Can Deaf children reap the benefits of inclusion?

A study on Deaf children in South African Education

ByCandice Heydenrych

Submitted as part of the course requirement for the Bachelor of Education in Foundation Phase

At theCentre for Creative Education

Cape Town2005

ContentsAcknowledgements 3Evidence of own work 4Evidence of proof-reading 5List of Acronyms 6Introduction

7

Chapter 1: Inclusive Education within South Africa 11

Chapter 2: Historical perspective of Deaf Education in South Africa18

Chapter 3: Language of instruction 23

Chapter 4: Language as it relates to Deaf learners and Deaf Education 43

Chapter 5: The question of mainstreaming Deaf learners 53

Chapter 6: SASL as a ful ly-fledged language and as a medium of instruction 59

Chapter 7: Requirements of schools for the Deaf65

Conclusion 69References 72Bibliography

75

Appendix 1: Interview with an educator of Deaf and hearing-impaired learners 76

Appendix 2: Interview with a parent of a Deaf child 77Appendix 3: Interview with a Deaf adult 78

2

3

AcknowledgementsI wish to express sincere gratitude to the many individuals who have assisted me in some way or another to make this dissertation a reality.

My appreciation and gratitude go to Mrs. Marilyn Coetzee, Head of Department of the Foundation Phase at the Mary Kihn School for hearing-impaired children, for so generously giving up her time and her patience in being interviewed. I am especially grateful for her enthusiasm, tremendous cooperation and insight concerning the topic.

Likewise my thanks go to Mrs. Inge Pinto for generously giving up her time to answer my questions. I am indebted to Mrs. Pinto for her invaluable insight into the world of a Deaf adult. I would further l ike to thank Mrs. Pinto for sharing personal and often very emotional experiences with me concerning her schooling career.

I would also l ike to thank Mr. Gerald Kemp for taking the time to so meticulously proof-read my dissertation. I am immensely grateful for the continuous encouragement and support that he has shown me.

Lastly, but not least, I would like to thank Mrs. Susan Kemp for also so generously giving up her time in answering my interview questions. I am indebted to Mrs. Kemp for her constant academic and emotional support and encouragement she has shown me throughout the completion of this dissertation.

One last thank-you goes to Mrs. Marilyn Coetzee, Mrs. Susan Kemp and Mrs. Inge Pinto for granting me permission to use their

4

answers from the various interviews for the purpose of my research.

Evidence of own work

I, (full name) ……………………………………………………………………. state and acknowledge that this manuscript is entirely my own original work.

……………………………………………..Signed by Candice Lee Heydenrych(Final year student for the Bachelor of Education in Foundation Phase)

……………………………………………..Date Signed

5

Evidence of Proof-reading

My name is Gerald Kemp and I am a graduate of the Wits Business School where I obtained a Masters degree in Business Administration in 1986. My Research Report, entitled “Factors Inhibiting Consulting in Small Businesses”, was accepted as fulfilling the requirements of the degree.

Subsequent to qualifying I returned to the Business School where, for three years I presented the course, “Problems in Business Policy: New Ventures” as an elective for final-year students. As a member of faculty I was required, on a number of occasions, to act as moderator in the marking of research Reports and to provide advice to students on the selection of research topics and on research methods and presentation. I have also supported deserving students, whose home language was not English, by doing the language-editing of their manuscripts and assisting them in applying research methods.

I have proof-read the accompanying manuscript and have recommended numerous stylistic and content changes, some of which have been accepted by the author, who takes ultimate responsibil ity for the work.

My contact details are:012-661-7881072-249-8759geraldkemp@ananzi.co.zaBox 1956; Rooihuiskraal; 0154

6

List of Acronyms

DEAFSA: Deaf Federation of South Africa

LSEN: Learners with Special Education Needs

MCE: Manually Coded English

NCESS: National Committee of Education Support Services

NCSNET: National Commission of Special Needs in Education and Training

PSE: Pidgin Sign English

SAFCD: The South African Federal Council on Disabil ity

SASL: South African Sign Language

SE: Signed English

SEE1: Seeing Essential English

SEE2: Signing Exact English

SSFA: The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action

UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

7

Introduction

“The problem is not that the students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen.”

(The Reverend Jesse L. Jackson)

This renowned quote by the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson (Gallaudet University, 1997:1), encapsulates my focal beliefs within this discussion.

I feel strongly that, the main cause of Deaf 1 individuals being denied rights and status equal to those the hearing population enjoys so freely is, very often the fact that “the hearing world” is not truly listening to their needs. In the context of this discussion, I am of the opinion that the Deaf individual’s educational needs are not entirely met as inclusive policies intended. The concept of inclusive education enjoys a high profile all around the world. Inclusive education has established a vital role in its incorporation into numerous policy documents of many international and national organizations.

Various international organizations all “affirm the rights of all children to equal education without discrimination within the mainstream education system” (Tilstone et al., 1998:13). These organizations have published policy papers such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the United 1 In keeping with internat ional custom in the l i terature on Deafness, I use the capital “D”, “D eaf” to refer to those individuals who have not only an audiological loss, but regard themselves as members of the Deaf community who rely extensively or exclusively on Sign Language for their person-person communicat ion.

8

Nations Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) and the 1994 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) Report on the education of children with disabilities (The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action) (Tilstone et al., 1998:13).

Although this statement means various things in different places around the world, one cannot deny that there is universality to the underlying human rights viewpoint of inclusion.

However, based on this universal aim for inclusive education, up until today, there seems to be a lack of clarity on the policies and legislation being implemented with regard to the education of Deaf learners in South Africa. Through intense research and by means of this discussion I am of the opinion that “international and national policy statements on inclusive education … cannot be applied in a straightforward way in the education of Deaf learners” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:153).

Both on an international as well as on a national level, very clear statements have been made which affirm the principle that “every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning” (UNESCO, 1994:viii).

Furthermore, the principle, as stated in The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) (henceforth SSFA) formed the basis of the Report of the National Commission of Special Needs in Education and Training and the National Committee of Education Support Services (henceforth NCSNET / NCESS) known as Quality Education For All (Department of Education, 1997). This principle states that:

…regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating

9

welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for al l ; moreover, they provide an effective education for the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost effectiveness of the entire education system (UNESCO, 1994:ix).

By reviewing this principle, I ask myself what is truly meant by “effective means”, “achieving education for all”, “effective education”, “efficiency and … cost-effectiveness of the entire education system” and more importantly I ask myself how all these terms and phrases that seem to be so fatuous and clichéd play a role in the education provision for Deaf learners.

Aarons and Akach (2002) both seem to be concerned about the same issue as I am. Through their research they have explored various ways inclusion for Deaf learners can be best implemented within South Africa. Aarons and Akach (2002) research these ways while considering and taking into account factors such as,

…the constraints of the principles and policies of inclusion, the human rights of Deaf people and the broad educational, l inguistic and economic considerations… (Aarons & Akach, 2002:156).

These various issues have therefore led me to the central question which I would like to address. The question being whether the general principle of inclusion as expressed in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the NCSNET / NCESS Report (Department of Education, 1997) is applicable (without any interpretation) to the education of Deaf learners. An additional query is that if it is applicable, is it sti ll in accordance with the human rights clauses in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa? (Constitutional Assembly, 1996).

