Part 5: Educational Options and Program Expectations

The Deaf Culture largely favors voluntary separation for deaf children in residential schools and is opposed to mainstreaming most deaf children in local hearing schools (Paul, Quigley, 1990).  Many deaf adults have mounted aggressive campaigns to block the closing of residential schools as was seen just a few years ago in Pennsylvania.  Many students at a residential setting develop a deep sense of place at the residential schools (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).  This concept of  "place" is very important in the lives of the deaf and often deaf parents prefer their deaf child in this setting.  However, it must be noted that early placement in a residential setting deletes and profoundly de-emphasizes the hearing parent from early interaction and communication with the child.

Day schools for the deaf are typically located in cities and are self-contained units for deaf students who commute to them daily.  Approximately 45% of all deaf children attend residential settings with only 10% in day schools and approximately 40% of residential students commute to their schools.  Most of the students in these settings have severe to profound hearing losses (Paul, Quigley 1990).

Academically, residential schools are below par.  The curriculum is much less demanding than offered to hearing students at the same grade level in regular public schools.  Materials are often teacher-made and created or adapted to match the low reading levels of the deaf student.  The schools tend to be isolated and insular, making it difficult to incorporate new educational strategies.  In fact, residential schools tend to lose sight of what hearing students of a given age are expected to know (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).  On the other hand, there are some residential schools that have tried to change and challenge many students appropriately such as the New York State School for the Deaf.

Recently, at the 2000 New York State Association of Educators of the Deaf Convention (NYSAED) in upstate New York, a team of teachers of the deaf from the New York State School for the Deaf in White Plains (both residential and day programs), received their organizationís coveted "Best Practices Award" for the integration of technology and literacy.  This is one example of residential schools trying to change and better meet the deaf students needs today.  However, it is sad to note that for the most part, residential school graduates tend not to enroll in post-secondary programs (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).

Residential schools, however, do have an important advantage for the deaf student.  These schools do an excellent job of socialization.  Because all the students are deaf, participation in extracurricular functions such as student government, sports, dramatic activities, etc. is a valuable extension of the classroom.  Students can participate in every aspect of school beginning from an early age on.  Also, the residential school student is likely to come into contact with many deaf role models which includes teachers and staff as well as older deaf students.  Most deaf students graduate from residential schools with a healthy self-esteem as a result of a lot of positive social interaction (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).

Most day schools, the other separate facility for the deaf, have many of the disadvantages of residential schools without some of the advantages.  Although it now seems to be changing, in general, most teachers of the deaf in these settings are hearing and communication is not as fluent.  The expectations are often lower and the curriculum is sometimes watered down.  The lack of deaf role models in many day schools means the deaf child does not gain the self-esteem necessary for a positive feeling about themselves and identity crises can be severe.  Commuting time is often quite long too (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).

Today there is much controversy over these types of schools.  As discussed earlier, laws have been passed to place students in "the least restrictive environment".  Least restrictive environment means the most appropriate placement for the child who is deaf in which the childís capacities may be developed to the greatest extent possible.  The hearing world, in general, and special educators tend to see the full integration of the deaf student into the hearing classroom as providing the least restrictive environment for education.  The Deaf Culture sees "least restrictive" differently; they consider the residential school to be the least restrictive, the most inclusive and the best placement for the child who is deaf (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).

Examining the term "least restrictive environment" from the hearing personís point of view explains the recent trend in mainstream education.  According to Bishop (1979), the goal of education is to prepare individuals to function in school, work, home and in the community.  If education is to be successful, it must be concerned with a group of individuals and not with the individual.

Mainstreaming is one alternative process for educating deaf students.  This program is most popular for the deaf child of elementary school age and can consist of separate, self-contained day classes that are in a regular school but may or may not be part of the regular academic program. Interaction with hearing children takes place outside of the normal academic schedule such as between periods, lunch, etc.  Because of their proximity to hearing classrooms, there are more options available to the deaf students who have the background, skills and desire to participate in classes with hearing children (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).  However, history and research shows that for most deaf students, it is not sufficient to just place them in a class with hearing children and expect all to go well.  Special attention is required (Bishop, 1979).

Mainstreaming was created in response to the requirements of the IDEA that local school districts offer a continuum of options for the education of deaf children.  However, critics of mainstreaming charge that mainstreaming "disables" deaf children.  Instead of enabling deaf youth to develop their skills and their selves, mainstreaming restricts them (Higgins, 1990).  The most severe critics say that mainstreaming oppresses deaf children.  It tries to turn deaf children into a hearing majority at the expense of the individualís growth (Higgins, 1990).  The challenge of educating deaf and hearing children together is tremendous!  There are many shortcomings to mainstreaming, but mainstreaming can and has worked in many cases.  It can become a way to enable deaf and hearing children to live and learn with one another in common worlds as well as separate world and to contribute to both world (Higgins, 1990).

"The questions and criticisms become the challenges for the teacher" of the deaf particularly now at the beginning of the 21st century.  Today advocates of full inclusion for children with disabilities seek to make the educational system keep the promise that mainstreaming failed to keep, namely, real integration in the school.  "Education of children with disabilities alongside children with none" is the motto of full inclusionists.  However, is full inclusion viable for the deaf child?

