Deaf Education in the United States

Thesis: Which is the best method of educating the Deaf?

I.       Deaf Education in the United States: A Brief History

        A. The Early Colonists: Attempts at Deaf Education

        B. Founding of Schools for the Deaf in U.S.

        C. Rise of Oralism and Banning of Signed Language in the Classroom

        D. Civil Rights Movement and the Resurgence of Signed Language

        E. Deafness: Disability, Impairment - or Minority Culture?

II.     Oral, Sign, or a Combination of Both: Which is Best?

        A. Natural Language Development in Children

        B. Role of Parents and Early Intervention Programs

III.    Methods of Deaf Education in the United States

        A. Mainstreaming or Integration

        B. Total Communication (TC)

        C. Least Restrictive Environment (LRI)

        D. Residential Schools for the Deaf

        E. Day and Magnet School Programs

        F. Extracurricular Activities

        G. Bilingual Education

IV.    Technological Advances

        A. External Amplification (i.e. Hearing Aids)

        B. Controversial Surgery: Cochlear Implants

V.    Classroom Environment

        A. Physical Adjustments to the Classroom

        B. Qualified Interpreters and Teacher Training


Deaf education - whether it is oral or sign language, public or residential, segregated or mainstreamed -how to properly educate D/deaf children has been the topic of intense scrutiny and heated debate since before the founding of this nation. Because the topic directly affects our most precious resource - our children - passions and emotions can run high, even to the point of blinding individuals to the facts. Recognizing this, it is this author's intent to present a non-biased presentation of various methods of D/deaf education, while at the same time interjecting thoughts and recommendations based on a personal study and examination from both sides of the coin. In our quest for facts, however, we must remember that we are dealing with more than just statistics and numbers. These are children - real human beings - complete with feelings and emotions, dreams and aspirations, talents, shortcomings, and insecurities. As adults, it is our responsibility to see that they are not allowed to fall through the cracks of our educational system. The responsibility is enormous, and the task is challenging - but the rewards, should we persist undauntedly - are priceless.

When examining D/deaf education in this country, perhaps the best place to begin is at its roots. Even before the United States gained its independence from Great Britain, various attempts have been made at teaching deaf children. Overseas in Europe, a progressive movement was taking place, and more and more attention was being given to those less fortunate that had previously been denied even basic instruction. Despite this, however, superstitious beliefs about the deaf continued to be held in the colonies (Marschark 25). In 1679 in Rowley, Massachusetts, Philip Nelson tried to "cure" a deaf child (most likely by teaching the child to speak). Because the colonists believed deafness to be predestinated by God, they were angered (Marschark 25). Furthermore, some colonists even found such attempts to educate the deaf as equivalent to sorcery and witchcraft (Marschark 26).

As times changed, however, old superstitions were bound to change as well - howbeit slowly. It took over a century later, but in 1817 the first public school for the Deaf was opened, called the Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons. Founded by Thomas Gallaudet and Laurent Clerc, the official language of instruction was Manual English, a sign language adapted from LSF (French Sign Language). Along with this language, many of the students also brought with them signs they had been using at home to communicate (called home signs), and many new signs were developed within the school as well. Teachers and graduates from this school went on to found new schools for the Deaf. By 1869, there were approximately thirty residential schools for the Deaf in the United States, including Philadelphia, Kentucky, New York, and Ohio. Each of these schools used sign language as a basis for instruction of its students.

Despite the apparent success of these schools, however, an increasing number of people began to voice their opposition to the use of sign language in the classroom. As a result, a new trend in D/deaf education, called oralism, began to surface. In the 1860's, an oral school for the deaf was opened in Massachusetts, now called the Clarke School. Soon after, other oral schools began to pop up, not only in the United States, but in London and Paris as well. Perhaps the most well known advocate for oralism was none other than Alexander Graham Bell. In 1890, he founded the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf (now called the Alexander Graham Bell Association). Espousing strict oralism and rejection of sign language for the deaf, he tirelessly labored for the oralist cause, using much of the profits from the telephone to do so (Lane et al. 60). As a result of his and the diligent efforts of other oralists, by the end of the nineteenth century, oralism had replaced sign language as the preferred method of teaching.

