Education Begins at Home

Parents, siblings, and others provide young children with a context in which development occurs and supports and promotes early learning. In this chapter, we consider the roles of various individuals and early interventions in social, language, and cognitive development before children enter school. Because most deaf children are born to nonsigning, hearing parents, communication in the home is given special consideration, particularly with regard to the kinds of information and experience that contribute to those domains. We also consider the importance of implicit instruction in relation to fostering educational readiness and the potential effects on long-term academic achievement and personal growth. Parents will encounter both opportunities and challenges in raising a deaf child, and research has demonstrated a variety of ways in which they can optimize their child’s development. Therefore, we devote some space to describing the field on which early development takes place. Most important, we will see the importance of deaf children having early access to language, social interaction, and experiential diversity. Because most cases of deafness are not hereditary, many deaf children will have congenital or early-onset hearing losses that are totally unexpected (and usually unrecognized for some time) by their parents. Some of those children will be considered at risk at birth because of the maternal, fetal, or neonatal medical problems that contributed to their hearing losses. Beyond the consequences of initial medical difficulties, factors related to prenatal or postnatal hearing loss may well influence the quantity or quality of interactions the infant has with others in the environment during the first few months. These earliest influences, and their effects, can have ever-widening consequences for development over the first months and years of life. Even before birth, sounds perceived from within the womb can influence the course of development. Early in the last trimester of pregnancy, a fetus will rotate and adopt a new position with the head against the mother’s pelvis. Most fetuses already have considerable responsiveness to sound at this point and can perceive the mother’s voice and heartbeat through bone conduction (Als et al., 1979).

Teaching and the Curriculum

We have discussed how the education of deaf children depends on their characteristics as well as on the characteristics of parents, teachers, and school programs that serve those children. We have summarized a variety of studies that have implications for parents, teachers, and educational administrators with regard to fostering communication skills, cognitive growth, and social interaction by deaf children. The available evidence supports the need for strong early intervention programs that provide the experiential diversity critical for development across the life span and for achievement in a variety of educational settings. Chapter 8 dealt with the specific educational challenges confronting deaf students in reading and writing. The message there was that English literacy needs to be considered broadly, as it affects both learning and success in a variety of areas, both academic and nonacademic. In chapter 8, we also discussed implications for curriculum materials and particular teaching emphases. Now, we turn to some best practices for teaching and curriculum development in content areas such as science, mathematics, and social studies and show how information in the previous chapters comes together in the dayto-day activities of students and teachers. As we have seen, available research findings indicate the need to exercise caution when deaf learners are placed in inclusive academic environments. Deaf students have specific needs that may not be met adequately if it is assumed that, aside from communication differences, deaf students and hearing students are the same. This is not a point to be raised only with regard to mainstream classrooms; it is a complex issue that needs to be addressed throughout the educational system. To set the stage for the remainder of this chapter, let us review some salient points which emerged from earlier chapters and were seen as key in understanding the teaching and learning of deaf students: • Deaf students have different experiences that may influence how they view and interact with the world. • A diversity of both object-oriented and person-oriented experiences is crucial to normal development. • Deaf students depend more on visual information, but they also may be more prone to distraction than hearing peers in the visual domain.

Educational Programs and Philosophies

In this chapter we explore the continuum of educational alternatives available for deaf children and emphasize the need to consider a variety of factors in determining the best placement for a particular child. Although we focus on schooling, it is important to keep in mind that learning has strong social roots in interactions with adults and peers. The ability to profit from both formal and informal instruction at school requires that children have skills in areas such as attention, problem solving, turn taking, and memorizing and have a positive attitude toward learning. Children must also have a firm foundation in language to access information in the classroom and learn from it. Although a variety of nonverbal, social interaction strategies are available and useful for young deaf (and hearing) children when they enter school, it is through language that the give and take of education really occurs. Parents often find the information available to them in making the school decision both confusing and contradictory. As we described in chapter 2, federal legislation has sought to make access to education easier for deaf children and their families, but the laws often are misinterpreted or overinterpreted by state, regional, and local authorities, making the results less than helpful for parents. Further, there is much disagreement about whether there is one educational setting or format that is best for deaf children, with the issue of residential (i.e., separate) schools versus mainstreaming being the most heated. The school debate is now decades old, and yet the matter is not yet resolved; there is no evidence to indicate that one educational setting is uniformly better than another. Meanwhile, on one issue there appears to be almost unanimous agreement: the importance of early intervention programs for deaf children. Such programs provide communication instruction, parental counseling, and enriching social and cognitive experiences for deaf children. Yet, even with regard to preschool programs, there are some complex decisions to be made because different programs may influence language, cognitive, and social growth in a variety of ways.