Therefore, in what follows, I will examine the above issues further and discover for myself, as Aarons and Akach (2002) so

10

eloquently stated, whether or not it is truly “… possible for Deaf learners to be educated in mainstream schools, and reap all the benefits of inclusion, as intended by the authors of the inclusion documents?” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:154).

Chapter 1: Inclusive Education within South Africa

“We are for difference: for respecting difference, for allowing difference, for encouraging difference, until

difference no longer makes a difference.”

11

(Johnetta B. Cole)

This statement, made by the President of Spellman College in 1990, as cited in Beninghof (1997:1), summarizes the main essence of inclusive education. This statement is particularly powerful as it does not specify a group of people for whom we should allow diversity, but instead it explains, that all groups of people should be welcomed and accepted.

Ever since its continuous development in the late 1980’s, inclusive education has progressively challenged the legitimacy of almost every professional and institutional practice of the twentieth-century educational system.

Regrettable, even today, the Special Needs Educational System of South Africa stil l experience and are evidence of the damages the apartheid era caused. “Apartheid special schools were … organized according to two segregating criteria, race and disabil ity” (Department of Education, 2001:6).

In accordance with the apartheid policy, schools that accommodated white disabled learners were extremely well resourced, while on the other hand, the few schools that catered for black disabled learners were very much under-resourced. Learners that had any disabilities in South Africa during the apartheid era had great difficulty in obtaining access to the fundamental right of education. The Department of Education (2001:7) further explains that there were very few schools that catered for special needs of learners. The special schools that did exist were limited to admitting learners according to rigidly applied categories. The Department of Education (2001) states:

12

Learners who experienced learning difficulties because of severe poverty did not qualify for educational support. The categorization system allowed only those learners with organic, medical disabilit ies access to support programmes (Department of Education, 2001:7).

Therefore, because of this segregation, many learners with disabil ities did not receive any support.

As a result of the apartheid policy, the Department of Education (2001) estimated that “only 20% of learners with disabil ities were accommodated in special schools” (The Department of Education, 2001:7). The Education White Paper further states that:

Current statist ics show that only about 64,200 learners with disabilit ies or impairments are accommodated in about 380 special schools. This indicates that, potential ly, 280,000 learners with disabilit ies or impairments are unaccounted for ( ibid .).

In summary, the Department of Education (2001:7) is of the opinion that the results of decades of segregation and systematic under-resourcing are apparent in the imbalance between special schools that catered solely for white disabled learners and those that catered solely for black disabled learners. It is therefore essential that the continuing inequities in the special schools sector are abolished and the process, through which the learner, educator and professional support services populations become representative of the South African population, is accelerated.

In international terms, inclusive education is wide spread. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) was produced under the guidance of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) in 1994 and thus serves as a key document in guiding inclusive developments internationally. The

13

Salamanca Statement as cited in Engelbrech t et al. (1999), as mentioned before, states that:

. .. [ Inclusive] schools can provide the most effective means of educating the majority of learners and are a way of combating discriminatory attitudes. In addition, the statement suggests that inclusive schools wil l ult imately improve the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system (Engelbrecht et al. , 1999:32).

A true inclusive school is therefore seen by some to be the only successful way to include those groups that were so unjustly excluded from education in the past. Therefore the term ‘inclusion’ not only deals with including disabled learners into mainstream schools but embedded in that also attempts to include all previously disadvantaged learners.

Many international as well as national patterns and trends have played a vital role in influencing the South African education system and the movement towards inclusive education can be observed because of this. As South Africa has decided to choose the ‘inclusive’ solution, the educational system is thus shifting from a medical discourse to a rights discourse. The ‘medical discourse’ deals with “a person [that] is excluded from mainstream social and economic l ife because of a disabil ity that is thought to be a natural and irremediable characteristic of a person” (Engelbrecht et al ., 1999:13).

Unfortunately with regards to this discourse and in the context of my discussion,

…the deaf … are excluded from regular education schools and such exclusion immediately results in the perception of such

14

people as inadequate human beings who are unfit to be included in mainstream economic and social l i fe ( ibid.).

The ‘rights discourse’, on the other hand, is “committed to extending full citizenship to all people. It stresses equal opportunity, self reliance, independence and wants rather than needs” (Engelbrecht et al ., 1999:14). The ‘rights discourse’ has been articulated strongly at both an international and national level.

At a national level, significant changes took place as a result of the new democracy in South Africa. The South African Federal Council on Disability (SAFCD) had an immense influence in the development of inclusive education in South Africa. Contrary to the ‘medical discourse’, the ‘rights discourse’ and the SAFCD as cited in Engelbrecht et al. (1999) acknowledges Deaf learners and their rights in terms of education and states:

Learners with Special Education Needs (LSEN) have a right to equal access to education at al l levels in a … education system that is responsive to the diverse needs of al l learners, accommodating both different styles and rates of learning, as well as different language needs in the case of deaf learners where their first language is sign language… (Engelbrecht et al. , 1999:15).

Considering the dramatic difference between these two discourses, I feel that in order to meet the diverse needs of all learners (especially Deaf learners) and to be able to provide them all with quality education, there needs to be a drastic shift from exclusivity to inclusivity within the educational system and institutions.

15

As a result of the new democracy in South Africa, major changes need to take place within education. The South African Federal Council on Disability (SAFCD) was the first to initiate the demand for the development of a single inclusive education system for South Africa. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa also played a vital role in the vote for a non-discriminatory type of education. In Section 29 (1) of the South African Constitution it states:

Everyone has the right…

-to a basic education, including adult basic education; and

-to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

(Constitutional Assembly, 1996:29)

This clause is especially important in the protection of all learners, whether disabled or not. Further on in this discussion, I wil l take a closer look in particular as to how official documents such as The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Constitutional Assembly, 1996) and the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 (Department of Education, 1996) pertain to the education of Deaf learners.

The fundamental right a child has to quality education originated in numerous international declarations and recommendations. The first two international declarations that stated these features of education were the Charter of the United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1984). The United Nations Declaration of Rights of the Child (1959) further improved the learner’s rights to education. In Principle 7 of this declaration, as cited in Engelbrecht et al. (1999:29), “the right to education provided reference to the need for both ‘equal’ and ‘full’ opportunity for a child’s moral and social development.” In terms

16

of the education of Deaf learners, this is especially significant as very often these aspects (moral and social) are not fully or appropriately developed in a normal hearing society.

Furthermore, Aarons and Akach (2002:157) are of the opinion that The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) can be considered to be a broad and general principle regarding the issue of inclusion. Aarons and Akach (2002:157) state that “the ways in which different countries implement the spirit of this statement will of course vary, depending, among other things, on the resources of individual countries.”

Although the recommendations made by the SSFA in terms of inclusion are defined clearly, “different signatories have implemented their understanding of the Statement with regard to their particular national, regional and local contexts” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:157).

The SSFA as cited in Aarons and Akach (2002) further explains and states that:

As part of their broad understanding that every child has a fundamental right to education and must be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning, the signatories to the Statement believe that government and organizations may be guided by “the spirit of its provisions and recommendations” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:157).

It therefore becomes evident from the discussions above that the role inclusion has in the education of Deaf learners needs to be carefully considered in accordance with the “spirit” of the SSFA as well as in accordance with the constitutional and fundamental rights of all learners, including Deaf.

