Still the Same

Aspects of Deaf education that hasn’t changed…yet

I wrote about some of my mother’s experiences in the 1930s-mid ’40s at Lexington School for the Deaf.

Hearing professionals decided that Deaf students would be forbidden the use of their native language, ASL (American Sign Language). Instead, the students were forced to endure hours of lipreading and speech training, with a minimum on the basics of reading, writing, math, and science.

The students were punished for even gesturing with their hands.

Privately, and usually in the bathroom, they taught each other and used sign language.

Things began to change for students in the 1970s but not necessarily for the better. Public Law 94–142 called for students with disabilities to be educated in “the least restrictive environment”.

Students with visual, hearing, or physical disabilities, previously separated from able-bodied peers would now join them in the classroom with accommodations provided.

Hearing professionals and hearing parents jumped on the idea of mainstreaming Deaf children. Instead of studying in a circle with Deaf peers and a Deaf instructor, many children were pulled from the schools for the Deaf and enrolled in public schools.

Many would be the lone Deaf student in a room full of hearing students, with only a sign language interpreter with whom to fully communicate. I could see then how lonely it was for the child and came to believe that mainstreaming was actually the most restrictive environment.

I read a Truthout article by writer Eleanor J. Bader in which she interviewed Rachel Zemach, a Deaf educator. The article was called “Deaf Students and Educators Face Harrowing Conditions in Hearing Schools.” The newsletter landed in my ebox on September 15.

Uh-oh, I thought, as I began reading. Sure enough, I could feel myself becoming angry.

After all these years, very little has changed in the way hearing professionals view deafness. Now the big push is for an invasive surgery called the cochlear implant to “fix” deafness.

I’d never heard of the devices although they were invented and first began to be implanted in the 1970s. They became a “thing” in the late 1980s-early 90s. Hearing parents with Deaf children were convinced that their children would become hearing with the implant.

They were misled.

Their children had been born Deaf and hadn’t heard sound. They had to be trained to recognize sound combinations and what they heard was not the same as what hearing people heard. When the implant was removed to go to sleep, to swim, to play sports, to shower, or for some other reason, the children were deaf again.

Not all of the children were success stories. Well, then, said the doctors, we’ll implant the babies so that they’ll hear sounds as soon as possible.

I couldn’t fathom any parent allowing a child of any age to have a hole drilled into their skull to destroy whatever was left of the auditory nerve just to implant a device that may or may not work. Again, once the implant was taken off, the baby would be deaf again. There’s no guarantee that the child would truly hear.

Why was this happening?

It’s because hearing medical and educational professionals still view deafness as something broken that needs to be fixed.

The Deaf community was not invited to participate in a discussion between doctors, educators, and parents about their Deaf child. If the Deaf were able to communicate with frightened, bewildered parents, they would be able to provide assurance that deafness isn’t something to be feared.

The culture is rich, the language is beautiful, and they are able to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, professors, architects, accountants, and on and on. They can become auto mechanics, machinists, electricians, or plumbers. They can be actors or composers, poets, writers, artists, or singers.

The only thing they can’t do is hear.

I was happy to read in the article that with social media and online websites for Deaf organizations, some progressive parents are reaching out to the Deaf community for advice and support.

When I was interpreting in the school system, I met a few parents who took it upon themselves to learn ASL so they could fully communicate with their Deaf child. Even though that child was being mainstreamed, the parents would seek out opportunities for the child to interact with other Deaf kids. Bravo.

Too many parents, though, refused to learn sign language and meet Deaf adults. One set of parents actually forced their 16-year-old to have a cochlear implant. That teenager told me that he was perfectly happy with who he was and wanted to become immersed in the Deaf community.

All I know is that the student resented that, because he was a minor, he had to submit to have a device implanted. Afterward, he complained of numbness and an inability to taste his food. I hope for his sake those side effects wore off.

One more thing I remember about the students whose parents had required them to use lipreading and cued speech alone: they learned ASL from the signing students when they got to middle school.

By the time they reached high school, they began demanding sign language interpreters. In some cases, the students were allowed to have input in their individualized education plan (IEP), breaking with their parents and requiring a sign language interpreter for their classes.

To me, it’s inevitable. ASL is the native language of the Deaf. To deprive them of it is just cruel.

The article concluded with some sound advice for hearing educators. All of this very helpful information comes at the very end of the article. This is a valuable article for anyone to read, whether you’re in education or not.