Dear Parents,
Since Day One of the Starving for Access movement, there have been many strong reactions from parents. By parents, we refer not only to those who have children at Michigan School for the Deaf (MSD), but also parents of deaf children in Michigan, across the world, and our own parents.
And so, we wanted to pen a letter to explain a bit about why we feel so strongly about bilingual education.
The first thing we want to write is that we are in no way trying to dictate how you raise your child or tell you which communication mode you need to use with your child: though we are perfectly aware that it seems this way. And we will tell you with complete honesty that we are biased in that we feel that American Sign Language (ASL) is a must-teach for deaf children and their families—in conjugation with (and not at the expense of) other ways of communicating.
What we are instead trying to push through is the idea that it is impossible to meet every parent’s wish for their child in a classroom. Suppose one child is taught to speak with some supported signs, one uses ASL, another is oral, and yet another uses cued speech. . . how does a teacher instruct a classroom where those four students are assembled? Does the teacher use speech with some supported signs (at the expense of the child who uses ASL or cued speech)? This is the problem with Total Communication.
Whatever communication mode one uses, there must be language in the classroom. Sign supported speech is not a language. Spoken English is. And American Sign Language is. Now, you have two options: You can have a program that consists of teaching entirely in Spoken English, with the assistance of visual resources such as power point and real time captioning. Or you can have a program where teaching happens in American Sign Language, with the same resources (power point, real time captioning, and other technology).
Right now, the majority of students at MSD use American Sign Language or something very close to it. But the majority of the teachers do not instruct in American Sign Language. Some choose not to, regardless of the fact that they have the skills to do so. Others just plain don’t have fluency in American Sign Language.
Every child and every parent has the ability to learn American Sign Language. The truth is not every deaf child will be able to develop an aptitude for speaking and lip reading. So, think about it: which language, American Sign Language or Spoken English is more inclusive?
A bilingual program means that classes are taught using American Sign Language. Children are taught not only the vocabulary of both American Sign Language and English, but the grammatical rules of both languages. Understanding what a verb is in American Sign Language makes it easier to identify a verb in the English language. The more language the child has, the more conceptual understanding he or she has. And this conceptual understanding allows for easier translation between languages.
A bilingual program means that children learn to distinguish between the structures of American Sign Language and written English.
In such a program, equal respect is granted to both languages. American Sign Language is the language most commonly used by Deaf people because it makes sense: it is visually and tactually accessible. When used appropriately, it is as articulate and eloquent as any other spoken or written language. It is a language that belongs to the signing community: and that includes hearing parents and hearing teachers and hearing administrators.
And given that this language is the most accessible one, it is used at all times—not just when people “feel like it.” And then what happens? Opportunities for incidental learning blossom. Children are exposed to strategies for problem solving, and critical thinking skills. They learn more about politics and world events just by watching people interact and discuss everyday things. Hearing children, after all, would overhear that which teachers refuse to sign.
A bilingual program also makes room for spoken English. There is a time and a place for such a method. One-on-one speech training or groups hosted by speech teachers that allow for speaking time. One could also schedule groups that focus on phonetics to help improve literacy skills—an approach which may be very effective with kids who have a lot of residual hearing or even post-lingual profoundly deaf kids who have a phonetic memory.
The bottom line? A bilingual program focuses on LANGUAGES. It also focuses on treating everyone as an equal part of the school—not for the sake of treatment but because they are equal. It means that people have access to information at all times, not just when the teacher is standing close enough and looking directly at the student so that he or she can lip read.
When we tell a teacher that it’s okay to have average signing skills, do we have the right to expect exceptional English skills from the children they teach?
One of our favorite examples of why sim com (sign supported speech) is often ineffective is illustrated below:
One day one of us observed a teacher instruct his students about the geographical lines that are longitude and latitude. He signed/spoke: “The lines run around the Earth” (he used the sign for jogging run” In ASL, this would be expressed by first setting up the earth then using the pinkie, draw a line around a spatial globe in horizontal circular motion and vertical circular motion—which is the correct concept.
Can you imagine trying to figure out how a line jogs? Children have to decipher those codes before they can understand concepts. It makes the head ache.
We feel that it will take someone who has experience with bilingual programs, knowledge of such an educational approach, and the confidence in it to make it successful at MSD. We do not feel, based on what we’ve seen over the years, that the current principal has the ability to carry off such a task.
We do not dispute that there have been some improvements over the last few years at MSD. One such example is the Shared Reading Project. We do, however, disagree that the current principal is responsible for those improvements. She has actively resisted the implementation of the Shared Reading Project for several years—to cite one example. There are many other examples of times when she has barred progress.
We believe that several dedicated teachers, the Parent Office coordinator, the Assistant Principal, community activists such as Ryan Commerson, Todd Morrison, and Celesete Johnson, and a recent consultant to the school have been paramount in bringing forth positive changes.
Many of you feel as though you were not consulted before this protest began. We agree, to some extent. You see, over the last 8 months, there have been a series of Town Hall meetings, which have been open to everyone—parents included. During those meetings, bilingual education was discussed and only two or three parents ever attended those meetings.
It is also difficult to get in touch with parents: how do we do this? The parent group at MSD over the last two years has been nearly nonexistent. And we can’t exactly request the information from the main office at MSD (which would be an invasion of privacy).
More than that, though: parents are the hardest group of people to talk with, though no fault of their own. There are several reasons for this: first, we have our own frustrations (seeing systems fail, children crying because they feel left out during dinners with their families, our own issues with our own parents, and the attitude from some parents that because we are deaf, we aren’t really smart) that sometimes get in the way of approaching parents without bias. Then there’s also the truth that many parents are defensive (understandably so). After all, you have countless people trying to tell you what to do, and when you choose one thing everyone else tells you that it was a bad choice/you are a bad parent. Some parents are still grieving, and have not yet accepted that their child is deaf. They are sensitive and no one wants to make them angry or feel hurt.
Parents also fear that the deaf community is trying to take their child away. They worry that being around deaf people will weaken their child’s ability to interact with hearing people for lack of knowing how. But this isn’t so and requires yet another lengthy explanation that we would be happy to go into—but doubt that many people would have the patience to read (contact us if you want more information on this).
That written, we do not mean any disrespect towards parents. We value your opinion and your input. We just need to acknowledge to each other that it is very hard to bridge that gap between the parent of a deaf child and a Deaf adult. We need to meet halfway and converse about the issues.
Please remember that as adults who have gone through the same kind of educational system as your children are going through, we refuse to stand idly by and watch children struggle without advocating for them. We know what it feels like, what it did to our self-esteem. We know confused and unsure our parents were, with so many conflicting sources of information and the feeling that teachers are “experts” and “authority figures” that should be listened to above their children. We, like you, want all the best options to be available to your child.
Best wishes,
Alison Aubrecht, M.A., NCC
(Mental Health Counselor and Deaf Adult of Hearing Parents)
and
Jessica Rogers, Senior Peer Advisor
Gallaudet University
(Student of Psychology and Deaf Adult of Hearing Parents)