With the rise of the civil rights movement and discontentment on the part of the Deaf community, however, increased attention is now being given to the Deaf cause. More and more, awareness and acceptance of American Sign Language (ASL) is being forged, as well as increased political activism on the part of the Deaf. In the early 1960's, based in large part to the research of William Stokoe, American Sign Language (the official cultural and natural language for the Deaf in the United States) was recognized as a true language. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed, paving the way for the D/deaf to have a voice in matters of discrimination, access to technologies such as telecommunication devices, better access to interpreters, and civil rights protection under the law. Furthermore, various new methods are being implemented in schools that stress diversity, acceptance, and tolerance for minority cultures. With this resurgence of Deaf identity, however, comes the question: is D/deafness to be thought of as a disability and impairment, needing to "be fixed"; or is it a minority culture, as complete and rich as any other culture? The future and foundation of our educational system depends on how we
come to grips with this dilemma.

There are many different opinions regarding what is the best way to educate D/deaf children, but generally speaking, there are three general categories. The first is strict oralism, whose proponents advocate complete oral and written English in the classroom, with no sign language. Supporters of oralism see the use of sign as damaging to the absorption of English. They believe that if a deaf child begins signing first, that child will not learn, nor want to learn, English. The second category, called manualism, advocates the use of ASL as a first language, stressing that a child must first learn how to communicate effectively before learning basic education. Since ASL is the natural language of the Deaf in the United States, manualists believe that competency in oral and written English can only be obtained with success if it is taught as a second language. Lastly, there are those that promote bilingualism in the classroom: that is, teaching sign language and English side by side. Also called combinists, one such proponent was Edward Miner Gallaudet, son of Thomas Gallaudet and founder of Gallaudet University. The method of bilingual education has been implemented in such places as Sweden and Denmark, with recorded success.

In attempts to find the most effective method of educating D/deaf children, extensive studies have been performed on how language fluency is acquired. The results of these investigations show that the acquisition of language is comparatively the same in all children - whether they are hearing, hard-of-hearing, or deaf.

          ...[S]igned and spoken language acquisition follow identical stages of development: babbling (7-10 months), first-word stage (12-18 months), two-word stage (18-22 months), stage of word modification and rules for sentences (22-36 months). (Lane et al. 48)

In light of these findings, how does one account for the overwhelming evidence that deaf children, by far, have a more difficult time in achieving language literacy? According to the Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, the average D/deaf seventeen-year-old reads at a fourth-grade level (Stelling 38). Many experts say that the problem is not in the D/deaf child's ability to acquire language, nor is it a learning disability. The problem is, rather, in the language they are being required to learn - English. They claim that while D/deaf children are quite capable of achieving literacy in English as a second language, they are less able to process it as a first language. Because English is based on auditory rules and structure, it does not come naturally to the deaf. The D/deaf are visual learners, so logically it should follow that their natural language should be the same - visual. In the book "A Journey Into the Deaf World", author Harlan Lane states:

It appears then, that human beings have a biological capacity for language that involves an internal set of norms. Children construct the grammar of the language they are acquiring on the basis of these internal norms. This is called the nativization hypothesis, because the children are using their native ability to construct grammars, to nativize the incomplete information they receive. Deaf children are no different from any other children in this regard, since all children hear only a fraction of the possible sentences in their language and yet are able to master its complex rules and use them productively. In other words, all first-language learners construct grammars from limited input; that is, they all nativize. (49-50).

