In
all societies there is a dominant group that holds power to set up structures
and make decisions for the rest of the members of that society. Often without
knowing it, members of the dominant group oppress minority groups. One of the
most common places to find these limiting structures is within the educational
system. In the United States we are no exception. This essay will examine the negative
effects of inclusion and pedagogy on deaf students in general education
classrooms.
In the United States as well as
other countries there has been a huge push for the inclusion of all students
with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was
passed in 1975. It called for free and appropriate public education for all and
for students to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) as much
as possible with children who are not disabled. There has been a push for the
inclusion of all children with disabilities into general education classrooms. I
have witnessed this in my career as an interpreter, and Easterbrooks and
Beal-Alvarez (2012) quantify this observation. In 2005 49% of deaf students
spent 20% of the time in general education classrooms, 18% spent between 21%
and 60% of the time in general education classrooms and 20% spent more than 60%
of the time in a general education classroom. Proponents of inclusion believe
all children learn best in general education classrooms. They also believe social
interaction and integration of disabled and non-disabled children is more
important than quality learning, and programs that separate children go against
a child’s civil right to be segregated from his non-disabled peers (Cohen
1994).
Similarly,
England’s Special Education Needs law requires that children who are disabled
be placed in general education classrooms if at all possible. If the general
education classroom is absolutely not an appropriate fit, there are other
placement options available (Jarvis & Iantaffi, 2006). Inclusionists are so
anxious to have all children in general education classrooms that little
consideration is given to exceptions – for example, Deaf children.
Deaf
children are often externally identified as disabled and therefore pushed into
neighborhood schools. However, Deaf people who use American Sign Language
identify as having a rich culture, history and language that connect them with
other culturally Deaf individuals. If time was taken to really understand how
Deaf people view the world and, more importantly, how they learn best, inclusion
may not always be pushed on Deaf students.
Claire
Ramsey (1994) did research that shows how inclusion is not the best option for
every deaf student. She found that students in general education were not able
to communicate with Deaf students intelligibly. They often invented signs and
gestures, believing they were being understood when they were not. Hearing
students also found that they could easily get the attention of Deaf students
by tapping them on the shoulder, and it turned into something to do for
entertainment. (Ramsey 1994). I have seen first-hand how cut off Deaf students
can be from communication in the general education classroom. I have seen on
numerous occasions where hearing students do not engage with Deaf students,
regardless of if they know ASL or not. I have also witnessed students who reach
out to Deaf students and try to communicate in any way they can. However, this
second scenario happens less often. It has saddened my heart each time I have
witnessed a student ram a desk into the back of a Deaf student’s desk, slap them
on the shoulder or bang on their desk in order to get the Deaf student’s attention.
Then there are the times that I have seen teachers shake or lift the front of
the Deaf student’s desk into the air to let them know that lecture is starting.
These are all inconsiderate ways of getting one’s attention, even if they can’t
hear. A teacher would never do such things to a student with hearing. This
contributes to whether or not a Deaf student feels safe and comfortable in the
classroom.
Another
problem with inclusion is the fact that Deaf students who use ASL require
interpreters to receive information as well as to be understood by others.
Cohen (1995) asserts that communicating through an interpreter is not the same
as communicating directly. He states
that “no matter how good an interpreter is education through an interpreter is
education through a filter” (Cohen 1995). As an interpreter, I can testify that
is true. First of all, I can never interpret 100% correct 100% of the time. I
am human and perfection is simply impossible. Secondly, I see and understand
the content to be interpreted through my schema and my fund of knowledge. As
much as I try not to influence the message, the interpretation that I produce
will always be tinted by my personality, schema and fund of knowledge. In
addition, 95% of deaf students have parents who can hear. Often those students
come to school having no form of language. They are expected to learn sign
language through an interpreter as well as the content of the class. Cohen
compares that predicament to having to learn Russian and computer technology at
the same time (1995). Furthermore, my mere presence affects the dynamics of
social interaction between the deaf student(s), peers and the teacher, which
affects the overall educational experience for the Deaf student.
Another
challenge for Deaf students in general education classrooms is pedagogy. Jarvis
and Iantaffi (2006) believe that teachers must realize that not all of their
students will experience the world in the same way they do. It is imperative
that teachers be able to understand how their students view the world and in
turn how they learn. Many teachers don’t give much thought to the complexities
of having a Deaf student in their classroom. It has been my experience that teachers
will sit at the back of the classroom and lecture while expecting all students
to keep their attention on the power point at the front of the room. For the
Deaf student there is also an interpreter to watch to receive what the teacher
is saying. Teachers often play an educational movie while expecting the
students to do a worksheet without thought to the fact that a Deaf student can
either watch the movie or do a worksheet, but not both. It doesn’t cross many
teacher’s minds that a Deaf student cannot be looking at the interpreter and/or
the teacher’s lips and their paper to write notes at the same time. Teachers
often ask a question of a Deaf student using an interpreter and move on to
another student to answer the question before the Deaf student has even
received the question due to lag time involved with using an interpreter. With
a few easy adjustments the playing field for Deaf students could be a lot more
even.
An
obvious part of the problem is ignorance and lack of awareness on the part of
teachers. Teachers in training programs typically spend very little time
studying how to work with students with disabilities and the realities of what
life is like for them. This only contributes to the problem. Jarvis and
Iantaffi (2006) share the experience of a teacher in their teacher preparation
program, who was ignorant to the needs of Deaf students and learned what a
disservice she had done them during her student teaching. In one of her first
days in her special education class after having completed student teaching she
stated that Deaf people do not dance. Her reasoning was that they could not
hear the music, so of course, they wouldn’t dance. Over the course of the class
she found that although Deaf people can’t hear the music, they can feel the
beat. Just like with anything some Deaf people like to dance and some do not.
She also came to realize that during her student teaching when she had
documented Deaf students for copying off other students’ papers and not knowing
the answer when called upon in class, the problem was the inflexible structure
of the class and not the Deaf students. This gets right to the heart of the
matter. The problem is the structure –the improper placement of Deaf students
and inflexible pedagogy methods – not the students.
References
Cohen,
O. (1995). The adverse implications of full inclusion for deaf students. International
Congress on Education of the Deaf,
18, 1-7.
Easterbrooks,
S. R. & Beal-AIvarez, J. S. (2012). States' reading outcomes of students
who are
d/Deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(1), 27-40.
Jarvis,
J. & Iantaffi, A. (2006). ‘Deaf people don’t dance’: Challenging student
teachers’
perspectives on pupils and inclusion. Deafness and Education International,
8(2), 75-87.
Komesaroff,
L.R. & McLean, M.A. (2006). Being there is not enough: Inclusion is both
deaf and
hearing. Deafness and Education International,8(2),
88-100.
Ramsey,
C. . (1994). The price of dreams: Who will pay it. Johnson, R.C. & Cohen,
O.P.
(Ed.)Implications and Complications on Deaf
Students of the Full InclusionMovement, 31-40. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet
Research Institute.
Stinson,
M. & Lang, H. (1994). The potential impact on deaf students of the full
immersion
movement.
Johnson, R.C. & Cohen, O.P. (Ed.)Implications
and Complications on Deaf Students of the Full InclusionMovement, 31-40.
Washington D.C.: Gallaudet Research Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment