The Gallaudet protests of 2006 had a profound impact on deaf education in general. While many people knew about the presence of the huge elephant in the corner, we chose not to discuss it or acknowledge it for the long term.
The elephant I am talking about is a three-headed Cerberus: academic standards, academic culture, and academic rigor in deaf education. Deaf education administrators need to do something, and fast.
Gallaudet struggles with the students it gets because grade school deaf education is sorely in need of reform. The University needs to make what seems like a difficult choice, but a choice I view as an easy one: should Gallaudet become a preparatory University with remedial courses, re-establish a preparatory program similar to the one previously established, or become a full-fledged University serving students with the academic qualifications truly befitting a typical American university?
The next several months will tell.
I must note that while it is not the University’s fault a large percentage of undergraduate students have a low reading level, once the University accepts these students as undergraduates, faculty unfairly have the burden put on them to educate these students, when it is ultimately the student’s own responsibility to further their education.
Many residential schools and deaf/hard-of-hearing programs have a tendency to impose lower academic standards on deaf students. I was subject to that myself at my old mainstream high school in New York. I remember two of my English teachers shushing me and telling me not to worry about something I didn’t understand while they focused on my hearing classmates. Back then I didn’t understand it and it wasn’t until I entered college (at Gallaudet) that was able to contextualize my own marginalization. As an educator, I promised myself I would never do that to my own students.
The critical window of learning language ends approximately around thirteen years of age, which is probably the age before which a child must have full access and comprehension of language. Family and school environments are the two arenas where these goals must be met.
As an educator at a residential school for the deaf, I have encountered students with varying reading levels and cognitive abilities. I currently teach students who read at or above grade level and I have previously taught students who read at the second or third grade level. Many of these students express their frustration, perceiving that their reading levels aren’t up to par. When they subsequently describe their backgrounds, it’s clear where the family and school responsibility enters in the picture.
Since more than 83% (according to demographics published by the Gallaudet Research Institute) of deaf and hard of hearing children are born to hearing parents, many of these parents are clueless on what to do with their “silent” child and often don’t learn how to communicate with their child. When that happens, the burden on the school increases. When a child does not have communication or even language access at home, what they learn is not reinforced. This further diminishes a child’s chances of ever being on grade level once they graduate from grade school and enter an institute of higher education.
Deaf and hard of hearing programs look to Gallaudet as a model and a measure of a deaf student’s academic abilities. The admissions criteria the University accepts is usually the indicator of the “lowest” possible expectations of a deaf student, and that is just plain wrong.
There are three non-profit organizations in the United States that could, and should be taking a stronger lead in working to improve the academic standards, academic rigor, and academic culture at residential and day programs for the deaf and hard of hearing. One is the National Association for the Deaf.
The other two are Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) and the Council of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID). CEASD just recently wrapped up a weekend-long series of meetings and dialogues and CAID will host a planned conference in June. All three organizations need to work together in establishing higher standards and benchmarks for deaf and hard of hearing students at every level of the primary and secondary education spectrums.
During a Town Hall meeting last Monday, Dr. Davila announced the University’s mandate to address the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) non-compliances by the deadline of November 2008. It was an official invitation for the deaf education community to openly discuss the elephant.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
50 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Chris:
I’m glad you wrote this article. I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I’m disappointed that we’re in this position in the first place. I personally want to move beyond blaming anyone for it. But I do see one more part in the problem, and that part is us. Who makes up the NAD? We do. Who makes up CEASD and CAID? We do. Or at least we should. But many of us don’t, and not to be a hypocrite about it… neither do I.
I guess I’m tired. In fact I *know* I’m tired. You know, the one thing I can’t figure out is this: The Milan Conference happens, right? And the WHOLE FRIGGIN’ WORLD changes so far as Deaf Ed is concerned. One conference, and bam, Oralism rules with almost an iron fist. Milan was a damned nuclear bomb of effectiveness.
How many pro-signing Deaf Ed conferences have we had since then? Hundreds. How long have we known about Bi-Bi? Twenty years. How long have we known about ISD’s comparative success with the method? A while now.