Because much of language acquisition occurs before the child is old enough to attend school, one cannot overly stress the importance of the home environment in the nurturing of the D/deaf child's language. Jessica Stelling, in her book "The Words they Need: Welcoming Children Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing to Literacy", states this in regards to early intervention programs:

          The effectiveness of early intervention programs for young hearing-impaired children depends on the extent to which parents link language learning to the activities of daily living. (245)

A child whose parents take an active part in his or her language development may well reach school age able to participate in class activities with a moderate amount of resource room or other support and a minimum of adjustment on the part of the classroom teacher. In contrast, what can we expect of ourselves and of our teaching as we work with those children who are ill-prepared for the demands of regular classes, even with resource room assistance, and whose parents are less capable of playing a role in their children's education? What can we hope for children who lack exposure to language and learning, who suffer from sensory and experiential deprivation, whose hearing loss may be compounded by educational neglect? (246)

Recognizing the need to develop literacy skills as early as possible, a fairly new trend in D/deaf education has been to establish early intervention programs. Research into these programs has shown those D/deaf children and their families who participate benefit in both school and family settings by providing healthy emotional development as well as effective social functioning (Marschark 139). These programs may be run by public school systems, state departments, residential schools, or private organizations (Marschark 139). Another option is a home-based system, in which teachers work with family members in the home itself (Marschark 139). Furthermore, services are also provided for parents and family members of the D/deaf child.

In providing services for parents as well as children, preschool programs focus on language development, parent-child communication, social skills, and appropriate support for children to learn to use any residual hearing through testing and possible fitting for hearing aids. Teachers generally provide parents with strategies for enhancing their children's development, including instruction in sign language, spoken language, or both. Classes tend to be small and offer a variety of specialized curricula. (Marschark 139)

          A common term used by educators is "mainstreaming" or "integration". What do these terms mean? "[It is]...a goal, a concept, a philosophy undergirding the principle of educating all children with disabilities in regular schools" (Ross 11). According to the Ninth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act 1987, "seventy-five percent of the hearing-impaired student population is partially to totally mainstreamed" (Ross 131). Educators realize that options for deaf children may be limited, especially in some smaller communities. By placing these children in public schools, they hope to have more programs readily available that might not otherwise be offered in a residential or specialized school. Another reason often cited is the need to integrate the child in a "normal" environment, thereby preparing that child for life in the real world. As one parent stated, "It's a hearing world" (Ross 13).

Mainstreaming does have its disadvantages, however. The first major area is in curriculum. The deaf child will often fall behind in class - not because he or she cannot grasp the subject matter, but rather because the student has to spend a lot of valuable time and energy trying to comprehend the teacher's instructions. Recounting a personal experience, Byron Key, teacher at Florissant Valley Community College and student at both an oral and residential school for the Deaf, remembered that he was often at a loss for what was expected of him in the oral school. After his parents transferred him to Missouri School for the Deaf, he related that not only did his level of comprehension increase dramatically, but he also felt more academically challenged, because at last he was able to understand what was being taught in the classroom. In addition, he was able to form more friendships in the residential school than in the oral, and was much happier there (Key). If the child is mainstreamed in a strictly oral school, he or she is at an immediate disadvantage - especially if there is no access to an interpreter. A deaf child in this case may have to rely heavily on lipreading, which studies show is not an effective method of comprehension (less than half of what is lipread is correctly understood). In such cases, the residential school might provide a more challenging learning environment for the D/deaf child.

Furthermore, in the driving need to integrate, often educators have failed in the area of "assimilation". In other words, deaf children are often placed into a classroom with hearing peers and left to fend for themselves. While their needs may (or may not) be getting met in the area of curriculum, psychologically they may feel alone, inadequate, and insecure. Many times, the only other person they can effectively communicate with is their interpreter, another deaf child (if they're fortunate enough to have one in their
class), or a hearing child with knowledge of sign language that often acts as an "interpreter" for the child. In these formative years, the relationships the D/deaf child builds are vital to his self-image as an adult.