In the education of special populations of students, the term "inclusion" has commonly referred to the physical environment or the "where" that the child is placed (Afzali-Namani, 1995).  In order for such an approach to be successful with the deaf, the program must be able to effectively integrate them socially into the learning activities of the school and classroom.  For example, the New York State Standards in English-Language Arts, promotes cooperative learning groups.  These small group activities/discussions can be a source of distress for the deaf student.  These integration activities should include opportunities for rewarding friendships, feelings of social support, as well as participation in structured activities at a level that ensures effective learning of academic skills.  However, for the deaf child they do not (Corson, Struckless, 1994).

Advocates of full inclusion argue that placing children with disabilities full time in the same location with children having no disabilities provides equal access to learning experiences (Afzali-Nomani, 1995). However, it is important to remember the effects that instruction and other classroom experiences will have on the student.  Careful attention needs to be made to a studentís unique needs.  Deaf educators have stressed that the deaf do not generally accept deafness as a disability but perceive it as a difference or form of diversity (Corson, Struckless, 1994).  Many feel this difference requires a special kind of educational experience and so inclusion is often viewed as insensitive to the differences that define Deaf Culture (Corson, Struckless, 1994).

The actual inclusion of deaf students in regular local schools and classes is, in itself, not the key issue.  Many educators support inclusion with appropriate special services available for the deaf student.  At issue is the intent behind the term "full" and "total", meaning all deaf children should be enrolled with hearing children (Corson, Struckless, 1994).  This is thought by some to be extreme.  This brings back the issue of choice.  Most people associated with full inclusion do not argue that all children should be forced to do one thing or another.  They argue that is exactly what they are fighting against!  They contend that it is wrong to deny families, on the basis of a childís physical, social, intellectual or psychological difference, a choice of where that child may or may not go to school.  Advocates who value the benefits of bringing inclusion into regular classrooms argue strongly for their rights and the rights of all children.  They support the privacy of choice over compulsion in educational placement for any individual child including the deaf student (Corson, Struckless, 1994).

What are the pros and cons of inclusion for the deaf student?  The following is a listing of issues gathered from Peter V. Paulís Literacy and Deafness that must be addressed and considered in the "hearing" classroom if a deaf student is to be included:

(1) Language and Communication: The unique language and communication abilities of deaf students are well documented.  For an educational setting to be fully inclusive, all children must have full and uninhibited language and communication access to all facets of the program and personnel (Corson, Struckless, 1994).  While deaf students vary in their spoken language skills, they generally do not have the competence to benefit from orally presented curriculum (Lang, Simson, 1994).  As a result, the deaf student will have difficulty understanding the teacher and the teacher will have difficulty understanding the deaf student.  Deaf students may have difficulties participating in class discussions and answering questions addressed to the whole class.

The use of interpreters does not equate with the level of access provided in an environment where the teacher is proficient in ASL, or in the childís preferred mode of communication (Corson, Struckless, 1994).  The skills of interpreters vary considerably and the lack of standards in public schools to ensure quality interpreting is a serious problem (Lang, Stinson, 1994).  While an interpreter can significantly increase access compared to no signed support for communication, students are still not likely to be exposed to all relevant materials and to comprehend the material at a level similar to hearing classmates (Lang, Simson, 1994).

Inclusionists often believe that any problem with placing deaf students in regular classrooms can be solved by using an educational interpreter.  They mistakenly believe that interpreting is a simple substitute for direct communication and teaching and, that an interpreted education is an "included" education (Cohen, 1995).  While interpreting can provide much information, an interpreted education is second-hand education.  No matter how skilled the interpreter, the teacher and the student always have a kind of artificial filter between them (Cohen, 1995).  Students need to have direct interaction with the teacher.

Another popular approach to communication that many hard of hearing students use is a frequency modulation assistive device or FM System.  The FM microphone is worn by the teacher and studentís hearing aid has a receiver to which the teacherís microphone directly transmits.  There are pros and cons to this system and really, much of the success depends on the teacherís willingness to be consistent, audiological support services, parent cooperation as well as the studentís abilities.  Generally many users of the system report serious difficulties understanding the teacher and, since the microphone is worn by the teacher, the deaf student cannot understand their classmates (Stinson, 1994).  Communication in the school environment does not just occur between teacher and student.  Interaction with peers is crucial for the deaf child.

(2) Socialization:  The belief that children with disabilities will reap the benefits of being in a classroom with non-disabled peers is troubling to many educators particularly teachers of the deaf (Corson, Struckless, 1994).  For many deaf students, the likely consequence of inclusion is social isolation not integration.  This kind of social integration is not conductive to a deaf studentís social development at all (Lang, Stinson, 1994).  According to Foster (1988), many included deaf students used words to describe their social experience in schools such as "loneliness", "rejection", "isolation" and more.

Deaf students have difficulty relating to hearing students.  Research also shows that deaf students feel consistently more secure with other deaf students than hearing students.  This shows that deaf students regularly turn to each other to meet the needs for real conversation, developing close friendships and having a sense of belonging (Lang, Stinson, 1994).