And yet STILL change C R A W L S forward. It’s like pushing a giant boulder uphill. And most of the time it seems that most of the resistance doesn’t even come from hearing people–it comes from *other deaf people!* That’s another thing I never understand… is anyone demanding statistical evidence left, right, up, and down for oral methods, cued speech methods, the success rates of cochlear implants (and their impact on literacy), the success rates of mainstream programs, etc? Somehow I never seem to see as much furor over those things as I do over Bi-Bi methods. It gets to the point where I sometimes don’t really even believe anymore that people want to understand it better. They just want to question it to death.
It just doesn’t make any sense. If ISD is really hitting higher literacy rates than everybody else, we should be marching legions of teachers down there to figure out how it’s done. And if the state governments won’t give us what we need to copy them, we should be organizing and taking them on.
But we’re not. And I want to know why that is. Are people waiting for a leader? Are they waiting for everyone else to go first? What is it that keeps everyone WAITING like this?
Sorry if I sound frustrated. Just had a tough meeting today on almost exactly this same topic.
Im curious, where is the statistics in regards to ISD having such great success with the bi-bi method?
Start here.
http://www.deaf-kids.com/IND/A...../frame.htm
Thanks much for the information!
Oralism rules! =) (dry joke)
You gotta be kidding me, you are actually comparing the Milan Conference to the survivability of an ideology?
The Conferences for a community as small as Deaf and hard of hearing aren’t quite as important as discussing the rules and regulations or disposal of something that impacts the ENTIRE world……
I’m sorry, but the numbers of deaf or hard of hearing people in the world compared to the general population, which is nearly 4 billion, is far too small to make an impact and force 4 billion people to recognize and SHOUT WITH HONOR AND GLORY OF ASL AND DEAF RELATED TRADITIONS! SPEAK BROTHER! PRAISE THE LORD! (ahem)
All sarcasm aside, I think the deaf and hard of hearing should be grateful for what we have right now, ALSO be grateful that we’re still getting an inch for every yard that’s appropriated and it would probably be best for the community as a whole to compromise with the rest of the world. Oral-ism (or Audism as you may want to call it) will always be the winning card. Hey, I have an hearing impairment, it sucks, but I’m not going to RISE up and declare it a whole new race (ideology) and expect people to conform. The only thing I can do is make the best out of it and work hard and not let ANYONE try to trick me into believing otherwise.
As for education, there is quite a bit to improve but it ain’t gonna happen YESTERDAY. Progress is impending…….
hmmm just popped in my head:
We, as a world, can’t even feed or stabilize civil unrest in the Congo’s of Africa. Yet, according to the deaf community we aren’t getting enough.
OHHHH that’s right…. the world owes you. ’nuff said.
PB, I honestly don’t understand your “Oh, that world owes us approach” in this particular discussion. I am not talking about ideology. I am talking about science. If a deaf kid is implanted before he’s two (and that’s been going on for a while now, right?) then I’d simply take that group as a population and compare their literacy rates with other populations (namely non-implanted kids). Now if implants make literacy rates SHOOT AHEAD, whether the kids are in oral programs, residential institutions, whatever, tha’s one thing.
But on a widespread basis I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that even compares to what ISD is talking about. So if in the third grade ISD is a little bit behind everyone else, but by the time they get up to the eigth or tenth grade, they’re equal to or ahead of everybody else, then two questions occur to me: one, are you repeating this consistently or is this a fluke? And two, what kind of rates are everybody else getting? Because if the implanted, non-BiBi groups are still lingering behind (for the most part–there are always exceptions) at a third grade level, then that’s just BAD SCIENCE. It’s not about entitlement. It’s about giving a kid language. If he has that he CAN compromise with the rest of the world a lot more efficiently than he’ll ever be able to if he *doesn’t* have language.
Why settle for an inch of advancement when RIGHT THERE (points at ISD) a method for advancing these kids a mile is sitting there waiting for us to pick up?
So…. Are we talking about language acquisition, literacy rates or how to measure academic success? For what it’s worth, acquiring language does not mean that a student will be successful in academics, nor does it mean that the student will be an avid reader. We need to remember that fluency in spoken/sign language does not automatically transfer over to fluency in print language.
It’s one thing we have to find out, yes. ISD was comparing “Language Arts” achievement, and “language” could anything, ASL or English, but the stats were also statewide, so I’m guessing English. Reading comprehension.
In any case all educators have an obligation to impart language. We don’t give implants to deaf kids so they’ll make the Academic Bowl Team fifteen years later. We do it so we can impart language.
Heuer,
I think it all comes down to most hearing parents wanting their deaf kids to be like them. Sign language is just too newfangled and otherworldly for them.