17

Chapter 2: Historical perspective of Deaf Education in South Africa

The Deaf population, internationally as well as locally, has unfortunately, due to ignorance and other factors, not always experienced equal rights and status as the normal hearing population has. That statement in itself is a euphemism. In fact,

18

the Deaf population in the past were very often treated in the most inhumane and unjust ways because of the very nature of their disability.

Hodgson as cited in Lynas (1986) states:From Ancient Times right up to the Victorian Age, handicapped people had characteristically been accorded extremely low status and this adversely affected their integration into the wider society. The Greeks and Romans displayed considerable intolerance of physical defect and were reputed to put to death at an early age those whom they believed would be a liability to the community (Lynas, 1986:2).

Hodgson in Lynas (1986:2) further explains that very often handicapped people were used as scapegoats on which people could vent out their anger and distress. Hodgson explains that:

The deaf were particularly vulnerable to persecution and ostracism because of the ‘mysterious’ nature of their affliction. It was not, for example, difficult to believe that the deaf, with their ‘curious’ affliction and ‘strange’ ways were ‘possessed of the devil’ ( ibid.).

Even though these authors discuss in great depth what occurred on an international front, I would not be surprised if similar situations occurred in South Africa among our Deaf population. Especially considering South Africa’s history in terms of the ‘apartheid’ era and the policies that came with it.For the purpose of this chapter, I have decided to rather focus my attention on the history of Deaf education with regard to the changes and developments that occurred in the various Deaf schools in our country. In this chapter I wil l be discussing the various ‘philosophies’ or ‘methods’ that were implemented in terms of the medium of instruction. I wil l also briefly be discussing how Deaf schools developed among South Africa’s ethnic groups.

19

In South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church and the Dominican Catholics were primarily responsible for the development of schools that catered for Deaf children. Due to the influence of apartheid, ‘oralism’2 was the medium of education in white schools for the Deaf. However, sign language was permitted as the medium of education in Deaf schools that catered for other races. De Klerk (2003) explains that the reason for the insistence of a spoken language to be used as the medium of education within white schools for the Deaf was “the fact that it was thought of as being superior to sign language” (De Klerk, 2003:59).

In 1863 there was a change in the education of Deaf learners in South Africa. During this year the Irish Dominican nuns established the first school for the Deaf. This school was situated in Cape Town. Unlike before, the medium of instruction was sign language and the school was also open to all race groups.

In 1881 the Dutch Reformed church established a school for white Deaf learners. Within this school, the church opted for both oralism and spoken language to be implemented as the medium of education.

As one can see, this philosophy of oralism spread swiftly throughout South African Deaf schools and became the most preferred choice of medium of instruction and education.

Up until this time, due to apartheid, there were not many schools that catered for non-white Deaf children. However, in the 1930’s, the Irish Dominicans and the Dutch Reformed church opened two schools that catered for the so-called coloured deaf population. 2 Oral ism and other forms of language instruction wi l l be discussed in further detai l in Chapter 3.

20

As one can deduce, the medium of instruction within these schools was also that of oralism.

In 1941 the first school for Deaf black South Africans was established at Khutlwanong by the Johannesburg Deaf and Dumb society. Through her research, De Klerk (2003:59) states that this school implemented a different medium of instruction known as the Piaget signing system. Unfortunately, I was unable to find further information on this so called ‘Piaget signing system’. However, through my years of studying and training in the field of education of children, I am fully aware of the great influence Piaget’s theories and philosophies have had on education and child development. Webster and Wood (1989) concur with my view on Piaget’s invaluable contributions to education and further state that:

So great has been the influence of Piaget on contemporary views of child development that there wil l be very few teachers who are unfamil iar, at least in part, with his work. Piaget’s theories have had a powerful effect on what goes on in primary classrooms… (Webster & Wood, 1989:31).

Piaget has also influenced educationalists’ and theorists’ views in regard to Deaf education and especially with the issue of sign language as a medium of instruction. Piaget as cited in Findling and Houlton (2000:2) believed that “gesture and mime, which he termed ‘language in movement’, was the natural social language of children.” Findling and Houlton (2000:2) further add and state that: “[Sign language], a kind of ‘language in movement’, may provide the most natural mode for … language acquisition and development in children.”

Based on these view points of Piaget, I can only make an educated deduction, that the ‘Piaget signing system’ was some

21

sort of system that perhaps combined sign language and other physical movements as a form of instruction.

“In the 1920’s oralism was implemented as the medium of education for the majority of children” (De Klerk, 2003:59). In Hout Bay, in the 1960’s, the Dominican Grimley School for the Deaf was relocated. Within this school a stringent policy of oralism was applied.

As the years went by more and more schools were established all over South Africa. Oralism was stil l thriving within these schools. Between the years 1950 and 1965 a wider range of South Africa’s Deaf community was being catered for and accommodated within schools. Over these years schools for Afrikaans, Xhosa as well as Zulu Deaf children were established around South Africa.

De Klerk (2003) explains that, …the governments policy of apartheid and insistence on mother tongue as the medium of education complicated the language policies at the schools for non European deaf as it was difficult to ascertain the ‘mother tongue’ of the deaf child (De Klerk, 2003:60).

Eventually, English and Afrikaans in combination with the previously discussed Piaget signing system, were introduced in Deaf schools that catered for “non European” Deaf children. De Klerk (2003:60) further includes that “this rendered education virtually inaccessible to the black deaf.”

Due to this “inaccessibility”, the Deaf community needed to find a way of communicating with one another. Sign Language, therefore, began to flourish among the Deaf more than ever.

22

As is evident today, the history and development of Deaf Education has seen many changes and triumphs. Some developments perhaps not as beneficial as others, however, one can only hope that through further knowledge of the Deaf community and education, more and more positive transformations and improvements will be seen in the future.

Chapter 3: Language of instructionIn all educational and teaching situations the use of language occupies a central position as language is a system of auditory and/or visual symbols used for communication and thinking. By using language, information is received (reception) or communicated (expression).

23

Quigley and Kretschmer (1982:9) quote Bloom and Lahey and states that language has been defined as “a code whereby ideas about the world are represented through a conventional system of signals for communication.”

“The immediate and most important effect of an impairment of hearing is the impact it has on communication” (Reed, 1984:82). No matter what age the impairment began, in some way or another communication will be affected in varying degrees. Reed (1984:82) further concludes that this affect on communication will depend “on the type and degree of the impairment.” All these variables will differ from person to person depending on various factors within their lives and their genetic make-up.

Reed (1984:82) is of the opinion that any hearing-impairment will also, “…affect not only what the person hears and comprehends, but also the extent to which he can control his speech if he becomes deaf after he has learned to speak.”

The main issue in the education of Deaf learners is the, “…form of language and communication that should be used by and with the children in school and in their infant and early childhood years in the home (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982:9).I feel that parents and educators which are in some way involved with Deaf individuals from infancy to early adulthood should therefore have as one of their primary goals “the establishment of an easy and fluent system of communication” (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982:10). It is essential that this system of communication be internalized as a “language foundation on which the secondary language system of reading and writing can then be developed” (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982:10).

Any professional that works with Deaf children would more than likely express l itt le disagreement when it comes to this

24

statement. The disagreements transpire (as per Quigley and Kretschmer, 1982:10) in exactly “what type of language should be established and by what communication means it should be established.”