Unfortunately, most of the empirical evidence argues against inclusions in regard to socialization.  This evidence shows minimal to non-existent interaction between deaf and hearing children, adolescents and deaf students placed alone in local schools.  They are likely to encounter persistent frustrations and negative experiences, which may lead to poor social skills, little participation in activities and much loneliness (Lang, Stinson, 1994).  Placing a child, any child, in an environment where he/she needs constant intervention in order to engage in basic social activities may actually obstruct normal development.

(3) Cultural Needs: The concept that there is a culture within the deaf community has emerged more strongly in recent years as deaf individuals recognize that they share special commonalities and ways of relating to others who are deaf.  These commonalities primarily focus on language (ASL) and values that may not be the same as those held by hearing persons (Lang, Stinson, 1994). Exposure to other deaf individuals is a necessary element of a deaf childís education.  These interactions along with other elements in a deaf childís life provide cultural awareness and identity that enhances development of a positive self-concept.  Regular education makes efforts to provide students with a broad range of cultural events and activities that are designed to enlighten students to other cultures and role models.  A truly inclusive environment would have to provide the same focus for deaf students.

The debate on inclusion as the educational option of choice for the deaf child will continue.  Although there is much controversy against inclusion in general for the deaf, there are some positive aspects for the deaf student in the hearing classroom too.

Some deaf students have praised the quality of the education they received in inclusive settings.  They regard it as valuable although at times frustrating.  Quality of education is what these students also emphasize.  Special schools for the deaf tend to simplify curriculum especially if the teacher is not proficient in ASL.  It is known that deaf children, on average, lag far behind hearing students in achievement tests (Sass-Lehar). Some deaf parents believe their deaf children will benefit academically and send their children to inclusive programs.  Other parents have had bad experiences in residential schools and for that reason alone, have sent their children to inclusive settings.  Deaf students often feel that by attending inclusive programs the value of their education will enhance their career opportunities.  They believe they have greater opportunities for attending college and can function better in a hearing world (Stone, 1994).  Even though these deaf students may not be completely oral, they often have some speech skills and are somewhat better able to survive in a hearing world.  Hearing people accept them with a more open attitude.  Deaf children who attend special schools may miss this kind of opportunity and may confront frustration outside of the educational environment (Stone, 1994).

The education of the deaf student in any setting presents unique challenges and problems.  The overall drop out rate of deaf high schoolers has been estimated at almost 30%.  One in every five deaf students who do graduate do not meet the academic requirements for a diploma and leave with a certificate instead (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).  In New York State, this certificate is called the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) diploma.

The least restrictive environment for the deaf student is probably the one that optimizes freedom and communication with teachers and peers.  This communication is a prerequisite to academic progress as well as psychological and social development (Bahan, Hoffmeister, Lane, 1996).  Each student with a hearing impairment has a unique set of special needs and appropriate educational procedures, public, private or a combination, must be varied to meet their special needs.  There is no one way to educate the deaf; each deaf child is a unique individual with unique learning needs.

Perhaps, eventually, the best aspects of mainstreaming, inclusion and special schools can be combined to provide deaf students with better alternatives.  One such unique program exists in Suffolk County, New York, the Cleary School for the Deaf Secondary Program at East Islip High School as well as Clearyís elementary program in Nesconset.  They combine much of the best in their fine program.  However, overall, schools do not provide a high quality of education while providing an atmosphere of acceptance, opportunities for socialization with other deaf students and members of the Deaf Culture nor do they help develop a strong sense of identity and self-esteem.

There are, however, some guidelines based on the criteria presented by Ogden (1996) and Paul for an "ideal" school:
1) There are at least a few deaf teachers on the staff who function as role Models not only for the students but also for the other hearing educators
2) The deaf faculty and staff members have significant roles in shaping school policy
3) Communication is 100% free flowing and there is no possibility that a deaf Child will ever be left out or misunderstood because of being deaf
4) The school recognizes ASL as the official language of the Deaf Community and affords all students the opportunity to learn and to use ASL in a supportive environment
5) The school curriculum embraces history, culture, and literature of deaf people
6) In its teaching method and cultural orientation, the school gives priority to "the world of vision" over "the world of audition".
7) The school provides a full range of extracurricular activities and students have completely free choice in deciding where and how to participate
8) Students are grouped by age, grade level, skill level, work performance, etc. rather than by their place on the "deafness spectrum" (Ogden, 1996).

In addition to the components identified by above, it is important that educators of the deaf and schools for the deaf follow through on selecting the best educational philosophy and be consistent.  Subject areas, such as reading, must be based on a curriculum and educational standards as well as meeting the unique needs of the deaf.

Teachers of the deaf must be licensed, graduates of an accredited college or university, meet professional standards and be certified by the state in which they teach in.  In addition, teachers must be required to be proficient in the approach they regularly use with their deaf student (s) and attend training programs on a regular basis to update their methods and skills.  They must be expert in the subject areas they teach and continue developing knowledge and skills.  Finally, if ASL is the language of instruction, teachers must be fluent in it.