That’s why ISD’s success doesn’t register a blip on their radar, its smallness and obscurity aside. They see what they want to see. A vast amount of proof is required for them to see things in another light, and in some cases, even it isn’t enough.
I suppose the same’s true for native ASL users crusading against, say, cued speech.
Anyway, if deaf educators want the bi-bi approach to flourish, they have to find their way around those obstacles.
Hmm….I beg your pardon, Chris, but what does ISD stand for?
INDIANA SKEWL FO’ DAH DEAF
Good comment Ben M.
Yep, can’t just wait for the school to make changes, do your changes yourself inside your own classroom (or during tutoring). Keep progress tracking throughout the entire year (including reading inventory, so that if you can demonstrate that the approach is working (if it’s working). Otherwise, it will just sound like plain propagnda to parents who are already confused with the competing messages.
Hi Kristi:
While what you said is true, I think schools can’t establish effective Bi-Bi programs if their teachers are forced to think on a year-to-year basis. Student progress needs to be tracked across several years, and the effort to utilze Bi-Bi methods needs to be consistent from year to year. If one teacher is doing everything he/she can to implement Bi-Bi methods in his or her own classroom, but then next year’s teacher isn’t building on that, that has an impact on the overall effectiveness of the program (if indeed one can even get started due to the lack of concentrated effort). Plus the gains a student makes within a single year and the gains that he makes over several years in an effective program are going to be two very different things. So I think that teachers need to start in their own classrooms, yes, but schools need to get on the ball and start changing too, in order to support those teachers (and ultimately a successful program).
A much needed blog, Chris! Thanks for putting it together.
I took a linguistics class as an elective in college and it was by far, one of the most intriguing classes I had. The takeaway tidbit for me was the fact that nearly all linguists agree that deaf children will face hardship later in life if they have not had their “language acquisition devices” activated prior to the age of 3.
Why limit that to deaf children? Shouldn’t that tidbit apply to all children as a whole? If a child doesn’t have language acquisition of any kind (spoken, signed) by the age of three, they are forever impacted.
Ah-men!
PB:
Where’s the fire? I’m not talking about oralism or audism or other things you mentioned here. I’m more interested in deaf education and how we can advance it. While proponents for oralism support their methods, we still need to see the academic standards in deaf education improve collectively in ALL areas.
If you want to argue the oralism views, then I suggest we look at data. Just how many orally-educated deaf out there are on par with hearing students? Do you have that data?
I’m pretty sure the data is on line with general sign-based education curriculum.
do you have the data that they are not? I know I don’t have the data for your question.
Why is someone like or someone like yourself.. two obviously educated individuals, with differentiating views succeed in life? How we get here? I know you were raised on a CI, you stopped using it later in life. How does that make you any different from the rest of us? You can speak well enough to get along with the rest of the world, yet here you are.
I know one things for sure, you and I both had loving parents, had parents with the means to do something to give us a chance. A lot of these kids don’t have that… conditions, environment, exposure, resources available, the child’s initial experiences… all come down to one package and it can go either way.
sorry meant “someone like yourself” to be someone like you and I….
*sigh* Yes, I know. I feel the pain.
Chris, a very nicely written blog. Thank you.
I don’t really agree with your perception that the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids are performing poorly. I think that they are improving a lot than before. It is only that Gallaudet University is no longer the only place that deaf and hard-of-hearing kids have to go to for further education. There are several hundred programs available in the U.S. that provide postsecondary education to deaf and hard-of-hearing kids. Gallaudet University (as well as NTID) has to compete against them. I think that you need to provide data to support your perception. My perception is largely shaped by the Academic Bowl that I went to twice and the annual report made by NTID on how difficult it is to attract highly qualified students.
I don’t know how you got 83% but that is really low. It should be around 92% according to the article “Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States” that appeared in Winter 2004 issue, Volume 4, Number 2 of Sign Language Studies, pages 138 to 163. It was written by Ross E. Mitchell and Michael A. Karchmer with the acknowledgment to Sue Hotto, Kay Lam, John Woo, Anna Lex, Linda Stamper, Russ Perkins, Robert C. Johnson and unnamed Sign Language Studies reviewers. If hard-of-hearing parents are not included, 96% of deaf and hard-of-hearing kids are born to parents that are not deaf.