The authors further explain:It is commonly accepted that there is just a single issue here: the form of communication to be used. Actually, there are two issues: the form of communication to be used and the language to be used (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982:10).

Within Deaf education and the Deaf community, there are two distinct forms of communication that Deaf individuals may use. These are an oral form and a manual form.

In South Africa there are 11 official languages namely Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu. Therefore, in terms of languages, Deaf individuals may use 2 or more distinct languages which are either South African Sign Language (SASL) and one or more of the official languages as mentioned above.Deaf individuals often use any of these communication forms and languages in various combinations. As one can imagine, especially with South Africa’s rich and diverse languages, communication and language choice for any Deaf individual could become quite an issue.

Given the diversity and range of language as well as culture in South Africa, it is impossible to prescribe which method of communication or language is likely to benefit the Deaf child more than any other. In this matter the remarks of Bishop (1979) are appropriate:

There is no single, agreed-upon mode for the hearing-impaired to communicate with normally hearing people: for some, it is speech

25

and listening and/or speech-reading; for others, it is reading and writ ing; and for sti l l others, it is through the use of an interpreter. For the most fortunate … it is any of the three (Bishop, 1979:40).

For the Deaf individual in particular Bishop (1979) further explains and states:

…there is no single, agreed-upon mode for the hearing impaired to communicate with other hearing impaired 3 : for some, it is speech and l istening and/or speech-reading; for others, it is signs and fingerspell ing; and for sti l l others, it is through the use of an interpreter ( ibid.).

With all this in mind, I feel that it is significant that any educationalist or even parent that works with Deaf children should be aware of the controversy surrounding the various forms of communication and language. I also feel that it is important for these individuals to understand the differences and similarities of these forms. Therefore, below I will be discussing further what each language and communication form entail.

I would also l ike to add that all information regarding these forms is dealt with from my own personal perspective. Henceforth, any statements or views I share on this issue are my own personal beliefs which others may or may not agree upon. On that note, it is my hope that the discussion below can be kept in the perspective it deserves.

1. OralismDe Klerk (2003:60) explains that oralism refers to a principal that Deaf children are required to learn to communicate by “speech and lipreading without the use of sign language.” The author states:

3 Emphasis is my own, not the author’s.

26

Supporters of oralism maintain that rather than circumventing the problems of deafness and communication, attempts should be made to overcome the communication barrier caused by deafness by making maximum use of residual hearing (De Klerk, 2003:60).

DEAFSA (2005a:1) further explains that oralism (or the auditory-verbal approach) “advocates speech and lipreading as the means to communicate with and educate the Deaf child.” This therefore implies that the Deaf child relies heavily on hearing aids and other technology such as cochlear implants to “hear”.

Oralists believe that with the recent technological advances such as cochlear implants, even profoundly Deaf children can obtain spoken language fluency through this approach.

De Klerk (2003) states that supporters of oralism believe that because the majority of the population comprises of hearing individuals,

…educators are morally obliged to enforce the teaching of society’s dominant language as a first priority as it is only by acquiring spoken language that the deaf child will be able to ful ly integrate himself in society (De Klerk, 2003:61).

Oralism is often characterized by not only speech, but by ‘speech-reading’ too. “Speech-reading takes the place of the absent sense of hearing” (Kapp, 1991:339). The author defines ‘speech-reading’ as,

…a particular technique of recognizing sounds by their mouthed images and thus of interpreting the speech of others. It is not solely the image formed by the l ips and mouth that is “read” or interpreted, but the shape and movement of the entire face, and even the position of the tongue when visible. The speaker’s facial expressions, as well as his hand and body gestures, play an important role (Kapp, 1991:340).

27

One of the salient features of oralism is to teach the Deaf child to speak clearly and intelligibly. DEAFSA (2005a:1) explain that the aim of oralism is to “get the Deaf child to function as far as possible as a “normal” hearing child”. This is achieved by teaching the child to articulate properly. The Deaf child is taught to “imitate speech sounds that he cannot hear by employing his senses of vision and touch” (Kapp, 1991:340).

In oralism, Kapp (1991) explains that:…particular emphasis is placed on auditory training, which helps the deaf child to distinguish the various sounds, to better perceive the vibrations of speech, to develop a better idea and feel for the rhythm of speech and thus to be able to speak better and more clearly (Kapp, 1991:340).

Advocates of oralism maintain that Deaf children should be equipped for l ife in a hearing society where speech is the norm. Kapp (1991:340) elaborates on this statement and explains that oralists “maintain that the child’s speech and abil ity to speech-read lessen when a system of signs or fingerspelling is used.”

However, despite the numerous advantages that advocates of oralism claim, there exists in l iterature several objections to this approach. Northern et al as cited in De Klerk (2003:62) believe that “the oral method depends too heavily on lipreading as the primary mode of communication.” De Klerk (2003:62) is of the opinion that l ipreading appears to be too ambiguous as only a small percentage of speech sounds are visible on the lips. “The person dependent on vision for receptive language can only communicate with one person at a time” (De Klerk, 2003:62).

Wier, cited in De Klerk (2003) maintains that:…too many children go through years of oral training without acquiring either adequate speech or language skil ls.

28

Consequently these children are deprived of adequate communication skills that might have been obtained had another mode of communication been used (De Klerk, 2003:62).

In my interview with a parent of a Deaf child, Kemp (2005:4) (refer to Appendix 2 for entire interview) explains that when her Deaf daughter was placed in a mainstream school, “her initial instruction was purely oral.” Kemp (2005:4) further elaborates to state that with the use of this “oral” approach in her daughter’s education, she felt that “progress was slow.”

Furthermore, Northern et al as cited in De Klerk (2003:63) are of the opinion that oralism “may psychologically harm the child since he is consistently being subjected to failure and frustration.”

Pinto (2005) (refer to Appendix 3 for entire interview), a South African Deaf adult, knows first hand of these experiences of “failure and frustration.” In my interview with Pinto (2005), she describes her memories of when she was taught through oralism. For five years Pinto (2005) attended a mainstream school which primarily used oralism as a medium of instruction. Pinto (2005) states that:

The mainstream school … didn’t work rightly [sic] for me … another reason is simply [sic] I can’t hear and follow what the teachers … are saying. That led me to much frustration and also a lack of concentration in the class during each day (Pinto, 2005:2).

DEAFSA (2005a) believes strongly that:This approach only works with selected children who have enough residual hearing to comprehend some speech sounds, who were identified very early and whose parents can, on a daily basis, be intensely involved in their child’s education (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

29

In conclusion, DEAFSA (2005a) state that:The language development of children in this is much slower and less complete than for children who are learning their first language naturally. Most Deaf people who passed through oral programmes are now actively promoting the use of South African Sign Language because of their own frustration with this approach … (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

2. South African Sign LanguageSign language is regarded as the language of the Deaf community. Sign language is a naturally occurring language which develops as a result of the need to communicate among members of the Deaf communities.

