Multi-Cultural Issues in Deaf Education

Multi-Cultural Issues in Deaf Education

Review of Multicultural Issues in Deaf Education

The United States has long ceased being a "melting pot" and has emerged in the 21st century as more of a "salad bowl" that is characterized by increasing multiculturalism in society and the nation's classrooms. In this changing environment, understanding how deaf students from different cultural backgrounds might experience the educational process has assumed new relevance and importance. Indeed, as Marschark and Spencer emphasize, "A history of the education of deaf persons is by its very nature a study of societal and cultural change" (p. 9). To this end, this paper provides a critical review of the peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to identify relevant multicultural issues involved in the education of deaf children in the United States today. A discussion of the practical implications for a deaf education classroom based on the critical review of the literature and application of the research is provided in the concluding chapter.

Review and Analysis

Background and Overview.

The number of deaf children in need of quality educational services is great, but estimates vary concerning the actual numbers of such students involved. Depending on the criteria used, approximately one out of a thousand to five thousand people will experience a hearing loss from birth or early life so that do not acquire the spoken language of their environment; moreover, a significant percentage of these deaf learners will not acquire spoken language at a level useful as a means of communication (Broesterhuizen, 2005). According to this author, these young learners "run the risk of marginalization in hearing society and of becoming outsiders who can maintain themselves only by forming self-contained communities of Deaf people. Most of them prefer Sign Language for communication" (Broesterhuizen, 2005, p. 304). In reality, though, it is not surprising that deaf students would seek out others like themselves in terms of being deaf first and the same cultural background second. According to Powers (2005), "For students who try to articulate 'their culture' along these lines, 'being ethnic' is a generic term describing cultural activities and styles that are divorced from any particular biological origins" (p. 49). According to Pollard (1996), though, "Any discussion of educational opportunities pertaining to deaf individuals cannot be separated from matters of ASL fluency, the consequences of dysfluency, and the dynamics and limitations of translation. Far too many individuals wrongly assume that a few courses in 'sign' enable one to converse with, or worse, interpret for, a primary user of ASL. Nothing could be further from the truth" (p. 391). These assumptions, though, are longstanding and pervasive and remain firmly in place in many classrooms across the country.

Indeed, the challenges and obstacles associated with the delivery of quality educational services to the deaf community are certainly not new. Indeed, as Marschark and Spencer emphasize, "Throughout history, deaf people have faced a gamut of perceptions and attitudes that have influenced the quality of educational opportunities" (emphasis added) (2003, p. 9). Because the majority of deaf children (estimates suggest 90-95%) are born to hearing parents who in most cases are not competent signers when the child is born, the deaf children may not learn Sign language during their infancy; sign language may therefore not be considered the child's mother tongue according to the criterion of origin (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). In addition, there is the issue of whether the child learns any other language, or whether Sign language, even if it comes only later, is the first natural language that the child learns properly to satisfy some of the basic concepts in relation to deafness (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Accoridng to Daniels (2003), "Usually when a second language is introduced it is a spoken language. Rarely is a signed language such as American Sign Language (ASL) selected as the second language choice. Yet there is a growing body of literature suggesting signed languages present distinctive advantages for young language learners" (p. 53). As Skutnabb-Kangas points out, though:

deaf child can have the same mother tongue according to all the criteria only in the best case: if a deaf child is born to deaf parents who know a Sign language really well and who use it with the child from the very beginning, feel positive about it, and give a child a strong positive identification with the Sign language and the Deaf community; if the child gets both the day care and a large part of her or his education through the medium of Sign language; and if the Sign language is accepted by the rest of the society. Then the Sign language is the child's mother tongue, according to all the criteria. But worldwide this would be a very unusual case. (2000, p. 112)

In the absolutely worst case scenario, Skutnabb-Kangas reports that a deaf person may grow up with no natural language as her mother tongue, and not knowing any language properly, ever. This would be in cases such as:

society where the Deaf are seen as mentally handicapped such as Argentina where deaf people either do not receive any formal education at all or they are subsumed in educational settings designed for oral communities and where the deaf person therefore does not have a chance to become proficient in any written language;

Where deaf students do not meet any competent signers; and,

Where deaf students do not know that Sign language is a fully developed minority language and the Deaf community a linguistically and culturally competent, self-contained minority community.

This author emphasizes that, "This is sadly still the case with many deaf people, especially but not exclusively in underdeveloped countries" (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, p. 112).

These challenges and obstacles, though, have become even more pronounced in recent years as the same forces that are fueling globalization are creating an increasingly multicultural society in the United States. According to Flood, Heath and Lapp (2005), "In recent years deaf Americans, especially those who are teachers of the deaf, have spearheaded a reevaluation (at both the grass roots and professional levels) of the education that is offered to deaf children" (p. 313). The problem that continues to be identified by both deaf people and their teachers is the difficulty of communication (and therefore of teaching and learning) in classrooms for deaf students that are organized according to oral or total communication pedagogies (Flood et al., 2005).