From my perspective as a parent, the Deaf culture needs to build a strong culture of education, somewhat like the Chinese culture. Without the culture of education in the Deaf culture, it is difficult for parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing kids to battle against the low expectation that seems to exist everywhere.
That’s my perception, at least for now.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Joseph:
Good points here.
I, too, am a product of the Academic Bowl and in fact also a coach for my team. These students you see at the Academic Bowl only represent a very small (like single digit) percentage of the population of deaf and hard of hearing students in America. There are thousands other students who are not as fortunate as these students are. Why do you think I mentioned the two responsibilities: family and school, as the primary push behind education?
Yes, I am very familiar with the study done by Mitchell and Karchmer. I have a paper copy and I re-read it when I wrote this article. Yes, the number I posted is not as high as it should be, but I base my information on statistics collected. While 83% is not as high as it should be, it is hard data collected by the GRI.
You are also absolutely correct that there are more programs out there that cater to the post-secondary careers of deaf and hard of hearing, BUT, Gallaudet still holds the beacon of light to where many programs hold their standards at. As long as Gallaudet continues to accept students with dismal reading levels, the programs will continue to churn out students with these levels.
I like how you indicate how Deaf culture needs to build a strong culture of education. That is where I am going with this blog. We need to push to improve the academic standards of our future Deaf and hard of hearing students.
Thanks for clarification on 83%. I can see how it can be served as a good estimate of the low boundary of range.
I am still annoyed by your thesis, however. The thesis, correct me if I misunderstand you, is that the academic level of Gallaudet University’s incoming students is a barometer of the state of the education for the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids in the U.S. I dispute this but I don’t have quantitative data to support my assertion. Unless you have data to support your thesis, it all boils down to your perception versus my perception.
My perception is that the academic level of Gallaudet University’s incoming students is mostly or totally independent of the state of the education for the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids in the U.S. I offered my two encounters, as a spectator just to clarify, with the Academic Bowl to support my perception. It is true that the players in the Academic Bowl were selected for their high intellectual skills. But, I maintain that the willing of schools to participate in the Academic Bowl strongly indicates that they expect to keep their academic standards as high as possible in their schools.
The second ground for my perception is the annual report made by NTID. NTID was very frank in how difficult it is to recruit highly qualified students. NTID could have lowered the admission standards to get more students but it could not due to the presence of RIT’s high admission standards. Assuming that the number of deaf and hard-of-hearing high school graduates who are able to attend college stays the same every year, the more postsecondary programs there are for the graduates, the greater opportunity they have in going to these programs instead of NTID or Gallaudet. In other words, very hot competition exists among the postsecondary programs. That has nothing to do with the state of the deaf and hard-of-hearing education.
I played a little with the numbers. Suppose that 3,500 deaf and hard-of-hearing students graduate each year. (http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/2005_National_Summary.pdf said that there were 10,320 students in the age group of 14 to 17 years old. Dividing it by three gives an approximation of 3,500 for each age.) Suppose also that 50% of them goes to colleges for further education. (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t-39/tab1S-01.xls gave numbers on people who attained education at different levels. If I add all numbers for any education beyond the level of high school graduate, the total will be about 48% of the total population of 15 years old and above.) These assumptions give 1,750 students who are going to college. It may be a little too high but I leave it alone for the sake of argument. This is about 35 students per state (1,750 / 50 = 35). Suppose that each state has two postsecondary programs for them. This means 17.5 students go to each postsecondary program. Of course, the distribution of the graduates is not equal over all the postsecondary programs. But, it is easy to see how new postsecondary programs can have great impact on NTID, Gallaudet and any other colleges that enjoy large enrollment of deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
I propose that the academic level of Gallaudet’s incoming students is a barometer of the state of the university’s education. In other words, it is Gallaudet that is in need of serious reform.
This is not to say that the education for the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids does not need to be reformed. I agree that it must improve continually. From my perception, it is progressing very well and I believe that it will continue to progress well in the future. I attribute most of the improvements to the teachers and parents who want the best for their deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
I did not know that you are an educator at a deaf school. May I suggest that you write a blog, perhaps every month, talking about things that parents can do with their deaf and hard-of-hearing kids? I am really tired of DeafRead. It talks about ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL…enough! I want to see more blogs directed at young kids and teenagers encouraging them to strive for the best. Low expectation is toxic to their mind.
There are two more points that I want to comment on.