DEAFSA (2005b:1) explains that “sign language is a language that occurs in the visual-gestural modality.” DEAFSA (2005b) defines ‘visual-gestural’ and states that:

…this means it is produced using the hands , face , head and upper torso and is processed by the eyes . In contrast, spoken languages are produced using the mouth, tongue and vocal chords and are processed by the ears (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

A variety of different Sign Languages have developed in different countries where Deaf communities exist. Different Sign Languages include British Sign Language (BSL), American Sign Language (ASL), Ethiopian Sign Language (ESL), and South African Sign Language (SASL) etc. “Sign Language is not universal or international as many people incorrectly believe” (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

DEAFSA (2005b) state that:Sign Languages are l iving languages made by real people – the Deaf – making them dynamic, constantly changing and developing, l ike any natural human language which is capable of developing new vocabulary when needed (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

30

George Veditz as cited in DEAFSA (2005b:1) said that “as long as we have Deaf people, we will have Sign Language.”

In the production of a sign, there are four salient aspects that need to be discussed. DEAFSA (2005b:1) elaborates on these four aspects which are namely “handforms, location, movement and orientation.”

1. Handforms These are basically the various shapes that the hand takes to produce a sign. Here are a few examples:

(DEAFSA, 2005b:1)

2. Location “These are the areas where the handforms are placed such as the head, chest and the neutral space in front of the body.”

( ibid.)

It is important to remember that “the difference between these two signs is the location; the handform remains the same (index finger).” ( ibid.)

3. Movement In every sign there is some form of movement.

31

( ibid.)

4. Orientation “This refers to the orientation of the palm in relation to the body.”

( ibid.)As one can see, in the sign for “MAYBE” the palm of the hand faces up while in the sign for “CHILDREN” the palm faces down. This is the difference among the signs.Facial expressions in Sign Language are significant as they express the grammar of the language. Facial expressions, according to DEAFSA (2005b:1), “are referred to as non-manual grammatical markers, non-manual behaviours and/or non-manual signals.”

DEAFSA (2005b:1) explains that “facial expressions are rule-governed.” The facial expressions used for questions that require YES/NO answers are very different from facial expressions used for WH-questions such as WHO, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, etc.

DEAFSA (2005b) state that:YES/NO questions … the eyebrows are raised, eyes are open wide, head and shoulders are forward. WH-questions … the eyebrows are lowered, eyes are narrowed, head forward with a slight ti lt and shoulders forward (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

32

One salient aspect that any individual using Sign Language needs to remember is that any change in facial expressions could convey an entirely different message.

Kemp (2005:4) explains that through oralism “progress was slow” for her Deaf daughter. However, after seeing her daughter becoming more “withdrawn and unhappy”, she moved her to a Deaf school that used “sign language as a teaching tool” (Kemp, 2005:3). Kemp (2005:4) further states that “after the introduction of signing, her [Kemp’s Deaf child] progress was much improved.”

In addition, Pinto (2005:5) is of the opinion that “South African Sign Language [is the] most beneficial and effective of all.” In l ight of this, within another chapter, I will be discussing in further detail my views and research on South African Sign Language (SASL) as a medium of instruction. This will be discussed further in Chapter 4 and specifically in Chapter 6.

3. Total CommunicationThe Conference of Executives of the American School for the Deaf as cited in Indiana School for the Deaf (henceforth ISD) (2005) defines Total Communication as:

…a philosophy incorporating the appropriate aural, manual and oral modes of communication in order to ensure effective communication with and among hearing impaired persons (ISD, 2005:1).

This was a salient development in the history of Deaf education as the adoption of ‘Total Communication’ restored the use of Sign Language in the classroom for the first time in many years.

Martin as cited in De Klerk (2003) defines Total Communication as:

33

…the philosophy of uti l iz ing any or al l communication methods [fingerspell ing, signs, speech, speech-reading and writing] to enhance receptive and expressive communication (De Klerk, 2003:66).

Berke (2005b:1) adds to the above definition and further explains that communication methods which are used in ‘Total Communication’ include voice, amplification, gesture as well as visual imagery (pictures).

One major philosophy of Total Communication is that “the method should be fitted to the child, instead of the other way around” (Berke, 2005b:1).

The use of Total Communication for communicative purposes for the Deaf child is evident in l iterature. One advantage of Total Communication is that it truly opens up all methods and avenues of communication for the Deaf child. As De Klerk (2003:66) further adds, “the child is therefore not forced to rely on only one mode for communicative purposes.” In further literature, Sims et al as cited in De Klerk (2003) is of the opinion that:

…Total Communication is advantageous in that it re-enforces spoken language instruction to have that spoken language represented on the hands. Furthermore it permits flexibil ity of approaches to the learning of different skil ls (De Klerk, 2003:66).

Supporters of the Total Communication methods, according to Kapp (1991), argue that:

…the purely oral method has never been a success and that signs are the natural language of the deaf. The use of systematized signs … will contribute to the fact that the deaf child will experience fewer frustrations and as a result his emotional development wil l be more stable and his potential ( intel lectual, etc.) will be actualized more effectively (Kapp, 1991:340).

34

Advocates of this method further add that “they do not accept that the use of signs in conjunction with speech will weaken the child’s speech or speech-reading abil it ies” (Kapp, 1991:340).

Total Communication, as seen in various l iteratures, can often be more detrimental for the Deaf child. Vernon et al and Hixon et al as cited in De Klerk (2003) concur with my views and state that:

…materials presented simultaneously in more than one sensory modality are learned slower than when presented in only one modality (De Klerk, 2003:67).

Literature in Northern and Downs as cited in De Klerk (2003:67) suggests that “over stimulation of the Deaf child is actually detrimental to communication.”

Even though Total Communication to some extent may improve general communication skills and facil itate the learning process, some literature claims that it does not bring about the “full development of Sign Language skil ls or the improvement of spoken/written language skills” (DEAFSA, 2005a:1). DEAFSA (2005b:1) explains that “when you use both languages at the same time, you violate the grammar of both languages.”

In conclusion, DEAFSA (2005a) states that:Children who are educated through Total Communication therefore st il l experience serious problems with their language skills especial ly when it comes to reading, writing, understanding concepts and vocabulary (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

4. Types of Manually Coded English (MCE)Wikipedia (2005) defines Manually Coded English (henceforth MCE) as:

…a generic descriptive term for a variety of visual communication methods expressed through the hands which attempt to represent the English language (Wikipedia, 2005:1).

35

“Unlike ‘natural’ Deaf Sign Languages, MCE generally follows the grammar and syntax of spoken English” (Wikipedia, 2005:1). Since this fact is true, certain types of MCE can successfully be used with ‘Total Communication’. This is not possible with South African Sign Language; for example, because that would imply speaking two different languages at the same time. Wikipedia (2005:1) explains that it is not unusual to find native Sign Language speakers that will “code-switch” into a type of MCE such as when conversing with an individual whose first language is a different Sign Language such as British Sign Language (BSL), American Sign Language (ASL), and South African Sign Language (SASL) etc. Another common reason for “code-switching” is when a native Sign Language speaker quotes something in English.

Wikipedia (2005) states that:The different forms of Manually Coded English were originally developed for use in the education of deaf children, as their l iteracy in written English has been typically low compared to their hearing peers (Wikipedia, 2005:1).

This educational method originated from a man by the name of Abbé Charles-Michel de l’Epee who in the 1750’s “developed a method using hand-signs to teach the French language to deaf children” (Wikipedia, 2005:1).

Manually Coded English is now not only used with Deaf children but also with children who experience various kinds of speech or language difficulties.