In recent years, as deaf adults began participating in and directing the policymaking deliberations concerning the education of deaf children, these longstanding concepts and erroneous assumptions concerning the needs of deaf students were transformed somewhat, but the process has taken longer and required more effort than anyone might have expected. For instance, in recent years, "Descriptions of deaf children as disabled persons needing auditory and speech rehabilitation began to fade. In their place, descriptions of deaf people as an ethnolinguistic group arose, where the young need 'bilingual education' using ASL as the medium of instruction, not 'special education' using invented or artificial languages or mechanistic methods. This cultural view of deaf people, existing alongside recent realizations of the multicultural nature of contemporary American life, has given rise to a new deaf education pedagogy, termed bilingual-bicultural (or bi-bi) education" (Flood et al., 2005, p. 313). The introduction of these educational techniques has also introduced yet another misconception concerning the education of deaf children. The implications of these trends on education in an increasingly multicultural deaf classroom are discussed further below.

Deaf Education in a Multicultural Classroom.

Today, the majority of deaf children in the United States are educated in regular public schools in education programs where their time is distributed among special classes for deaf students and classes and activities where they are "mainstreamed" or integrated with hearing children (Flood et al., 2005). In some other cases, signing interpreters are provided in integrated settings and in special classes, a pedagogy known as "total communication" (TC) is used (Flood et al., 2005). According to Gunter and Scheetz (2004), though, "As public school systems work to comply with federal mandates to serve students with disabilities in general education classrooms, the need for educational interpreters increases. The number of educational interpreters is inadequate. This problem is compounded by the fact that most individuals working as educational interpreters have no interpreting credentials and have not completed an interpreter training program" (p. 109). In the United States, deaf students are considered special needs students who are eligible for special services because their disability or impairment affects their educational performance; included in this broad category are children with learning disability, speech or language disorders, mental retardation (intellectual disability), emotional disturbance, autism, hearing impairment, vision impairment, deaf-blindness, orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain injury, chronic health conditions, and severe and multiple disabilities (Westwood, 2003).

The typical American classroom in which deaf students receive their education has become an increasingly heterogeneous environment, and teachers are already confronted with some new and challenging issues related to providing quality educational services for this diverse set of students, particularly those with hearing impairments and deafness (Gillispie & Hansen, 1998). According to Antia and Mccain, mainstreaming deaf students in regular public-school classrooms is not the only option available. "Co-enrolled classrooms," they advise, "represent a promising additional possibility for increasing student social access to peers, as well as increasing achievement. A co-enrolled classroom typically consists of an approximately 2:1 ratio of hearing and Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students. A team of two teachers, a general education teacher and a teacher of DHH students, collaborate to provide instruction. In many CE classrooms, the teachers and students frequently use both spoken English and sign language" (p. 20).

According to Hicks (1999), these trends have also provided new opportunities for understanding how young people interrelate and react, features that hold special significance for understanding deaf education in a multicultural classroom. "As such," she advises, these trends "open up new ways of thinking about how cultural groups may function in relation to one another in a multicultural classroom" (Hicks, 1999, p. 19). This author also emphasizes that today's multicultural classroom has compelled teachers are begin looking at their lessons from the perspectives of "their black students, their Hispanic students, their white students, their poor students, their middle-class and upper-middle class students, their traditionally successful students, and their unsuccessful students" (p. 33). Therefore, it is clear that teachers also need to look at their lessons from the perspective of the deaf students, if they are so tasked.

In spite of legislative attempts to level the playing field for disabled students in recent years, significant disparities remain firmly in place for the deaf. For example, in her study, "Improving Practices for Students with Hearing Impairments," Easterbrooks (1999) points out that, "Most students who are deaf or hard of hearing are educated in their local schools, and many are in areas of this country where there are small numbers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Schools with few students may not have a variety of employees with sufficiently broad bases of specialization to advise the system" (p. 537).

In addition, a paucity of timely information concerning appropriate pedagogy for these children may result in schools making judgments about the unique needs of deaf students based on conventional wisdom rather than fact (e.g., they read well enough "for a deaf child"), which may result in failure to provide the basic requirements of the law, such as teachers, interpreters, or adequate remedial services (Easterbrooks, 1999). In this regard, Flood and his associates emphasize that, "The twin objectives of public school hearing impaired programs are to allow for instruction with normally hearing age-mates as much as possible and to facilitate the acquisition of English among the deaf children" (p. 314). Nevertheless, in spite of the availability of such programs in many parts of the country, as well as the highly intensive and technical methods for educating deaf children which have been developed over the years, deaf students in the United States continue to fail to achieve competence in English and assimilation with hearing people that their education is expected to provide (Flood et al., 2005).