I am not sure where you get the impression that the programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing kids look to Gallaudet University as a model. Is this really true? Is this a fact? I am trying not to badmouth Gallaudet but the model is really terrible.
I don’t know if you are putting your words in the mouth of Dr. Davila but I have not seen any indication that he invites the deaf education community to talk about the elephant, to use your word. All the messages coming from him gave clear indication that the elephant is an internal problem and it is pretty obvious that he did not want the outsiders to meddle in Gallaudet’s affairs.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Joseph, I’d like to focus on one narrow part of what you’re saying:
“I am really tired of DeafRead. It talks about ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL, ASL…enough! I want to see more blogs directed at young kids and teenagers encouraging them to strive for the best. Low expectation is toxic to their mind.”
Are you saying that ASL equals low expectations? I’m asking because it’s possible to infer that’s what you’re saying and I don’t want to assume before I respond.
If that is what you are thinking, then I disagree. As an educator, I can definitively state that ASL and high expectations can and do happily coexist, and they do in my classroom. I expect my students to be able to express complex concepts in both ASL and English and I give them textbooks as high as they can read. Students reading on grade level read grade-level texts, of course. Why would they get something written for a 2nd-grade group when they can read much higher? ASL should not equal lower expectations.
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my comment. Seeing that you are an educator, I am pretty sure that you will give a very low grade on my comment for the lack of clarity if I were in your class. :-)
I certainly do not believe that ASL is equal to low expectation and did not intend to convey that impression in my comment.
It is fine with me that the vloggers want to use ASL to tell whatever is on their mind. They are exercising the freedom of speech. But, none of the messages that they expressed was directed to young kids and teenagers relating to the importance of education. It seems to me that these vloggges used ASL for the sake of ASL, for the sake of entertainment or even just for the sake of signing. Also, what is absent is the importance of learning English skills.
Some may counter that it is the responsibility of parents and teachers to convey the importance of education. What they miss is the hidden, subtle influence of the low expectation coming from the absence of messages emphasizing on education. When the young kids and teenagers are daily bombarded with the ASL vlogs with no emphasis on education, parents and teachers have to step in and remind them of the importance of education in English skills, in addition to ASL. It takes only a small amount of low expectant to undo what parents and teachers are trying to do.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Hmm. I can see why you’re annoyed with the redundancy of DeafRead discussing ASL, or flaunting their ASL skills to no end. But I still don’t see the correlation between low expectations and that.
People will discuss what they’re interested in, and I think most of us aren’t passionately interested in education, nor sure about how to emphasize the importance of education is to teenagers and still attract viewers’ interest in general.
Joseph…may I point out that there have been a few vloggers who discussed education, like Barb DiGi and I did discuss it on my site (www.kmayes.wordpress.com), as well as a few others.
Good point about these v/blogs. (I learned a new word from you, “oracy”, by the way. :-) Strange to say, I made up the word “videracy” way back on February 8, 2007 when I wrote my comment in response to the vlog at http://mpclegg.blogspot.com/20.....eracy.html on the subject of including vlog in the scope of literacy. My comment did not show up even after few attempts probably because it was not approved by the vlogger. Now that I learned “oracy” from you, I thought that “videoracy” sounds better than “videracy” to describe the skills that kids have in understanding and expressing ASL stories through video. I see that I digress.)
From my perspective, the topics that they covered are really issues about the education, not about the education itself. I want to be clear that I am not against the discussions on the issues surrounding the education for the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids. It is important to know what are the issues but they don’t produce practical benefits for the kids and their parents. For example, the deaf school that my children are attending is not a full-fledged bi-bi school but it uses the bilingual approach in many areas. My children can’t afford to wait for the issues to be solved before they can have the best education.
One example of emphasizing on education is reading. The importance of reading is noticeably absent from DeafRead even though the name includes the word “read”. One teacher at my children’s deaf school said that reading is absolutely not an option for the deaf kids. Every day they do not read, they lag a bit behind. It may not be a big deal when we look at one day. But, it makes a big deal when we look at 10 years that have 3,652 days (or 3,653 days :-). Just imagine how powerful the influence will be on the deaf and hard-of-hearing kids when more vloggers get involved in reading.
Issues about education are fine but education itself is much more important.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Hi Joseph:
Following that vein of thought, you know what two problems I’d like to beat so far as WRITING is concerned in my classrooms? The preposition problem.
