "total communication" - differs from ASL because it is a direct translation of English through sign language. Unlike ASL, which has both syntactical and grammatical rules of its own, Signed English directly emulates every rule of the English language, and as a result many advocates of ASL criticize Signed English believing that it robs the deaf of maintaining their own language. In addition, some of these same advocates feel that though the assimilation of the deaf is important, the stabilization of deaf identity in society is equally important. "ASL exposes children to the world's knowledge…and it incorporates self-esteem and aspects of deaf culture" (Bollag, 2006, p. A19).

The Bilingual Approach

The fourth method applied in deaf education is regarded as the bilingual approach. What separates the bilingual approach from the other derivations of ASL is that the deaf student is urged to master both ASL and oral English simultaneously. Though this may seem like a satisfactory compromise, the critics of the bilingual approach maintain that not all deaf students are at a learning level that would allow them to learn two 'languages' at one time. Since no tailor-made educational method exists, some students may be susceptible to falling behind during a lesson. However, advocates of the bilingual approach emphasize that mastery of the English language empowers the deaf to fully appreciate literature. Daniel Koo, a neurolinguist at Gallaudet University, says, "Mastering English gives them access to the richness of the English world, like Shakespeare and idioms" (in Bollag, 2006, p. A21).

Cochlear Implants

An additional and controversial educational aid has emerged with the implementation of cochlear implants. The board of education at Gallaudet University defines cochlear implants as: "Devices first approved in 1984, which bring sounds from an external hearing aid directly to the auditory nerve. The size of a needle, the devices are surgically inserted under the skin at the base of the skull, just behind the ear, where they take over the function of a damaged inner ear - the most common cause of deafness" (Bollag, 2006, p. 34). A deaf student would be able to wear the implant in a classroom setting, therefore allowing him or her to participate in a hearing educational setting. However, the cochlear implant continues to cause controversy among many deaf and non-deaf advocates. Their collective concern lies in the possibility that such technological advances may cause deaf people to rely on technology rather than their own abilities. In addition, with cochlear implants, social and educational interaction would no longer be limited to Sign Language. Deaf purists also believe that use of cochlear implants suggest that deaf people require the assistance of technology.

Regardless of the method taught, some critics say that there has been little progress in advancing the academic abilities of deaf students. According to Bollag, "the latest nationwide survey shows the average deaf 18-year-old reads below the fourth grade level. Despite decades of efforts, the scores have remained largely unchanged" (Bollag, 2006, p. A20).

Viewpoints

This section highlights two major advances within the deaf community, as well as some discussion of the continuing controversy in deaf education. The inception of a deaf voice in society afforded the deaf community a forum to discuss its educational and societal advancement. However, as society advances in technology, these advances not only become more vast, but also more extreme. Many of the advances made in the deaf community prove to be contradictory to the philosophy of proponents that ASL should be the standard voice of the deaf community; an opinion shared by many, yet opposed by proponents of the oral method.

• The Conference of Milan (1880)

• Cochlear Implants

• Controversies

The Conference of Milan (1880)

When the International Congress of the Educators of the Deaf met in Milan in 1880, its objective was to determine a standard method of deaf education. The participants in the conference represented the two rival schools of thought, the Oral Methodists and the Sign Linguists, and both groups maintained that their preferred method was beneficial for the advancement of the deaf community.

The Oral Methodists believed that a strict reliance on sign language risked inhibiting the deaf person's ability to communicate with anyone but the deaf community, resulting in societal alienation. In addition, "a deaf identity," about which the Sign Linguists were so adamant, came at the expense of the assimilation of the deaf population. However, the Sign Linguists had no desire to grovel for acceptance by a hearing society: "Deafhood is a 'term to counter the central colonizing term of 'deafness,' and, further, 'a process to decolonize our mind, body and spirit.' It was imperative deaf people choose Deafhood 'collectivism' over deaf 'individualism,' the Sign Linguists cautioned." (Macomber, 2006, p. 71). Yet, the conference's final vote was for the implementation of the oral method. The decision, if only for the time being, implemented Oral Methodology as the accepted method of educating the deaf. As a result, both the use and necessity for Sign Language in the classroom would be held in question; Oral Methodology would be the deaf educational standard as society forged into the 20th century.

Cochlear Implants

As mentioned previously, cochlear implants have presented one of the most controversial platforms in the debate over deaf education. As with any implant, the notion of one being "incomplete" or "in need" comes into focus. Most advocates of ASL believe that the use of cochlear implants is both disrespectful and shameful. The Gallaudet Press quotes one deafhood enthusiast, an advocate of deaf pride and identity, as stating, "Attempts to 'cure' deafness through cochlear implants or encourage lip-reading to the perceived detriment of sign language could be seen through this lens as tantamount to 'genocide,' a term not shied away from" (Macomber, 2006, p. 71). Similar deaf advocate positions express that cochlear implants rob the deaf community of self-pride and self-reliance; deafhood enthusiasts believe that the notion that the deaf need to be 'fixed' is especially harmful.

Other concerns about cochlear implants stem from the technology itself, and many educators of the deaf have employed the use of these implants in the classroom. However, some deaf people who wear the implants cannot achieve a comfortable frequency. The highly-sensitive needle often amplifies outside noise, failing to isolate speech frequencies. In addition, while many people make the comparison of cochlear implants to reading glasses, the implants are much more unstable than reading glasses, and far more complicated to wear because they are placed internally. However, as with reading glasses, when the wearer removes the apparatus, his or her disability still exists. As a result, many educators feel that the imperfect nature of the cochlear implant technology amplifies an already present quandary. Benjamin Bahan, a deaf professor at Gallaudet, states: "Let those kids be bilingual (proficient in English and Sign Language)," he said in an e-mail message, "After all with their implants off they are DEAF." (quoted in Bollag, 2006, p. 34).

