Theresa Handley
June 25, 2007
In 1984, my family and I began a journey that continues today. My youngest child, Becky, was diagnosed with a severe to profound hearing loss at age two and a half. A hearing loss of this magnitude means that she had virtually no residual hearing. Up until the point of her loss, she was acquiring speech at a normal pace. Once she lost her hearing, she also lost all her speech.
In this research project, I plan to describe to my classmates and professor that there are different methods of teaching deaf children and that it is difficult for deaf children to acquire adequate English language skills.
One method of teaching is the oral approach. In Pennsylvania, only Delaware County and Scranton use this method to teach the deaf. The program consists of teaching lip-reading, speech, and maximizing the use of residual hearing with the use of hearing aids (see Appendix i). This was very much the most popular mode of teaching until the mid-seventies. Deaf children would go to residential schools during the week and go home on weekends if they lived close to school. Deaf students were forbidden to sign at school or in the dorms, although they did manage to sneak it in, and were punished if they were caught. I learned this from a deaf adult who attended the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (PSD) during the sixties when it was an oral school. Unfortunately, he and his wife are like the majority of deaf adults in the United States, they are functionally illiterate.
It is noted in Michael Strong’s and Philip Prinz’s paper “A Study of the Relationship Between American Sign Language and English Literacy” that only 7% of deaf high schoolers have a reading level above seventh grade and that the majority of deaf children graduate with no more than a fourth grade reading level. (Nielsen, Luetke-Stahlman 11; Gallaudet Research Institute 1; Mayer, Akamatsu 394; Charlesworth, Charlesworth, Raban, and Rickards 30)
The oral approach to teaching has very staunch supporters. It is felt by this group of educators/administrators that if you introduce any form of signing into a child’s life they will never learn to speak or listen and, worse yet, that they will become a part of the deaf sub-culture. Sounds gruesome, doesn’t it? Well, being hearing parents of a deaf child, we were terrified that we would further harm Becky, so we enrolled her in the oral program at the Delaware County Intermediate Unit at age three. “Fewer than 10% of deaf children are born to deaf parents.” (Allen, DeLuca, and Napoli 10, 14) Therefore, the majority struggle, as we did, to make the right decisions for their deaf child’s education and future. After a year and a half of no communication at all with Becky, and no progress in her speech or lip-reading abilities, her teachers, the administrators, and my husband and I, had a meeting. When you are faced with a situation about which you know nothing, you tend to rely on the experts to give you the information you need to make decisions. Well, we learned the hard way that there is a huge and, unfortunately, on-going battle about the best way to teach deaf children – oral vs. total communication. At this meeting, we were told that Becky was a deaf aphasic (Partial or total loss of ability to articulate ideas in any form) with cerebral palsy of the mouth and that she would never have any form of communication at all, including sign language, because her brain could not sort the signals it was receiving. To say the least, we were devastated. Of course, we found out later that the only things wrong with Becky were that she was deaf and the oral approach to teaching her did not work for her.
At this point, we started looking around for other programs that could possibly help Becky, believing all the while that there was really nothing that could be done for her. We visited a school in West Chester, part of the Chester County Intermediate Unit, which offered a signed English program. We were impressed with this, as the kids in the class were all signing exact English. However, we were told that they were forbidden to use American Sign Language (ASL) and would be disciplined if they were caught. The teachers/administrators of the program thought that using ASL would undermine the signed English program because ASL was not considered a viable language. Considering we thought that Becky would have no way at all to communicate, we did not think it was a good idea to limit any form. Therefore, we continued looking.