I have no difficulties teaching my students what prepositions are or what they’re for. I don’t even have that much of a problem teaching them where they go. But I notice over time that prepositions seem to drop out of English sentences altogether, or else without constant attention on the part of the writer, they start showing up in the wrong place. If you look at that list of classifiers Shane was talking about in his article “Deaf Ninja” you can see how the prepositions are built right into the classifier along with the nouns:
(http://www.jal.cc.il.us/ipp/Classifiers/).
I think that one place Bi-Bi writing programs should start (especially when a kid is very young), is by separating the components of classifiers and showing their equivalents in English parts of speech. There ARE equivalents to an extent, and we should be mapping the path back and forth as early as possible. Because that’s an almost overwhelming job to accomplish in one semester once these same students are in college.
(sorry I meant two problems *with prepositions*–they drop out entirely in sentences, or else they end up in the wrong place)
That is interesting, because a friend of mine and I discussed our concerns about literacy. We noticed that ISD did not start emphasizing on reading and writing until in the middle school years (preschool and elementary school years at ISD are mostly focused on developing “social” language, with some “formal” education like fingerspelling.) We believe that the exposure to “formal” education of literacy should begin earlier, in the early childhood, when their brains are like sponges. From reading the CAEBER books (level one and two, that the ISD’s elementary school’s principal handed over to me), development of social language is the key to laying the strong foundation of language which would lead to learning English and any other languages, AS 2nd language relatively easy.
ISD started sending the teachers to CAEBER for training… THIS YEAR! There have been a lot of practices on implementing Bi Bi philosophy at ISD, but there have been no formal training until now. Now CAEBER has been relocated to Gallaudet U.’s campus from New Mexico, I am hoping we’d see statistics soon ;o).
Yes, I’m curious, too. In fact is there a way we can access records to the bi/bi programs, their success rates? Someone shoud really set up a website. Anyone writing a paper out there about this? It’d be terrific if bi/bi programs had a “presence” on the web as a resource for hearing parents.What do you think?
WSS:
I think there have been attempts to do this. No one officially has a database or records of bi-bi programs or their success rates.
Then again, another argument here is: how many programs are truly bi-bi? Some schools claim to be bi-bi, but they are not.
Gallaudet University has the CAEBER (Center for ASL/English Bilingual Education and Research). Can anyone who works at or has direct connection to Gallaudet check with the center to see if they have data that can be placed on their website?
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
One thing comes to my mind. a long time ago many of the deaf schools/programs had a technical component. Not everyone went the academic route. Many of the students were taught trades - and from what I heard, the tech students had good reputations and were in high demand. Seamstresses, plumbers, electricians, etc. Many of the guys became printers, for example. These were the days before SSI and SSDI, and the students were motivated to get jobs. How does this play into the picture? Did the schools back then play on the strengths of students - those who were interested in the academic side were channelled there, while those with weaker skills went to technical schools? We all know that everyone is not college material, be they deaf or hearing. I have a hearing brother who can’t write worth diddly, but mechanically he walks on water. What impact have laws had on the education of deaf children - since it doesn’t seem to be improving?
Note - I am not in the education field….
This is a very good perspective to note. That is very true that many deaf students were taught a specific trade. With the educational laws from the 1970s to present (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, PL 94-142, Education of the Deaf Act, IDEA, ADA, and now NCLB), these have had a slow downward spiral on the impact of deaf education in the vocational field.
While we see somewhat improvement in the services provided in a mainstreamed environment, we see the negative consquences on deaf education as a whole due to the laws passed over the last thirty years.
I don’t think it’s necessarily due to the laws itself. I think it’s because society has moved more and more away from the vocational fields. We are now pretty much an information based society. The saying, ‘Knowledge is power’ is truer than ever.
So this gives the deaf community a HUGE disadvantage, because far too many of us know SQUAT. And let’s put aside our agendas and look at the hard research out there. It’s clear that oralism or the new bizarre catchphrase, “oracy” is an utter failure. Otherwise the average deaf eighteen year old wouldn’t be reading at 4th grade level.
Also, I think people have to consider that those laws actually exposed the sub-par standards the schools had for their deaf students. Deaf education has sucked for a long time, and yes, we can pinpoint it to the time of the Milan Conference.
