My philosophy about the education of the deaf is that it's very dangerous to have a philosophy about the education of the deaf. Why? Because even if you don't buy into the idea of an actual Deaf Culture, you've got to believe in the concept of individuality--that being that all things being equal, nothing is equal. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. This is true for all people everywhere. If I were to propose ONE method that was appropriate for ALL people with ANY kind of hearing loss, I'd be the biggest idiot that ever was.
Now, I do have my own stance on hearing loss as a disability. This is not, by any means, to confuse the terms disability and handicap, nor do I recommend that anyone use those terms interchangeably. A disability, most literally, is simply the inability to do something. A handicap refers to what effect(s) any disability has on how you live your life. So by my definition, a piano tuner who loses their hearing is both disabled (unable to hear) and handicapped (unable to perform their job and interact normally with family and peers). However, someone who is born deaf, by my definition, has a disability (inability to hear), but no handicap (no change in their life because that's how it has always been).
This viewpoint can go both ways. Take someone who is hearing and who has no knowledge of deafness or sign language and throw them in a room with all Deaf, ASL users. Now who's disabled and handicapped? Remember, I said that a disability is simply the inability to do something. A hearing person with no education at all in the area of deafness has no ability to understand what it is like to be deaf and no ability to sign. They are disabled. This affects how they interact with the people in the room, so they are also handicapped. Even someone like me with all my education and PSE sign ability, when put in the same room, would be somewhat disabled and handicapped. That door swings both ways. If deaf people can be thought of as "hearing disabled," then hearing people have just as much right to be thought of as "deaf disabled."
Of course, now that I've said this, some people will take me literally, file for disability benefits, and then yell at me when the federal government tells them no. Some people will do anything for a buck.
But I'm getting off the topic of education of the deaf.
Some people with a hearing loss choose to wear hearing aids because they get some benefit from it. They choose to live their life listening and speaking. These people are deaf with a little 'd' and are not a part of Deaf Culture. I've already discussed this. What I did not discuss is that people with practically no residual or remaining hearing may get full benefit from hearing aids, while those with a mild or moderate hearing loss may get no useable benefit at all. This is why it's dangerous to say education of "the deaf." Most times, people don't even know who they're talking about.
I'm a big believer in manual communication and feel that a deaf person, regardless of the level of hearing loss and regardless of wearing hearing aids, gets a more RELIABLE signal through the visual medium. Does this mean we entirely disregard sound and cast it off as useless? Of course not. Some people thrive on sound, but to some, sound is unimportant. Some deaf people will feel more comfortable in an oral/aural setting, and others will feel more at ease in a completely visual/manual environment.
However, in education these desires are usually not taken into account, and for a very good reason. By the time someone is mature enough to make such a decision, valuable language acquisition time has been lost, and this is where the great education debate comes into play.
There is the Oral Method, which demands of deaf children to make the most use of any residual hearing they have and to work on their spoken language skills. I am not entirely in favor of this method, as I feel that far too much time is spent getting a child to say a word, but how much time is devoted to making sure that child knows what the word means? Speech and language are two completely different things. Making a deaf child speak is not the same as giving them valuable language. In my opinion, a strict oral method of education is tantamount to imposing an artificial mental retardation on deaf children. However, I'll grant that just because I do not like this method doesn't mean that the oral method is unsuccessful. The oral method can work... for some deaf children. Educators and legislators tend to champion this method over any other in an attempt to force deaf people to conform to hearing standards--in essence, to make the deaf hearing--and I'm sorry, but that does NOT work.
Another method is, of course, the other side of the coin--the Manual Method. This method includes no or very little speech and promotes sign language as the primary language in the classroom. Now, if you've been reading closely, you'll stop me there and say "Didn't you just, like, devote a WHOLE section to telling that there isn't just one sign language?" Very good, you're paying attention. There is a debate within the debate in the realm of education of the deaf... and yet another reason why it is dangerous to have a philosophy. The Deaf Culture says that only ASL should be taught in the classroom. Hearing people say that ASL is too different from English and, since English is the primary language of America, it is important to facilitate English skills (something that I agree with) and so deaf children should be taught in SEE II (something that I do not agree with). A debate is bad enough. A debate within a debate gives me a headache.