Eventually, we wound up at PSD, which had transitioned from an oral school to one that offered a total communication approach to teaching. This approach included ASL, speech, lip-reading, gestures, and anything that would get a point across. It was here that we had a turning point. An aide took Becky off to play while we looked around. It seemed like a nice place and people seemed competent. It was a totally different environment. Everyone at PSD must sign all the time. When we mentioned that Becky had been diagnosed as a deaf aphasic, the director of the nursery school program went ballistic. Seems this was a term that was thrown around in the oral community when a child did not respond to that method of teaching. That day Becky was introduced to her first sign. It was the sign for corn. (Fisted right and left hands placed at the corresponding sides of the mouth; hands are then turned as if eating an ear of corn.) She was playing with the aide and they had a kitchen with plastic food and dishes. Becky was pretending to eat an ear of corn. The aide showed her the sign for corn. We did not think anything of it until later that day when I getting dinner ready and got out a bag of frozen corn kernels. As soon as Becky saw the bag, she did the sign for corn. To us, it was a miracle. Not only did she sign “corn”, she made the transition from corn on the cob to kernels of corn! This is something that a deaf aphasic would never be able to accomplish.
Now, more than twenty years later, Becky is a college graduate, doing what other college graduates are doing, looking for a job. Here I am revisiting deaf education to see what strides, if any, have been made in the teaching methods of deaf children.
With the advent of Cochlear Implants (CIs) (see appendix ii), those advocating the oral approach to teaching the deaf have a useful tool for those that benefit from this technology. Unfortunately, this is not a cure for deafness or a magic bullet. “There is a failure rate of nearly 20%.” (Allen, DeLuca, and Napoli 10) “Approximately 20% of those implanted have amazing success, while the remaining 60% receive help hearing just the most crude environmental noises (e.g., car motors, dogs barking) to getting the gist of conversations.” (Napoli)
Along with CIs, hearing aids are another useful tool for the oral approach. Both CIs and hearing aids require enormous amounts of speech and hearing therapy in order for the deaf person to learn how to use them and maximize their listening skills and residual hearing. “This is long, slow, and tedious process.” (Coyne) “Another problem that is encountered is that if the devices are lost or malfunction, the person loses their ability to hear until the equipment is found, replaced, or repaired.” (Coyne) Another method used in the oral approach is Auditory Training. In this method, there is intensive one-on-one interaction between the deaf child and the teacher. “The goal is to teach the deaf child to expand their listening skills to pick up side conversations.” (Coyne) This is an important skill to master as this is how hearing people learn much of their language and gain much of their knowledge. Advocates of this method of teaching the deaf, continue to believe that signing is detrimental to the deaf child’s development.
In my research, I have discovered that signing exact English has fallen out of favor as a main method for teaching the deaf. The system was found to have limitations including opposition by the deaf to the imposition of hearing standards on signing and teachers not being committed to presenting complete English in sign. “If the teacher is not wholly committed to this method, they may end up signing only portions of their spoken message, which relates neither to English nor ASL, further confusing the deaf child.” (Gustason 2) Signing exact English is a very tedious endeavor. “Think of the misinformation the deaf child gets if the adult signs incorrectly. Acting upon wrong information could make the child do something reasonable given their interpretation of the information, but that looks stupid to others.” (Allen, DeLuca, and Napoli 16)
One of the most interesting things I discovered in my research is the push by many educators toward bilingual and bicultural models of literacy education for the deaf. This means that deaf children would have a sign language as their first language and English (or whatever language their family speaks) as their second language. “In this way, the earliest needs for communication are met and there is then the avenue to learn written language. There is no evidence that you need to have oral ability in a first language to gain the ability to read and write in a second language.” (Mayer, Akamatsu 2; Starr-Ashton)
François Grojean states in his paper “Living with Two Languages and Two Cultures” that “most deaf people are indeed bilingual.” (9) Bilingualism in the deaf community remains poorly understood as many people view signing as merely gesturing and not a language. It has been a recent event that ASL has been declared “a bona fide natural human language”. (Allen, DeLuca, and Napoli 14) ASL, like all languages, has its own syntax and grammar rules. For instance, articles (a, an, the) are not used or the verb “to be”. Many institutions of higher education, including Neumann College, now offer ASL to its students to meet their foreign language requirement. Strides are being made with ASL finally being considered a language.