The success of deaf children in public schools, while an admirable goal in many ways, requires considerably more study. At present, it appears that deaf children who are alone in mainstream settings tend to be less well-adjusted and exhibit lower emotional maturity than those enrolled in residential schools.... (Marschark 58)

In a case study recorded in the book "Hearing-Impaired Children in the Mainstream", a mother recounts the experience of her deaf daughter, Libbi:

          However, her social life was not the same as that of her peers. She had friends, even 'best' friends, yet it was a different kind of relationship than those of other 'best friends'. She didn't spend long hours chatting with them, either in school or at home on the phone (which, incidentally, she uses with comparative ease). I have observed other hearing-impaired youngsters exposed to a similar type of upbringing as Libbi, undergoing the same kind of social experience. I get the feeling that 'somehow they just don't fit in'. (304)

To the Deaf, mainstreaming can paint a very different picture than it does for the hearing. A common joke is told about a woman that has three plants, who she sings to every day. However, only two of the plants thrive. The woman, worried about the third plant, takes it to an expert who states that the plant failed to grow because it is deaf, and cannot hear her singing. However, a twist on the joke comes from the Deaf community, in which the "plant doctor" professes that the reason the third plant didn't thrive was because it had been "mainstreamed" (Ramsey 113).

Besides the auditory-verbal/visual-oral method of integration (strictly oral and no sign), there is another philosophy within mainstreaming called "Total Communication". Total Communication is a combined or simultaneous method of communication, involving sign language and fingerspelling in addition to speech and speechreading. The idea behind this method of teaching is to use as many methods available to ensure successful learning. A combination of speech and sign is used, as well as assistive listening devices for any residual hearing the child might have. Unlike the schools of the nineteenth century, however, the signing system used is not American Sign Language, but rather a method developed by educators to teach English, called "Manually Coded English", or MCE. Within MCE are different methods of signing, including Seeing Essential English (SEE1) and Signing Exact English (SEE2). These methods do not use the same grammar and syntax as ASL, but are structured after English. Another method used in Total Communication is called "cued speech", designed to help children in lipreading. Because many sounds made look identical on the lips, cued speech uses handshapes at different points to determine which sound is being used.

Total Communication, while incorporating signing into its foundation, is not without its criticism. One of the biggest complaints about Total Communication is not in the underlying philosophy (i.e. teaching sign and oral methods simultaneously), but rather in the method of sign being used. As was mentioned earlier, Total Communication does not use ASL (the natural language of the Deaf) to teach, but rather uses "English on the hands". Sue Livingston, in her book "Rethinking the Education of Deaf Students", mentions that educators have been using a sign system rather than a sign language (1):

          First and foremost, Signed English systems are not natural languages - they did not naturally evolve over time within a human community of users but, instead, were invented by educators. Natural languages conform to the constraints dictated by neurological and biological capacities for language expression and reception. Constraints for spoken languages are dictated by the form and function of the ears and vocal apparatus; for natural sign languages, by the form and function of the eyes and hands. (2)

Because these systems of sign are not the natural languages of the D/deaf, critics note that the D/deaf have a slower comprehension of them. As comprehension is slowed, the teacher in turn simplifies the English even more, leading to a "dumbing down" of the curriculum (Livingston 1). Instead of teaching to the level of the D/deaf child's understanding, they instead teach to that child's level of English comprehension (Livingston 1). As a result, the child falls farther and farther behind his hearing peers.

Another term often used in D/deaf education is called "Least Restrictive Environment", or LRI. This philosophy means "the most appropriate educational placement for the child, the setting in which the child's capacities may be developed to the greatest possible extent" (Lane et al. 249-250). For many hearing educators, the Least Restrictive Environment for the D/deaf child involves integrating the child into the mainstream classroom. In the opinion of many Deaf advocates, however, the Least Restrictive Environment involves segregation in residential schools for the Deaf, where the child has the advantage of natural language acquisition and Deaf peers and role models. Out of all teachers of D/deaf education today, only an estimated seven percent are deaf themselves (Lane et al. 62).