Language Development and Deaf Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

Educating Deaf Students: An Introduction

Consider this passage from a letter written by Robert H. Weitbrecht, a physicist who was born deaf and went on to change the lives of deaf people throughout the world: . . . Perhaps I was more fortunate than the average deaf child. My family had upheavals during my teens—my father passed away and we had difficult circumstances. My mother had faith in me and saw to it that I was given the best possible chance during these times. (Weitbrecht to Srnka, 1966) . . . As a young boy, Weitbrecht had difficulties learning to speak. His parents and teachers were not sure about his potential to acquire a normal education. Weitbrecht was teased by his peers because of his deafness. He did not have very positive self-esteem, and he was not happy in school. Despite the doubts and challenges, he went on to earn several academic degrees. In 1964, Weitbrecht developed a modem (“acoustic coupler”) which enabled deaf people to use the telephone via a teletypewriter (TTY). Weitbrecht’s modem was a major breakthrough in the lives of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, who had waited more than 90 years since the invention of the voice telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. It brought to them both access and independence with regard to long-distance communication. Weitbrecht’s story is one of a young deaf child with questionable abilities who went on to be successful in his chosen field. It is also a story that has often been repeated (Lang & Meath-Lang, 1995). Despite all of the hurdles which have threatened to thwart their progress, deaf people have found ways to go over, under, and around the barriers of attitude and access to distinguish themselves in many fields of endeavor. Imagine how much more they could do if society did not make it so hard for them. This book is about learning, teaching, and the education of children who are deaf or hard of hearing, but it is not intended solely for those who make their living by teaching. Rather, it is intended for parents, service providers, policymakers, and lay readers as well as teachers—anyone interested in the education of deaf children, whether or not they have a formal educational role.

Looking Ahead While Glancing Back

In the preceding chapters, we have seen that a remarkable amount of progress has been made over the past 30 years toward understanding the impact of deafness on learning and development. Bringing together educational and research findings from diverse disciplines, we have endeavored to explain the current state of the art with regard to raising and educating deaf children, as well as some historical bases for contemporary approaches to deaf education. In describing research relating to educational foundations and teaching-learning processes, we have seen that providing parents with balanced and accurate information, continued research efforts, and professional development for teachers are vital parts of the educational futures of deaf students. At the end of each chapter, we have summarized significant findings and developments. Rather than attempting to provide an additional summary here, we reiterate some of the general themes of this book and the major implications for parents, teachers, and others involved in educating deaf students. Probably the most general and salient theme of this book is that the deaf learner should not be viewed as a hearing learner who cannot hear. It is often tempting, for reasons of either perceived equity or for expedience in the classroom, to assume that deaf and hearing children are the same. As we have seen, deaf and hearing children have different backgrounds, experiences, communication histories, and knowledge. To optimize the educational opportunities of deaf learners, we need to develop instructional materials, teaching strategies, and learning environments that take advantage of their strengths while compensating for their special needs. This means that treating deaf children the same as hearing children may be doing them a great disservice. At a minimum, we should resist superficial modifications to educational settings so that deaf children can share classrooms with hearing children when the fundamental needs of all involved have not been considered. A recurring finding across language, social, and academic domains is that early intervention for deaf children and their families is critical. Such programs do more than just support the development of communication and language—they provide deaf children with similar peers, role models, and contexts that promote early development.

Reading, Writing, and Literacy

Language is an essential component of normal development and a means for discovering the world. As we have seen, however, deaf children frequently do not have full access to communication until they have passed the most important ages for language acquisition. Parents and educators of young deaf students thus often struggle to find a balance between fostering effective early communication skills, which research has shown is usually best achieved through sign language, and the provision of English skills needed for literacy and academic success. Despite decades of concerted effort, most deaf children progress at only a fraction of the rate of hearing peers in learning to read. Current data indicate that, on average, 18-year-old deaf students leaving high school have reached only a fourth to sixth grade level in reading skills. Only about 3 percent of those 18 year olds read at the same level as the average 18- year-old hearing reader, and more than 30 percent of deaf students leave school functionally illiterate (Traxler, 2000; Kelly, 1995; Waters & Doehring, 1990). At the same time, there are clearly many deaf adults and children who are excellent readers and excellent writers. How can we account for these differences? What are the implications for educators developing English curricula for deaf students? To answer these questions, we first need to consider what is meant by literacy—that is, what is it we are asking students to acquire? Then, we have to understand how deaf students read, at both descriptive and procedural levels. In this chap ter, we consider only literacy relating to print materials (reading and writing); other possibilities will be considered in chapter 9. But is the question whether deaf students read well enough to fulfill the needs and expectations of their teachers? Is it important to know how well various subgroups of deaf learners read compared to each other? Or, do we want to know how well deaf students read, as a group, compared to hearing students of the same age?