Most deaf people also live in two worlds, which makes them bicultural. They identify with the Deaf community, but also have ties to the hearing world since the vast majority come from hearing families. Therefore, “it is important that deaf children be exposed to both cultures so they can interact as best as they can in both.” (Grojean 12)
In my opinion, this is a great step forward in alleviating the stigma of signing and deafness. Since the vast majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents, parents need to understand that their children can live in both worlds and that one is not better than the other. We need to move away from the prejudice that the deaf are dumb simply because they cannot speak. Deaf educators need to allow deaf children the opportunity to explore both the hearing and deaf cultures to which they will be a part. With the advent of major advances in technology and the computer revolution, deaf children today have the same access to information, and the world, as their hearing counterparts.
Speaking of advances in technology, I am also interested in the impact technology has had on the written English skills of deaf children. In this case, some of the technologies I am referring to are pagers and telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTY/TDD) (see appendix iii).
TTYs are no longer the rage they once were. There was a time when a deaf child could not wait for his or her first TTY, same as a hearing child could not wait to get a telephone in his or her room. At the time, it was a great way for the deaf to keep in touch with their friends typing conversations on the TTY. Now technology has produced pagers. Pagers are to the deaf what cell phones are to the hearing. It is interesting to walk around the campus of Gallaudet University (Located in Washington, DC, Gallaudet University is the world leader in liberal education and career development for deaf and hard-of-hearing undergraduate students.) and see all the students walking around, heads down, thumbs flying over the keypad, keeping in touch with their friends and families. However, I was a bit concerned that all the shortcuts that are used in text messaging and instant messaging were somehow going to change their written English skills. I have been told that there is no evidence that “learning a second writing system (such as a second alphabet or a character system) has a negative impact on the use of the first writing system.” (Napoli) Starr-Ashton relates that, “It actually improves their ability to make sense of what they read. Think of how hard you first had to work to make sense of the language people use in Instant Messaging, it was confusing, but then you tied it into things you know, started to learn the patterns, etc. It is another avenue for learning a language. There is nothing that would lead me to believe that the use of pagers would negatively impact grammar and writing skills.”
Also in my e-mail interview with Starr-Ashton, she states, “Technology has rapidly increased literacy rates among deaf students. They have the desire to learn English because their friends all have the technology and they want to communicate. The students have reasons now to learn English. They have a reason to want to expand their vocabulary. They want to chat with friends outside of school. It has exploded their ability to part of the hearing world.”
Therefore, as you can tell from this, technology is vastly improving deaf children’s chances of being able to function in both the hearing and deaf worlds.
Another great stride for the deaf was the passage of a law in 1991 that required all TV manufacturers to have their TVs caption ready capable. With this, the deaf now have access to what is happening in the world as it happens. As Starr-Aston noted in our e-mail interview, “The events of September 11 were captioned live! They didn’t have to ask anyone what was happening.” This is an amazing technology, not only because it is instantaneous, but also because the deaf can form their own opinions of things and not have an interpreter’s spin thrown in. With the captioning always on, they are always reading. This can only help to enhance their reading comprehension skills.
In conclusion, it seems to me that educators are no clearer than they were twenty years ago about the best way to teach the deaf. Unfortunately, it still falls on the parents who, for the most part, have no prior knowledge on which to base decisions regarding the education of their deaf children. “That parents are the ones to make these decisions on behalf of their child is unavoidable and regrettable. It is unavoidable because of the critical age for language acquisition … before the age of five to seven when children cannot make these types of decisions. However, it is regrettable because these decisions are intrinsic to the child’s identity.” (Allen, DeLuca, and Napoli 10) Unfortunately, most hearing parents have no idea what is best or even what is available and not much time to make a decision. A lot still depends on the teaching method available in the local school district or county of residence. From this research, I have found that educating the deaf child is still very much an individual process.
However, when you try to force a method on a child that is not right for him or her, it can cause serious delays in the acquisition of language. Therefore, it seems to me that for the sake of the deaf child, all deaf educators should be open to using whatever method works best for the individual child, and put aside the notion that one method is superior to another. In other words, the best interest of the child should come first. Unfortunately, for the next generation of deaf children, the same old debates continue.