There are many reasons a majority of D/deaf parents prefer to send their D/deaf child to a residential school. One of them is fluency in American Sign Language:

          The Deaf community points out that without [residential] programs, few deaf children would have fluent knowledge of American Sign Language.... While early intervention programs provide some such stimulation, the concern is with maintaining a social, cultural, and academic context that provides older deaf children with a supportive learning environment. (Marschark 57)

Another reason an overwhelming number of D/deaf prefer residential schools over mainstreaming is that the residential school can do something for a D/deaf child that no other environment can: give him exposure to Deaf culture, Deaf history, and contact with Deaf organizations. Without this awareness of Deaf culture, the child will associate himself with the hearing, or majority, culture. Many Deaf see this as an invasion of their cultural identity. This might also explain why almost all hearing parents of deaf children advocate mainstreaming over residential schools for their deaf children (90% of deaf children have hearing parents). As more and more D/deaf children are being mainstreamed into the hearing world, many in the Deaf community are concerned that their culture is in danger of becoming extinct.

The biggest drawback to the residential school, however, is the placement of the child away from the home. In many instances, the child spends the week at the residential school, and goes home on the weekends. As the children mature, many of them commute back and forth from the school. Depending on whether the Deaf adult had Deaf or hearing parents, the stories often differ. While "[s]ome deaf adults [of Deaf parents] proudly identify themselves with the residential school they attended (Marschark 141)", many Deaf children of hearing parents relate that they were "taken to [a] residential school and left without any explanation and not knowing when (or if) they would see their parents again" (Marschark 141). Despite all of this, however, most D/deaf children find the residential school a place where they feel at home. "Residential schools provide deaf children with role models, fluently signing and socially competent peers, and environments in which they are on a level playing field with their classmates" (Marschark 141).

Because many parents of D/deaf children, both hearing and D/deaf alike, feel the need to keep their children at home (and understandably so), some opt instead to enroll them in such programs as day and magnet schools. Day schools, often set up in larger metropolitan areas, are separate schools for the deaf (no hearing children may be enrolled) in which children may commute daily to and from school (Moores 126). Magnet schools and programs are part of the public school system, so they are free of charge to eligible students. They offer courses of study that focus on the special interests of D/deaf children, and they may or may not exist within the public school itself. Other programs, called day classes, are established in public school buildings. In these programs, the classes may be completely self-contained, or the student may spend time in the regular classrooms (Moores 127). Still another option is the resource room, where children are exposed to more individualized teaching in problem areas, such as English (Moores 127). Then there are itinerant programs, in which an "itinerant" teacher gives specialized tutoring to several different students, depending on the need (Moores 127).

The biggest drawback to these programs, nevertheless, is the lack of Deaf role models for the child. In most instances, the teachers and administrators of these programs are hearing. Unlike residential schools, where the children live on campus, these children will go home to their hearing families with little or no contact with older Deaf students. While they might be getting the curricular education they need, they are lacking in socialization and identification with other Deaf people and Deaf culture.

To balance this need for socialization with other D/deaf and to compensate for lack of exposure to the Deaf community, many turn to extracurricular activities. What the D/deaf child might be lacking at home (especially if he has hearing parents), he can often find within these programs. Not only that, but extracurricular activities can also help the deaf child to form bonds with hearing peers. Furthermore, they teach social skills (a facet severely lacking in mainstreaming), and often promote a healthy self-esteem. If the child becomes involved in activities involving other Deaf children (such as a Deaf athletic organization), these programs can foster in him increased Deaf awareness and positive self-image, as well as provide him adult Deaf role models. Since extracurricular activities are especially important in residential schools for the Deaf (Kluwin 132), the mainstreamed child can benefit as well - perhaps even to a greater degree.

Another phenomenon that has experienced success in Sweden is what is known as "bilingual education".

In 1981, after years of grassroots activism by Deaf adults and parents of deaf children, the Swedish Parliament passed a law stating that deaf people need to be bilingual in order to function successfully in the family, in school, and in society. The result of this legislation (Proposition 1980/81:100, supplement 12) was that deaf children acquired the right to be educated in a way that fosters proficiency in both Swedish Sign Language and Swedish, with a focus on literacy. (Mahshie xiii)

While currently no such program exists in the United States, Sweden's successful attempts have given rise to increased awareness to duplicate such a program in America. Instead of teaching children monolingually (English only), a bilingual approach would teach Deaf students both American Sign Language (instead of Manually Coded English) and English. Furthermore, if the program could be expanded to include hearing students, the potential for success could go beyond expectations. Implementing such a plan, however, is not without its obstacles. Some objections to this plan include lack of funds, higher taxes, socioeconomic factors, cultural diversity in the U.S., bigger population and size of the U.S., and differences in culture (Mahshie 182-203). Truly, the entire educational system would have to be revamped in order to achieve this goal. Yet many advocates of bilingual education state that this method has the potential to "put to rest the 'impassioned debate' which has adversely affected the lives of Deaf people for at least two centuries" (Mahshie 204).