The use of MCE in the education of Deaf individuals brings about much controversy. Wikipedia (2005) is of the opinion that:

Some opponents of MCE note that the use of MCE often comes with an attempt to deny or replace the natural language of the

36

deaf community, which are seen as retarding the child’s acquisition of ‘good English’ (Wikipedia, 2005:1).

In addition, as discussed before, some advocates of oralism believe that any form of manual signing will lessen the Deaf child’s motivation to speak and lipread.

Below the various types of MCE that Deaf individuals use will be discussed.

4.1. Signed English Different systems called ‘Signed English’ have been developed all over the world. However, Wikipedia (2005) explains that:

…all ‘Signed Englishes’ have borrowed signs from the local Deaf Sign Language and invented new signs to represent the words and grammar of English (Wikipedia, 2005:2).

Signed English (henceforth SE) tends to “follow a loose logic of sound rather than the strict phonetic structure of ‘cued speech’” (Wikipedia, 2005:2). (Cued speech will be discussed further in 4.7 of this chapter). For example “in Australian Signed English ‘uncomfortable’ is represented in signs meaning ‘un’, ‘come’, ‘for’, and ‘table’” ( ibid.).

A visual sign taken from a Deaf Sign Language may very often also be generalized to represent homonyms of the English word. For example “the Auslan (Australian Sign Language) sign for a ‘fly’ (insect) may be used in Sign English for the verb (to) ‘fly’” ( ibid.).

4.2. Seeing Essential English This method was developed in the United States of America by a deaf teacher named David Anthony. Wikipedia (2005) explains

37

that Seeing Essential English (henceforth SEE1) was intended to teach Deaf children,

…proper grammatical construction by using gestures borrowed from ASL (American Sign Language) but not in a l inguistically logical manner (Wikipedia, 2005:7).

In SEE1, every compound word is formed as separate signs. So for example, Wikipedia (2005) explains that:

…instead of using the American Sign Language [henceforth ASL] sign for ‘butterfly’ , SEE1 places the signs for ‘butter’ and ‘fly’ in sequential order (Wikipedia, 2005:7).

SEE1 also uses the same sign for all homonyms such as ‘ blue’ and ‘blew’ . “Many gestures from ASL are initialized in SEE1 – the ASL sign for ‘have’ is signed with the ‘H’ handshape in SEE1” (Wikipedia, 2005:7).

Wikipedia (2005:7) further explains and says that “grammatical markers also have signs of their own, including the ‘–ing’ ending and articles such as ‘ the’…”

SEE1 is often also referred to as Morphological Sign System (MSS).

4.3. Signing Exact EnglishSigning Exact English (henceforth SEE2) was developed by Gerilee Gustason in the early 1970’s. As a subsidiary of SEE1, many characteristics of SEE2 are identical. Wikipedia (2005) explains and states that:

Init ialization and grammatical markers are also used in SEE2, but compound words with an equivalent ASL sign are used as the ASL sign, as with ‘butterfly’ (Wikipedia, 2005:8).

38

The statistics are that “about 75% to 80% of SEE2 signs are either borrowed from ASL or are modified ASL signs” (Wikipedia, 2005:8).

4.4. FingerspellingFingerspelling in Sign Language is the way in which the 26 letters of the alphabet are made on the hands, e.g. A B C … X Y Z. Reed (1984:90) defines fingerspelling as “writing on fingers.”

DEAFSA (2005b) explains that: Fingerspell ing is used to spell names of people (especially in introductions), names of places and concepts and/or words that one may not have signs for or one has forgotten (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

In addition, DEAFSA (2005b) specifically states that: Fingerspell ing is not Sign Language in itself. It is a technique used to code-switch. That is when you fingerspell a concept in English, you represent the written English word in space at that moment (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

In my interview with Coetzee (2005:11) (refer to Appendix 1 for entire interview), a South African Foundation Phase Educator of Deaf and hearing-impaired learners, she stated that within her school, learners and educators often use “the International One-Handed Fingerspell ing method.” Coetzee (2005) is of the opinion that:

It [fingerspell ing] is highly effective in teaching Phonics, Spell ing and in indicating to a learner that they are mispronouncing a word [sic]. An example of this is when a learner tel ls you that he has been dancing “in the wall”. If it is an error he has made before, you sign the letter h to him and he automatically corrects himself and says “hall” (Coetzee, 2005:11-12).

Coetzee (2005) further states that in her opinion:

39

Finger spelling is so effective that … it should be of general use in al l schools. Besides helping with the motor memorization of spelling words, it is a means of communicating with the Deaf in an emergency (Coetzee, 2005:12).

4.5. Simultaneous communicationAnother commonly used term for ‘Total Communication’ is simultaneous communication, known as Simcom. De Klerk (2003) defines Simcom as:

…a method of communicating whereby speech and sign language are used simultaneously. Neither the rules of sign or spoken language are adhered to (De Klerk, 2003:68).

4.6. Pidgin Sign English or ‘Contact Sign’Pidgin Sign English (henceforth PSE) is not strictly regarded as a form of Manually Coded English. PSE uses a combination of certain elements of Deaf Sign Language and English.

Baker-Shenk and Cokely (2005:1) explain that “…a pidgin is a language which develops naturally when people who do not know each other’s language wish to communicate with each other.”

Baker-Shenk and Cokely (2005) further add that:Normally, the pidgin is no one’s native language. It typically combines certain vocabulary items and structures from the native languages of the people in contact with each other, and thus has a different grammar than either of the native languages (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 2005:1).

Wikipedia (2005:3) is of the opinion that PSE “drops the initializations and grammatical markers used in other forms of MCE, but retains basic English word order.”

40

Pidgin Sign English (PSE) does not follow one set of specific rules. Therefore, there are a variety of different forms of PSE. Baker-Shenk and Cokely (2005) are of the opinion that:

The forms used by Deaf people tend to include more of the structures found in the grammar of [Sign Language] (e.g. verb directionality) and less of the grammatical forms of English (e.g. definite and indefinite articles: `the' and `a') (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 2005:1).

Conversely, Baker-Shenk and Cokely (2005) state that:…the forms of PSE used by hearing people tend to include more English grammatical structures (e.g. use of the verb `to be'), more transliterations of English idioms (e.g. `to come across') and litt le of the structures found in [Sign Language] (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 2005:1).

As an individual’s signing skil l improves, it moves from English to Sign Language. Within this shift there are different stages which become“less and less like English” and therefore “more and more like [Sign Language]” (Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 2005:1). The reverse is true as an individual’s signing moves from Sign Language to English. Hence, there exists a range of PSE varieties. Some varieties more like Sign Language and others more like English. The following illustration by Frank A. Paul as cited in Baker-Shenk and Cokely (2005:1) explains this continuum further:

(Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 2005:1)

41

PSE is often also referred to as ‘Contact Sign’ as it is a “contact language” (Wikipedia, 2005:3). A ‘contact language’, as it is referred to here, is created when speakers of distinct speech varieties or different tongues communicate with each other. In this context, Deaf and hearing individuals are attempting to communicate with each other through PSE.