I don’t have the answers about what we can do, but I do know putting pressure on our local schools will have an impact. Think globally, act locally - that was said on Barb DiGi’s v/blog site, and that is exactly what we should be doing. It also wouldn’t hurt to put pressure on our legislators, either.
A Deaf Pundit,
“… I think it’s because society has moved more and more away from the vocational fields…”
Please elaborate on “society”. There are plenty of school programs and post educational schools that cater to specific trades.
Society at large. You’re right that there are many programs and post-secondary schools that have a vocational focus, but factories are closing left and right. Michigan is a prime example of this.
It’s pretty much agreed upon that our economy is shifting to an information based economy now.
Chris K. , what kind of courses you currently teach? Just out of curiousity.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
A couple of things that Chris Kaftan said are interesting. He mentioned at one point that Gallaudet’s faculty is expected to educate the students, when “it is ultimately the student’s own responsibility to further their education.” That statement applies everywhere, whether the students are hearing or deaf. What is the level of student ownership of their education at deaf schools like Gallaudet? Is there considerable enthusiasm among the students for investing their own energy into a substantive education? Or is it an evenly mixed bag?
Then Chris also said, “Many residential schools and deaf/hard-of-hearing programs have a tendency to impose lower academic standards on deaf students.” I think the same dynamic may also operate in hearing universities, where my courses have included only one deaf student. Although I don’t have all the information, my hearing colleagues seemed to have been remarkably lax in their academic standards with respect to the student in question. One cannot generalize from only one case, but I wondered whether this phenomenon was widespread. Is there any anecdotal evidence on that matter?
Can anyone please tell me what Milan conference is all about? I didn’t see any reference to it in Chris K.’s blog.
Hello Rose:
Chris K didn’t refer to it. I did. The Milan Conference happened in 1880, I believe. Long story short, a lot of deaf educators went to it, and at the conference, it was announced that oral education was better than manual education. The resultant spread of oralism across the United States very nearly killed off ASL completely.
Clarification, it wasnt so much “announced” as voted in favor of by all of the experts in the field at that time.
The conference established oral education across the globe and as everyone has stated continues to have an impact on deaf education.
Again we have to realize that this conference was made up of experts in the field who deemed at that time 1880 that oral education was the best method and approach and they voted as such. It was a collective effort.
It is 2007 more than 127 years have passed and most all hard evidence and research still supports oral approaches to education for the deaf.
As a community we have failed to counter these arguments that continue to support oral education and thus we are where we are today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Conference
This conference declared that oral education was superior to sign language and passed a resolution banning the use of sign language in school. AG Bell and Edward Miner Gallaudet fought about this issue prior to the conference and the conference was the death knell for sign language in educational institutions for nearly 80 years or so.
Thank you Chris H. for the brief explanation. I believe that each deaf/hoh person has a different potential, hence one method may work for this person but doesn’t mean it will work for others. Hearing educators and parents should understand this point and that everyone is different! Many parents think oralism is good simply because it is EASIER for them, not for the kids. No hassle to learn ASL or any other methods. “Let the school do the work….”
I read two books few years ago. One was about hearing parents of an only child who was deaf; they worked hard to educate the child. And the other was about hearing parents of two deaf children, but only the mother worked hard to help them while the father was practically absent. Both cases was based on teaching deaf children to speak and lipread. The result? The latter book stated the two deaf children succeeded while the first case didn’t. (Remember TWO parents worked together to teach an ONLY deaf child - more time when there is no other siblings. Yet this mother worked hard with TWO deaf children.) This shows that each child has different interests, potential, talents, etc.
If we are able to put our kids needs FIRST and foremost, then they WILL succeed. I remember telling this to a friend: There are “two kinds” of deaf/hoh people. One is visual and the other is auditory. Some deaf people, though profound, LOVE hearing aids while others don’t, even have worn them all their lives. And some hoh who can hear quite well, prefer NOT to have hearing aids. If we can see if one child prefers auditory method, THEN oralism may work for him/her. And for visual, ASL, Bi-Bi, etc.
You are correct. Parents who are strongly involved with their children will see that their children will succeed more often that parents who are uninvolved or disassociated with their children.
Parental involvement provides not only educational benefits but also psychological and emotional benefits. I’ve seen happy, healthy, well adjusted Deaf individuals on both sides of the spectrum and they all had a history of strong parental involvement — anything from working with them one on one, fighting school bureaucracy for better education for their children, and interacting with them on a daily basis.