Yet another method is Simultaneous Communication, the use of speech and sign language simultaneously. However, since the two are used together, this eliminates the possibility of ASL in the classroom. Since the syntax and structure of ASL and English vary so greatly, it would take a very talented person to sign perfect ASL and speak in perfect English at the same time. That's something I would love to see. But this method digs deeper into the debate within the debate because, do you sign every single thing that you say? SimCom says that yes, you do. This reduces you to SEE I, SEE II, and Signed English (see above for descriptions). All of these three, in my opinion, can become clumsy and cumbersome and can slow things down. Also, are we more concerned with making our English perfect or with getting the idea across? (If that doesn't make any sense to you, just consider an "Easter egg hunt" carefully and hopefully you'll see what I mean.)
There is also Total Communication, which is sometimes (mistakenly) used to mean the same thing as SimCom. Bad, bad, bad! They are different things. Total Communication (TC) is not a language in any sense of the word. It is a philosophy of education wherein sign, speech, gestures, facial expression, writing... basically any means necessary is used to get the message across. This can be detrimental, as it may teach a child communication without language. For example, a child screams, so you turn around to see what's wrong. They point to a doll on a shelf out of their reach. Of course you understand that they want the doll and the child knows that they want the doll, but the previous scenario illustrates the difference between communication and language. The child in that example has no or very restricted language skills to communicate the idea of "I can't reach that doll and I want to play with it. Will you get it down for me?"
I know, I know. Pick one already, right? I've been teetering long enough and it's time to take the plunge into a philosophy. So here's mine. I really don't care if deaf or Deaf people don't want to speak. I don't care if they're able and unwilling. I don't care if they speak and they don't want to sign. I don't care if they're comfortable with what they're using and think that the other side of the coin is in some way counterfeit. What I do care about is actual language. That has to come first. Sure, some people will argue that signing may limit a person because not many people know sign language. This is, to some extent, true. However, if teaching a kid in Iowa some obscure dialect of Swahili is the only way to make language accessible to them, I say do it. Language has to come first.
Now, even someone with just a slight hearing loss who maybe doesn't even officially need hearing aids isn't getting the whole picture aurally. They probably get enough sound to be able to fill in the blanks, but they're still missing some information. If hearing loss is the only disability present in a person, if they have full use of their eyes and arms and hands and brain, I say that a signed language is a more RELIABLE signal for them. I don't say it's more APPROPRIATE for them, but it's more reliable. They may miss some sounds, but as long as they're paying attention, they won't miss signs. I feel that both speech and sign should be presented, simultaneously if at all possible (which unfortunately rules out ASL use in a classroom setting) until the child demonstrates a preference (for example, signing more or talking more), and then the language use for that child should suit that child's preferences.
English skills are also necessary. They come after the child has a firm grasp on language in general. Even though there is as yet no officially accepted written form of sign language (there is a great amount of study on this aspect--check my links page), English is still a second language to someone who is more manual. It should therefore be taught as a second language, and not used casually as though the deaf person should somehow magically understand what everyone is talking about. That doesn't work. Reality should be ever-present.
The main thing to keep in mind as far as education goes is to stay away from the "should"s. Don't tell me that deaf kids SHOULD wear hearing aids or that they SHOULD get cochlear implants or that they SHOULD learn to speak or that they SHOULD NOT sign or that they SHOULD only sign. What educators SHOULD do is educate. Keep expectations high and all children will excel. Teach to their limitations, and that's when you really create a disabled society.
Well, that's that. That's my opinion. I'm sure some people will praise me and some people will crucify me. That's all your decision. My opinion is my decision.