Furthermore, when minority students are involved, these constraints to the delivery of quality educational services become even more difficult. In this regard, Easterbrooks notes that, "Students who are deaf and hard of hearing form a widely heterogeneous group" (p. 537). Notwithstanding these distinct cultural differences, though, deaf children are also members of a separate learning culture as well. For instance, according to Qualls-Mitchell (2002), "Deaf people belong to a distinct culture, and American Sign Language is the first language employed by most Deaf individuals in the United States. In order to appreciate a culture other than your own, it is necessary to understand the objective (tangible) and subjective (nontangible) characteristics of that culture. It is important to be aware of the socialization patterns as well" (p. 77).

This author emphasizes that an understanding of deafness is essential for educators working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students, but recognizing and appreciating the culture of others also allows communication to be less restrictive in nature as well (Qualls-Mitchell, 2002). In this regard, she advises, "People tend to let their guard down when a genuine interest in who they are or how they really feel is shown -- familiarity breeds solace. When children feel safe, they respond openly, honestly, and with pure intentions. Students hold their teachers in high regard" (emphasis added) (Qualls-Mitchell, 2002, p. 77). Likewise, as Broesterhuizen points out, deaf students do not want to define themselves in terms of lacking something their hearing counterparts possess, but rather in terms of how the positive aspects of their language and culture affect them on a personal level: "For them, terms such as hearing impaired or hearing challenged are typical of the disempowering and oppressive language use of hearing society. They define themselves as Deaf, just in the same way as others define themselves as belonging to the Italian, Irish, or Arab community" (2005, p. 304).

This would suggest that even in a highly multicultural setting, deaf students would likely consider themselves part of the nonhearing culture even before they thought of themselves as an American, Mexican, or otherwise. In this regard, Lane advises, "We seek mutual respect for each other's culture and language, and freedom from previous roles as oppressor and oppressed. We cultivate increased sensitivity, respect, and trust, with the hope of becoming true allies. Our goals are empowerment as individuals and equal partners, and recognition of deaf people as members of a cultural minority group" (emphasis added) (1994, p. 127). What does all the foregoing mean, though, for teachers seeking to improve the quality of educational services being provided deaf children?

According to Lane (1994), some observers believe that schools that have a multicultural philosophy in place for their deaf students are a step ahead of the pack; however, this approach ignores a fundamental reality: "By leaping into multiculturalism, they have ignored the dominant, oppressive dynamic in the system -- "that between deaf and hearing people. BiBi must occur first, or the multicultural emphasis will only enforce the prejudice that deaf people have no unique culture of their own" (emphasis added) (p. 123). Just as communism was viewed as a drastic but essential stepping stone to achieve true socialism, the use of BiBi by deaf students is also considered a transitional phase rather than the end-all for multicultural deaf classrooms. For instance, as Lane points out, "BiBi is not an end product. It is a transitional phase on the road to true multiculturalism. Just as you cannot start a BiBi philosophy without deaf people, you cannot start a multicultural philosophy without recognizing and accepting deaf culture -- "which means dealing with the last 150 years of attempted cultural genocide" (1994, p. 123).

In fact, Lane resorts to such violent metaphors over and over his analysis of how deaf children have received the short end of the educational stick over the years: "People have strong reactions to being identified as either oppressed or as oppressor. They do not like it, and usually deny it vigorously. But this relationship of oppression is precisely what perpetuates the current ineffectual and repressive system of deaf education. Traditionally we have ignored it, made fun of it, and acted as if it did not exist. BiBi identifies it as the enemy that it really is" (p. 126). It is safe to suggest that no one likes to be oppressed, but the problem in this case relates more to the fundamental inability of conventional approaches to provide quality educational services in the deaf classroom rather than any insidious plot on the part of evil-minded educators to fail to do so. No, the problem appears to be one of communication, and this is where many authorities suggest educators concentrate their efforts, and these issues are discussed further below.

Steps to Improve Education in the Deaf Classroom.

In spite of the co-enrollment alternative described by Antia and Mccain (2005) above, many deaf students will continue to find themselves mainstreamed into regular classroom settings. In these environments, deaf students' needs may be unique, but so too are their hearing counterparts; therefore, deaf students in the public schools do not necessarily represent any type of additional challenge for the educational system in this regard, rather it is just a different type of challenge. The introduction of high stakes testing regimens in virtually all of the United States over the past two decades or so has had an adverse impact on disabled students across the country in general and it would be reasonable to assume that deaf students are also experiencing some new challenges as they attempt to successfully navigate both the rigors of living in hearing world while attempting to achieve academic success. This assumption is borne out by scientific studies as well.