Much advancement has been made in the area of technology over the last century, and many of these advances have helped the D/deaf to achieve much success. As is often the case with technology, however, some of these options are controversial, and have sparked a number of debates within the educational and medical fields. Furthermore, they have created rifts within families, as well as sparking bitter rivalries within both Deaf and hearing cultures. One technological area (not so controversial) is called the external amplification device. The most commonly used amplification device is the hearing aid. Contrary to popular belief, only a small percentage of deaf are without some residual hearing. Hearing aids are designed to tap into this residual hearing and amplify it. They work by amplifying sound across a broad spectrum, where the sound is picked up by a microphone, amplified, and sent via the speaker into a small tube that is connected to the earmold of the wearer (Marschark 49). However, unlike normal human hearing, most hearing aids are not specifically tuned to speech sounds (Marschark 50). Because most hearing aids amplify all sounds equally, background sounds are amplified as well, many times leading to distortion and impediment of perception (Marschark 50). Recognizing this flaw, companies are beginning to develop aids that are programmable to certain frequencies. However, the cost of these devices is very expensive.

Data for 1998 indicated that digital hearing aids represented only about 8 percent of total hearing aid sales, while programmable aids, overall, represented about 17 percent of sales in the United States. (Marschark 50)

Despite the drawbacks, however, many still find hearing aids useful. However, getting a child to consistently wear them can be a problem. While some children readily accept the use of hearing aids, others refuse to put them or keep them on. Many times adults will ignore the child, citing stubbornness or misbehavior as the reason. However, such behavior should not be discounted so lightly. In some instances, the hearing aids may be uncomfortable to the child, or the amplified sound may even painful and confusing. Byron Key (mentioned earlier), in recounting his experience in wearing hearing aids as a child, remembers them as less than comfortable. He stated that they whistled all the time and gave him headaches. Not only that, but the hearing aids made him feel self-conscious. Even now, he admits that sometimes it bothers him to wear them because of the looks he gets (Key). To a child that might already be suffering from poor self-esteem, such experiences can be frustrating and debilitating. It is for these reasons that many Deaf adults advocate not using hearing aids on a child until that child is old enough to communicate such discomforts (Mahshie 103).

For those with more profound hearing loss, external amplification may not be sufficient. While the Deaf community relies on sign language to communicate, many are turning to a fairly new (howbeit experimental) surgical procedure called cochlear implantation. While hearing aids amplify sound, cochlear implants are directly connected to the nerves of the brain that process sound from the environment (Marschark 51). Because the procedure involves surgery and destroys whatever residual hearing the recipient may have, many oppose its use - especially in young children. The National Institutes of Health gave a summary of how cochlear implants work:

          The cochlear implant is an electronic device that, under the appropriate conditions, provides a sense of sound to persons who are profoundly hearing impaired or deaf. It does not restore normal hearing, but it can help the user understand speech and perceive sounds from the environment. The vast majority of adults who are deaf and have cochlear implants derive substantial benefit from them when they are used in conjunction with speech reading, and a considerable number of implanted individuals can understand speech without visual cues. Benefits also have been observed in children, including those who were born deaf or lost their hearing before learning spoken language. (Marschark 51)

Cochlear implantation is an expensive procedure. The cost can run between $40,000 and $50,000, with health insurance providers covering much of the tab (Marschark 52). Once the child is implanted, he must also submit to speech and hearing rehabilitation, which can cost another $20,000 a year (Marschark 52). There is also the risk vs. benefit ratio to consider. To have a child implanted may leave him without language for several years while he undergoes therapy (Lane et al. 400-402). Furthermore, critics of the procedure cite that cochlear implants give no guarantee that the implanted child will be able to understand spoken language, despite manufacturer's claims that the implant's microprocessor is a "speech processor" (Marschark 54). Some in the Deaf community have even gone as far as to call the procedure child abuse - "oralism with a scalpel" (Lane et al. 371). Other factors critics cite are: patients must avoid contact sports, magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) and various other medical procedures (Lane et al. 392).