4.7. Cued speechCued Speech was devised by Dr Orin Cornett in 1966.

Reed (1984) defines Cued speech as:…a system of hand positions around the face to differentiate speech sounds which look al ike on the l ips or to indicate those speech sounds which are not seen when l ip-reading:E.g. Bat, Mat, Pat

Tan, Nan, DanK, G, ‘ng

(Reed, 1984:88).

Reed (1984:89) further explains that “every speech sound has a hand position at the side of the mouth, on the chin or under the chin.”

42

Chapter 4: Language as it relates to Deaf learners and Deaf Education

In the context of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (henceforth SSFA) adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education and sponsored by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) and the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain, the Report of the National Commission on Special Needs in Education and Training (NCSNET) and the National Committee for Education Support Services (NCESS) appeared in November 1997, with the support of the National Department of Education, South Africa. This Report was entitled Quality education for all: Overcoming barriers to learning and development. The NCSNET and NCESS have “deliberately adopted a comprehensive approach, considering all aspects and bands of education” (Department of Education, 1997:2). The NCSNET / NCESS state that:

…the central challenge facing education is that of recognizing and addressing the different or diverse needs of the entire learner population and minimizing, removing and preventing barriers to learning and development, thereby promoting effective learning among all learners ( ibid. ).

Essentially, this Report forms the basis of the national disabil ity strategy. The Report strongly supports the “vision, principles, and strategies for the future” (Department of Education, 1997:44). Within the vision the NCSNET/NCESS state that they envisage:

…an education and training system that promotes education for al l and fosters the development of inclusive and supportive

43

centres of learning that enable al l learners to participate actively in the education process so that they can develop and extend their potential and participate as equal members of society ( ibid.).

In addition, the Report summarizes the principles guiding the broad strategies to achieve its vision. These principles are:

…acceptance of the principles and values contained in the Constitution and White Papers on Education and Training; human rights and social justice for all learners; participation and social integration; equal access to a single, inclusive education system; access to the curriculum; equity and redress; community responsiveness; and cost-effectiveness (Department of Education, 1997:44).

Before I discuss further how inclusion pertains to Deaf children, I would l ike to first clarify in what way Deaf children may be said to have special needs. According to the NSCNET/NCESS Report as cited in Aarons and Akach (2002) it states that:

…children with special needs can be provided for in an inclusion model by designing the inclusion in such a way that barriers to the child’s education are removed (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

Hence, children who are physically disabled or have restricted mobility will be catered for as their physical barriers can be removed with the aid of wheel chairs, walkers, crutches etc. Similarly, children with restricted vision can be taught literacy through the use of Braille. For children that do not have “functional speech, but are able to hear and understand a spoken language, alternative-augmentative communication” can be provided in order to accommodate these children in a mainstream classroom (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

Aarons and Akach (2002) are of the opinion that even though all these “modes of accommodation and inclusion” will be at first

44

costly, they “can be seen to be cost-effective in the long run” ( ibid.).

However, with regards to the Deaf child, this is where I feel they differ from children with other special needs. Aarons and Akach (2002:159) state that “there is a crucial way in which Deaf children differ…”

Coetzee (2005) also feels that the needs of Deaf children differ considerably in comparison to other children. Coetzee (2005) states that:

The needs of learners who require intensive language teaching differ radically from those of the blind or the physically handicapped. One cannot merely fit learners with hearing aids, or give them Cochlear Implants, switch them on and then expect them to function normally (Coetzee, 2005:4).

The difference in Deaf children in comparison to other special needs children is that they use a different language, namely a Signed Language. “This in itself is not a special need, but a language issue” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159). Therefore, I am of the opinion that if a Deaf child is placed in a mainstream class, he/she will not have “equal access” as the guiding principles of the NSCNET/NCESS Report state (Department of Education, 1997:44). Furthermore, the Deaf child will be denied access to the “face-to-face language being used by anyone else in that class” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

Pinto (2005) is of the opinion that if a Deaf child is placed within a mainstream class without any other Deaf children, then he/she “will automatically experience an immediate isolation and negligence due to the fact of [sic] the language barrier …” (Pinto, 2005:7).

45

Aarons and Akach (2002:159) feel strongly that “Deaf children may be said to be members of a minority language group.” As I am a normal hearing adult, I have never had the opportunity or perhaps never taken the time to query such a statement. Therefore, as an educator of children, I felt that it was imperative that I found out how the South African Deaf community truly felt on this matter.

When Pinto (2005) was asked whether she, at any stage felt that she was a member of a “minority language group”, her response was:

No, because I grew up in this way and do not care about it , but at the same time I have understanding [sic] that there are too many ignorant people out there and whoever I met [sic] they ‘automatically’ regard me as a deaf-and-dumb person. Besides, my understanding is that the Deaf community is far to small and is l iving ‘ inside’ the vastest world [sic] of hearing people around us and we, the Deaf community, can’t really and ful ly expect to have total equality with the majority -- particularly in language. Despite [sic], we have our ful l pride in our very own, richness and unique language that general people don’t have (Pinto, 2005:9).

Even though Pinto (2005) does not feel part of a “minority language group”, I do however believe that there may very well be children that do. I think that inclusion in a mainstream class would, in addition to other factors, mean inclusion of yet another language, i.e. a Signed Language.

Aarons and Akach (2002) explain that:South Africa does have such multi l ingual classes, in fact, and it is regarded as always possible (and desirable) in principle, for the pupils to acquire one another’s languages (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

46

Unfortunately, in terms of Deaf children who could be placed in such an environment, it is not physically possible to acquire the language/s spoken around them. The issue here is therefore not one of multi lingualism, but one of access in terms the spoken languages within the class. “The barrier for Deaf children in the context of a multi lingual class is spoken language” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

“The use of signed language in the education of Deaf children is the simplest, most natural and most effective means of access for these children” ( ibid.). Despite many years of oralists’ perseverance to teach Deaf children to lipread and speak, oralism, as discussed in chapter 3, has proved to be unsuccessful as a method of educating Deaf children. Aarons and Akach (2002) further explain the reasons for its failure and state that:

The first reason is that the Deaf cannot hear (and although this may seem obvious) they cannot learn to hear. Secondly, l ipreading is a variable ski l l, and before one is able to l ipread and understand a language, one must already know that language (Aarons & Akach, 2002:159).

Aarons and Akach (2002) explain that:The equivalent of expecting a Deaf child to learn English through l ipreading is to imagine oneself being asked to learn Japanese by sitting in a glass booth and l ipreading speakers of Japanese all day ( ibid.).

Similarly, “Deaf children can only be taught to speak up to a point” (Cockburn, 2002:1). In many schools, both Deaf and mainstream, a great deal of time is exhausted on speech training, assessment, speech therapy etc. Consequently, these children are isolated from the other children and miss out on valuable learning and development that should be happening with the rest of the class.

47

Aarons and Akach (2002) explain that: Frequently, Deaf children come out of schools for the Deaf uneducated, functionally i l l iterate, with neither a first language, nor any other, firmly in place (Aarons & Akach, 2002:160).

Schools all over the world have shown, in various l iterature and research, that they have essentially failed Deaf children. Deaf schools have produced learners who felt “not well prepared to be productive members of society” (Cockburn, 2002:1).