Controversies

Though deaf education has seldom existed without persistent debate, Gallaudet University houses most of the debate regarding both the proper treatment of and proper educational methods for the deaf community. The ambience of the academy contrasts to the fervent discourse concerning deaf education methods. This being said, dissention occurs both inside and outside of the deaf community, creating fractures and preventing resolution, oftentimes, in the form of strikes, lawsuits, and boycotts. Yet, despite the years of debate, with both sides firmly positioned, there may never be a resolution or declaration of a "winning" method.

A recent example of how the controversy has manifested itself within the deaf community occurred at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the educational home of deaf pedagogy in the United States. In October of 2006, the board of Gallaudet announced its nomination of candidate Jane Fernandes to assume the role of university president. Though many thought the students would embrace the notion of a deaf president, a mass boycott ensued upon the board's announcement of Fernandes' nomination. A primary platform of Fernandes' ideology was the emphasis of oral methodology. Fernandes had revealed that she not only used speech in everyday conversation, but she also advocated lip-reading rather than sign language. Because Fernandes was not born deaf - but became deaf in her 20s - she had never learned sign language and has no intention of doing so. Though a plaque on Gallaudet's gate reads, "There are many ways to be deaf," the students seem adamant about retaining sign language as the primary identification of the deaf community. The student body believed

that Fernandez wished to "fix deafness rather than embrace it" (Childress, 2006, p. 44). As a result, Gallaudet withdrew Fernandez as a candidate.

Accommodation of deaf students has also become an issue. At Utah State University, three deaf students sued the institution on May 11, 2004 claiming insufficient accommodation for members of the student body who are deaf. The lawsuit alleges the school failed to provide interpreters for the students during finals and that they were not aware of registration, and therefore were unable to enroll for classes for the following semester. The statute concerning interpreters for the handicapped states that the school is required to accommodate those students in need and ensure that the individual is provided full access. In addition, the statute states that the school cannot discriminate based on the disability of any student (H. Fischer, 2006). The Utah State University lawsuit is currently awaiting class-action status.

Terms & Concepts

American Sign Language (ASL): A visual-gestural system of communication, employing hand gestures, used among deaf people.

Bilingual Approach: A method of deaf education that requires the student to learn English and Sign Language simultaneously. In addition, lessons are taught in both English and ASL.

Cochlea: A spiral-shaped cavity forming a division of the internal ear in humans and in most other mammals.

Cochlear Implants: Devices first approved in 1984, which bring sounds from an external hearing aid directly to the auditory nerve. The size of a needle, the devices are surgically inserted under the skin at the base of the skull, just behind the ear, where they take over the function of a damaged inner ear - the most common cause of deafness.

Cued Speech: An instruction method that requires the instructor to "cue" or gesture to represent the sounds that they make as they speak.

Cues: Something, said or done that serves as a signal.

Deafhood Enthusiasts: Supporters of deaf identity and self-reliance, identified by their firm belief that deafness should be embraced and not "fixed."

Gallaudet University: The United States' premier school for the deaf and hard of hearing.

Hard of Hearing: Having reduced or deficient hearing ability.

Native Tongue: The language that is indigenous to a certain group of people; an identifiable language.

Oral Method: An educational method that concentrates on the hearing and speaking skills of a deaf person, and as a result, sign language is rarely implemented.

Sign Linguists: Advocates of sign language.

Signed English: A direct translation or expression of English through sign language.

Bibliography

Armstrong, D. (2002). The study of signed languages: Essays in honor of William C. Stokoe. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Bollag, B. (2006, May 5). The debate over deaf education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 , A18-A21. Retrieved December 29, 2006 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21090263&site=ehost-live

Bollag, B. (2006, October 20). Protesters shut Gallaudet campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 , 34. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22809769&site=ehost-live

Cannon, J. E., & Kirby, S. (2013). Grammar structures and deaf and hard of hearing students: A review of past performance and a report of new findings. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 292-310. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90069617&site=ehost-live

Childress, S. (2006, October 30). Signs of trouble. Newsweek, 148 , 44. Retrieved December 30, 2006 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22832650&site=ehost-live

Edwards, R. (2006). Teaching deaf history. Radical History Review, 84, 183-190. Retrieved January 4, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Humanities International Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=19211115&site=ehost-live

Fischer, H. (2006, November 28). State attorney general sues PCC. The Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from Capitol Media Services http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/157976.php

Fischer, K. (2006). Deaf students sue Utah State U. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 , 34. Retrieved January 4, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21371662&site=ehost-live

Macomber, S. (2006). Gallaudet's past signs. American Spectator, 39, 70-72. Retrieved December 30, 2006 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23243264&site=ehost-live

Maher, J. (1996). Seeing language in sign: The work of William C. Stokoe. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Schools and programs in the United States. (2013). American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 122-202. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89080857&site=ehost-live

Talking in class (2005, November 16). Education Weekly, 25 , 5. Retrieved January 4, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19136943&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Cawthon, S. (2004). Schools for the deaf and the No Child Left Behind Act. The American Annals of the Deaf, 149 , 314-323. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from Gallaudet University Press http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/american_annals_of_the_deaf/v149/149.4cawthon.html

Chute, P. & Nevins, M. (2006). School professionals working with children with cochlear implants. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

Cloud, J. & August, M. (2006, October 30). When silence isn't golden. Time, 168 , 64. Retrieved January 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22819191&site=ehost-live

Marschark, M. (2001). Educating deaf students. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.