Lastly, from a cultural perspective, to implant a child is to destroy his or her link with the Deaf world. Since those in the Deaf community do not view deafness as a disability, they believe that the procedure is sending mixed signals to the child - that he is impaired or handicapped, and in need to be "fixed" medically. Furthermore, there is some concern that the Deaf child will find himself stuck within two cultures - Deaf and hearing - and not belong to either (Marschark 53). Not only that, but many fear that widespread implantation will amount to ethnocide, or the systematic blocking of a language minority from progressing naturally (Lane et al. 403-407).

A member of the cochlear implant team who wrote to the "Atlantic Monthly"...acknowledged that ethnocide is indeed the likely consequence of programs of cochlear implantation and that he (or she) is contributing to ethnocide: "The cochlear prosthesis on which I have worked for years with many other scientists, engineers and clinicians, will lead inevitably to the extinction of the alternative culture of the Deaf, probably within a decade." (Lane et al. 403-404)

On the other side of the coin, there are those who vehemently support the use of cochlear implants, and recommend them as early as possible (currently the FDA does not allow the procedure for children under two years of age). A physiologist whose research made great contribution to the development of cochlear implants made the statement, "The simple fact is that if the culture could be reliably wiped out, it would be a good thing to wipe out." (Marschark 53). In his book "Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice", author Marc Marschark states, "Based on a thorough review of the literature, it is evident that there are many more positive outcomes of cochlear implantation than negative outcomes" (55).

In one study, described as a follow-up of all of the children who had received cochlear implants at a particular center, among eight children who had received implants and were in mainstream educational settings, all but two were performing in the top half of their classes. (Marschark 55)

However, the author goes on to make the comment that, "Unfortunately, the investigators did not follow-up the other eight children, who were not enrolled in mainstream programs" (Marschark 55). In fact, very few studies have been done as to the long-term effects of cochlear implants. While they do achieve some success, it is very possible that success is overrated:

          In contrast to the view of many medical researchers, the consensus among investigators of the development of deaf children appears to be that most children who receive implants are ill-prepared for full-time placement in mainstream programs without additional support. (Marschark 56)

In the end, however, the most important decision is going to come from the parents of the D/deaf child. Because of all these factors, it is imperative that they be informed of all the facts, both in favor of the procedure and against it. Research has shown that when parents make the decision for their child, or when a D/deaf adult is pressured into the decision to receive a cochlear implant from family members, the outcome is not successful (Marschark 53). Parents must be willing to listen to their children, and do their best to respect that child's wishes if he or she does or does not want to submit to the procedure.

Whether or not the decision is made, however, there are several things that teachers can do to make the classroom more "user friendly" to D/deaf students. Some technological advances that have helped in classrooms are FM transmitters and receivers, in which the transmitter is worn by the teacher and the receiver by the student. There are many different types of these coupling systems, including button transducers, behind-the-ear transducers, direct audio input, neck loop, and silhouette inductor (Ross 105-110). If these systems are used, however, it is vitally important that they be properly maintained. Daily maintenance should be performed to see if the devices are working properly and the batteries are charged. If a malfunction does occur, spare parts must be stocked. If they are not, it may take weeks before the system is restored, leading to a hampered learning environment for the child. The teacher must also be trained in its proper use. For example, when other children speak, the teacher should either repeat the comments or pass the receiver to the other students, so the D/deaf child knows what is being discussed. Also, the teacher must remember to turn off the transmitter when not teaching the class, lest the student be distracted by non-relevant conversation. Other forms of technology, such as closed-captioning, can also be beneficial, especially in cases (such as films) where the lighting might be dimmed.