According to Bat-Chava, Deignan, Meza, Rosen, Sausa, and Shockett (1999), "Deaf and hard of hearing students have, on average, lower academic achievement than heating students. The standardized achievement scores of deaf and hard of hearing students, for example, are significantly below those of heating students, particularly in mathematics and English" (p. 51). Some teachers might be intuitively attuned to the unique needs of deaf students in any setting, but others it would seem are simply oblivious to the needs of their classes and continue to teach to the test or otherwise ignore the realities that exist in a given setting. In this regard, Arndt, Best and Lieberman (2002) report that there remains a dearth of timely studies concerning the specific needs of deaf students in different classroom settings today.

In still other cases, it may be a matter of institutionalized ignorance. For instance, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) reports that, "Just like the dominant dialects became 'languages,' and dominant official languages displace and replace other languages nationally, in each country where the Deaf start organizing, usually only one Sign language becomes recognized. Hearing people, sometimes Sign language teachers but often teachers with no knowledge of any Sign languages, in most cases dominate these linguicist processes" (p. 227). According to one deaf educator, though, communication and a personal interest on the part of the classroom teacher go a long way to facilitating the effective delivery of educational services in any deaf classroom: "My observation confirmed that the teacher's interest in the communication needs and cultural associations of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students encouraged more interactions between hearing students and their Deaf or hard-of-hearing classmates" (Qualls-Mitchell, 2002, p. 77). Likewise, as Antia and Mccain (2005) emphasize, "Communication is a necessary prerequisite to forming friendships and participating in academics. A barrier to communication between hearing and deaf and hearing impaired students is that neither group typically has skills to communicate with the other" (p. 21).

Other steps to improve education in the deaf classroom in an increasingly multicultural society offered by Lane (1994) are described further in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Steps to improve the delivery of educational services in the deaf classroom.

Step

Description

Employment

Work within and recruit from the state systems for teacher certification and hiring. There are many deaf professionals out there, we just need to let them know that the opportunities exist. Under the employment rubric we include activities and issues like procedures for recruiting teachers, administrative and dormitory staff, interpreters, and others; criteria and procedures for screening; guidelines for interviews; and criteria and processes for hiring.

Evaluation of students

BiBi uses a "whole child" perspective. It focuses on the needs of the child not only from an academic view but also from the perspectives of socialization and emotional well-being. In the audiology clinic, BiBi emphasizes a functional approach. It also stresses language-skills assessment for appropriate placement in communication development programs. After-school programs are critical for cultural transmission to occur. It is outside of the classroom that young deaf people learn the ways of their culture, of their own people. Peer interaction develops the self-esteem, confidence, pride, and sense of belonging necessary for successful interaction in the world. The presence of deaf role models promotes goal setting and expectations for high achievement.

Curriculum

The emphasis here is on the process, not the product. Each school must develop its own set of principles and leadership guidelines and start to practice them. During this process, a product will grow -- "a curriculum. All the components come together here as individual people grow and change through their participation in the process. Empowerment manifests itself as the alliance becomes real.

Parental involvement

Parents must be consultants in the process of educating their children. Two ways of accomplishing that are through ASL classes and support groups.

Speech/communication center

Develop a communication center that facilitates pragmatic communication skills through a variety of languages and modalities, including speaking, reading/writing, and signing. Use a functional approach. Separate spoken English from regular classes. Distinguish between speech and language. Teach English as a second language. Emphasize that the ability to speak English is a skill or craft, and that those students who are unable to master it should not feel inferior.

Staff development

Participatory management revolutionizes the top-to-bottom hierarchical chain of command. The practice of "teaming," a deaf cultural strength as opposed to the hearing culture's emphasis on individualism, involves everyone by giving them responsibility and therefore a sense of ownership.

Source: Lane, 1994, pp. 124-5.

Other areas that require special focus for deaf students include reading programs. According to Westwood (2003), "Careful attention must be given to the explicit teaching of reading and spelling skills to students with impaired hearing. It is typical of students with impaired hearing that as they progress through primary school they fall three to four years behind the peer group in terms of reading ability. This reading lag has a detrimental impact on their performance in all subjects across the curriculum" (p. 49). Moreover, as Chaleff and Ritter (2001) point out, there remains some controversy concerning whether deaf students even use the same strategies to learn to read as their hearing peers. At any rate, many of the problems that deaf students encounter in reading and spelling are believed to be caused by their difficulty in perceiving speech sounds within spoken words (termed "phonemic awareness") (Westwood, 2003). According to this author, "Limited phonemic awareness results in difficulty in learning phonic decoding and encoding skills. While the beginning stages of reading instruction can focus on building a basic sight vocabulary by visual methods, later the teaching of word-analysis skills must also be stressed for students with hearing loss" (Westwood, 2003, p. 50). Absent a degree of phonic knowledge, deaf students' ability to read and spell unfamiliar words will continue to remain seriously inadequate (Westwood, 2003).