Cognitive Development and Deaf Children

There is a long history of investigations reporting that deaf children lag behind hearing peers in learning, problem solving, and creativity. In this chapter we describe the kinds of evidence that led to such conclusions and the extent to which they appear to be valid today. Early research concerning cognitive development in deaf children often was aimed at understanding intellectual growth “in the absence of language.” Other investigations involved tasks that required comprehension of English or histories of reading. More recently, we have come to understand that both kinds of evaluation might be biased against deaf children. Still, ways in which deaf children’s atypical histories of language functioning and educational experience might influence their cognitive development are largely unexplored. There have been a variety of studies dealing with deaf children’s cognitive skills, and especially memory, sometimes including consideration of language fluencies and degree of hearing loss. More recently, various tests of cognitive ability have been developed that are nonverbal in nature or can be administered through sign language. The extent to which those tests accurately reflect the thinking skills of deaf children still remains poorly understood, as does the question of whether such tests tap the same skills that they do in hearing children. Further, some people still make the appealing but dubious assumption that cognitive development is essentially the same for deaf and hearing children (see Braden, 2001; Marschark & Lukomski, 2001, for discussion). Studies of intelligence and academic abilities of minority and underprivileged children during the 1960s and 1970s led to a concern about the lack of cultural fairness in testing. It was recognized at the time that the nature of children’s early environments could influence later performance on intelligence measures and academic achievement. This issue was never adequately addressed with regard to deaf children, most of whom clearly have early childhood experiences that could cause differences in test performance. As a result, deaf children were often described as “deficient” or as “concrete, literal thinkers” who were unlikely to be able to grasp the kinds of abstract concepts necessary for academic success.

Characteristics of Deaf Learners

In the interests of equality, sensitivity, and political correctness, it is often claimed that deaf and hearing individuals are exactly the same, except for their hearing losses. To some extent, this attitude may reflect an understandable swing of the pendulum after years of society’s treating deaf individuals as though they are deficient. At the same time, we believe that there is now considerable evidence to indicate that the experiences, knowledge, and strategies of deaf individuals often differ in some ways from those of hearing individuals, and that such differences are likely to influence learning. At one level, the question of differences between deaf and hearing learners is a statistical, descriptive one. This chapter provides some basic information in that regard, including demographics, types and causes of hearing loss, and issues relating to educational placement. We discuss populations and their characteristics. At another level, however, the question of differences between deaf and hearing learners is about individuals. There, the relevant issues are more empirical than descriptive, and an interdisciplinary perspective becomes important. If deaf and hearing students were the same except for their hearing losses, then we would not have to worry about special educational methods, issues of social integration, or whether a local public school or special school program would be better for a deaf child. If deaf and hearing children were the same except for their hearing losses, we could put them in the same classrooms and assume the same background knowledge, social skills, and educational futures. The problem is that life is rarely so simple. By virtue of their hearing losses, many deaf children (and particularly those with hearing parents) have somewhat different early environments than hearing children. Frequently, those children do not have access to the language of their families, and their parents are not fully prepared for handling the special needs of a child who cannot hear. With differences in communication, early social interactions, and ways of acquiring new information, it seems likely that deaf children will have some characteristics that distinguish them from hearing children.

Lessons from History

The adage “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is a powerful one for parents and teachers of deaf students. Myths that have grown from ignorance have dogged us in this field as far back as we can see, and faulty assumptions and overgeneralizations have been sustained through time. A study of history also reveals what at first might seem like a series of random events, but which actually manifest patterns that have influenced today’s educational policy (see Fischer & Lane, 1993; Van Cleve, 1993). These patterns are related to several themes critical to the emphases of this book. One such theme is the importance of parental involvement in the education of deaf children. History provides us with factual accounts and anecdotes that enrich our understanding of the advocacy roles parents have played, especially with regard to the establishment of school programs. As we shall see, research clearly supports the role of parental involvement in both formal and informal education, as evidenced in studies demonstrating the long-term influence of mother-child relationships and early communication and the need for providing deaf children with a variety of experiences during the early years. Another theme that emerges from a historical perspective relates to how deaf people have taken an increasingly greater role in influencing their own education. Histories have been published that describe how deafness was perceived in ancient times, how various societies changed with regard to their attitudes toward deaf people, and that highlight the turning points in the education and acceptance of people who are deaf. In most published histories of deaf education, we see the long-standing conflicts through the centuries pertaining to sign language and spoken communication philosophies and the contributions of the individuals who founded school programs or attempted to teach deaf children. Often, however, writers have neglected to examine how deaf people themselves have overcome barriers in many periods of history and under a wide variety of conditions to make important contributions in education and other fields. A history of the education of deaf individuals thus should be more than just a study of changes in educational practices.