Even simple physical adjustments to the classroom itself can make a world of difference to the D/deaf child's learning environment. Classrooms, by their very nature, are not conducive to a good acoustics (Ross 95). The rooms are large with high ceilings, the walls are hard, and often the windows face the playground or street (Ross 95). To make matters worse, children are not quiet by nature, and the teachers are often several feet away from the students (Ross 95). Just a few minor adjustments and behavior modifications can make the difference between comprehension and incomprehension. Some minor alterations include, but are not limited to, the following: preferred seating for the D/deaf child, allowing the child to switch or move seats when the teacher moves to another part of the room, the teacher maintaining facial contact with the D/deaf student and not turning his or her back, and adequate lighting so that the D/deaf child can read what is being said. Furthermore, the D/deaf student can be placed away from the noisy part of the room, such as away from windows, doors, and air conditioners. Even such things as carpeting, closed windows, acoustic tiles, and draperies can make a classroom more conducive.

It is also vitally important that the school provides qualified interpreters for the D/deaf students. Presently, one of the biggest complaints by the Deaf community is in the hiring of unqualified and even uncertified interpreters in public schools. Organizations such as NAD (National Association of the Deaf) and RID (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf), seeing the need for interpreter reform, have been working together to develop strategies to see that the D/deaf are supplied with qualified interpreters, and that interpreters themselves are properly trained and certified to effectively work with the D/deaf. Furthermore, teachers need to be trained to effectively communicate with D/deaf students. Many times, especially in mainstreaming, D/deaf and hard-of-hearing children are "shoehorned" into public schools without proper background teaching for the educators. The teachers, while having the best intentions, simply don't have the background or expertise in dealing with specialized students.

Often we blame the D/deaf child for lack of a proper education, when in fact "[i]t is not the Deaf children that need remediation, it is the system that educates them" (Mahshie 179). We have come a long way from the days of the colonists and great strides have been made, we still have a long way to go. While there is no quick solution or fix, pioneers such as Laurent Clerc and Thomas Gallaudet faced similar challenges. Despite overwhelming obstacles and adverse circumstances, they forged ahead to create otherwise non-existent programs for the Deaf, including an entire language for the Deaf - ASL. To pick up the baton where they left off is going to require innovative thinking, determination, and dedication. Whether one is an advocate of oralism, sign, or a combination of both, almost all agree that many improvements need to be made. If those on both sides can abandon all preconceived notions, prejudices, attitudes, and mindsets, and instead work together for a common goal, then everyone benefits. The key is that the generation of tomorrow receives his or her right to a proper education - whether that child is D/deaf or hearing, and regardless of his or her race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or anything else that makes us who we are. Instead of seeing our differences as obstacles, we should strive to embrace them. After all, that is what makes America the rich nation that it is.


Works Cited

Key, Byron S. Personal Interview. 4 Dec. 2003.

Kluwin, Thomas N., ed., Donald F. Moores, ed., and Martha Gonter Gaustad, ed. Toward Effective Public School Programs for Deaf Students: Context, Process, and Outcomes. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.

Lane, Harlan, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan. A Journey Into the Deaf World. San Diego: DawnSign Press, 1996.

Livingston, Sue. Rethinking the Education of Deaf Students: Theory and Practice from a Teacher's Perspective. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1997.

Mahshie, Shawn Neal. Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, D.C.: Pre-College Programs, Gallaudet University, 1995.

Marschark, Marc, Harry G. Lang, and John A. Albertini. Educating Deaf Students: From Research to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Moores, Donald F., ed., and Kathryn P. Meadow-Orlans, ed. Educational and Developmental Aspects of Deafness. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1990.

Ramsey, Claire L. Deaf Children in Public Schools: Placement, Context, and Consequences. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1997.

Ross, Mark, ed. Hearing-Impaired Children in the Mainstream. Parkton: York Press, 1990.

Stelling, Jessica. The Words they Need: Welcoming Children Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing to   Literacy. Timonium: York Press, 1997.