Pinto (2005) feels that because some of her previous schools used methods such as ‘oralism’ and ‘Signing Exact English (SEE2) 4’, instead of South African Sign Language (SASL) as a medium of instruction, she was not “prepared” enough for the world outside school. Pinto (2005) states that:

…since all the teachers used either EESL or Oralism instead of SASL; I have missed [sic] a great deal of al l essential and basic information and general knowledge. Again, since English is a second language to me I was, therefore, struggling to ‘keep up’ with the trends, news, and other various useful media around me that is widely available to learn. This barrier of language (English) causes great l imitation… (Pinto, 2005:10).

Cockburn (2002:1) is of the opinion that when Deaf learners left school being ill iterate, “it was difficult for them to get jobs.” Cockburn (2002:1) further explains that “many Deaf people … find themselves dependent on disabil ity grants.”

The significant issue in the education of Deaf children comes down to language , in its broadest sense. There appear to be grounds for the assertion that if Deaf children are educated through the medium of a signed language (and, in this context, South African Sign Language (SASL)) then the Deaf child would 4 Pinto (2005) often refers to ‘Signing Exact Engl ish (SEE2)’ as ‘Exact Engl ish Sign Language (EESL)’. They are however, the same methods.

48

experience lowered barriers to learning. The spoken language is the true barrier for a Deaf child.

With the use of SASL, the Deaf child will have access to everything that any other child has access to. Therefore, the subject of disabil ity is only effective,

…for as long as Deaf children are denied access to education because they are denied access to a language modality that they are physically capable of using (Aarons & Akach, 2002:160).

If SASL is used as the medium of instruction in schools for the Deaf, “the learner population is guaranteed of access to the content of instruction, at the least” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:161). Of course, the main educational consideration needs to be literacy acquisition for Deaf learners. Through my research on various approaches in Deaf education, I feel confident in the fact that the bil ingual-bicultural approach is the most effective approach for the acquisition of l iteracy in Deaf learners.

In South Africa as well as internationally, the bil ingual-bicultural approach (also known as bil ingualism) is now progressively becoming the teaching approach for Deaf children. DEAFSA (2005a) explains that:

Bil ingualism is based on the assets of Deaf children: What they have and what they can do. In this approach, Sign Language and the spoken/written languages are kept separate in use and in the curriculum because they are indeed two completely different languages. Sign Language is respected as the first language of Deaf people and is also used as the language of instruction (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

According to Zapien as cited in De Klerk (2003) the bil ingual-bicultural approach is based on the premise that:

Auditory/oral and Total Communication approaches do not meet the l inguistic and cultural needs of deaf children; [that] natural

49

sign language is the biologically preferred mode of communication for the deaf individuals and [that] deaf children can acquire verbal language in the written form through the language base of natural s ign language (De Klerk, 2003:71).

The first aim of this approach is that the Deaf child learns “his/her first language (Sign Language) in a natural way” (DEAFSA, 2005a:1). One very important aspect of this approach is that Sign Language stimulation from parents, other Deaf children and Deaf adults needs to occur for it to be successful. As with any language, children need a great deal of experience and stimulation, in order to acquire the language effectively. DEAFSA (2005a) elaborates and says that:

…if deaf children are exposed to their first language from the earliest possible age, they wil l acquire Sign Language as their first language in a manner equivalent to that in which a hearing child acquires a first spoken language (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

As with hearing children, a good command of the first language is imperative to ensure success with a second language. This is because “second language learners use their first language as a point of reference in the acquisition of a second language” (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

DEAFSA (2005a) states that:Only when the Deaf child has mastered Sign Language, and gained general knowledge through Sign Language, a model for teaching English, Afrikaans etc. is introduced (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

When English, Afrikaans etc. is introduced, the learners are first taught to read and write, “…thereby adding the possibil ity to obtain knowledge by themselves through printed material” (DEAFSA, 2005a:1). Lastly, they are instructed in speech which therefore adds another means of communication for the Deaf

50

child. The instruction of this final stage obviously depends a great deal on “their interest, aptitude and residual hearing” ( ibid.).

Literature describes numerous advantages of using the bil ingual-bicultural approach in Deaf education. De Klerk (2003) is of the opinion that:

Bil ingualism provides the deaf child with the opportunity of succeeding at school as it faci l itates l iteracy skills by using the deaf child’s mother tongue i.e. sign language to teach reading and writ ing (De Klerk, 2003:71).

De Klerk (2003) further explains and states that:Bil ingual education provides the Deaf child with an accessible education level in which he can achieve success that is favourably comparable with that of hearing children. Success within the academic environment ultimately leads to successful l ife after school (De Klerk, 2003:71).

DEAFSA (2005a) has provided results found in children that have followed this approach. The results are as follows:

They attain a reading level equal to that of hearing peers. They attain a writing abil ity equal to that of hearing peers. They stil l make grammatical errors in their writing

(understandable because it is their second language). They can use writ ing to express themselves fluently and

intell igibly. They develop a better self-esteem and become fully developed

individuals. Third and even fourth language learning is possible because

their first language is ful ly developed. The possibil ity to follow the regular curriculum and reach the

same attainment levels as their hearing peers.(DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

DEAFSA (2005a) further states that:

51

Bil ingualism in education also applies to the hard of hearing. Sign Language could be their first, second or third language. Sign Language for the hard of hearing is very important as most hard of hearing people world-wide identify with both hearing and the Deaf people (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

In conclusion, according to DEAFSA (2005a): Research has shown that Sign Language does not prevent the Deaf child from learning to speak. If the child has a normal Sign Language abil ity and is then taught to read and write a spoken/written language, they master the ability to speak much better. Therefore no bil ingual programme is against speech training but embraces it (DEAFSA, 2005a:1).

As is evident in research, wherever this approach has been implemented, it has been found to be the most effective approach to the acquisition of literacy in Deaf children. Therefore, given the demonstrated value of this approach in developing literacy in Deaf children it could be argued that the failure to use it would be actively prejudicial to their educational rights, as stated in government policy.

Chapter 5: The question of mainstreaming Deaf learners

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the bil ingual-bicultural approach is not likely to be practicable within a mainstream classroom. First it would mean that learners would need to be provided with their primary input through the medium of signed language. Second, they would discuss, ask and answer

52

questions through the medium of signed language and third, they would also need to engage with one another and the teacher through the medium of signed language. A single teacher within a mainstream classroom obviously has other children to consider. These children have other needs and other languages which need to be dealt with. “She cannot simply accommodate Deaf learners within her classroom and provide them with these basic requirements” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:161). Aarons and Akach (2002) are of the opinion that:

Any other way of including Deaf children in a mainstream class would not be inclusion, and would certainly not provide a desirable learning context for the Deaf child or children (Aarons & Akach, 2002:161).

Aarons and Akach (2002:161) feel strongly that “the idea that Deaf children should be included in general classrooms is not in the spirit of inclusion.” As Pinto (2005:7) explained, the Deaf child would experience isolation in a mainstream class due to the language barrier. Webster and Ellwood (1985) appear to support Aarons and Akach view when they say:

…for some children attempts to “integrate” into ordinary classroom situations may increase the child’s sense of isolation … [and] nothing diminishes a child’s confidence and self-respect more than being a mere onlooker in a group of children… (Webster & Ellwood, 1985:6).

The World Federation of the Deaf as cited in Aarons and Akach (2002) has also pointed out the following in response to the proposal for Deaf learners to be included in mainstream classes:

The education of Deaf children should not be carried out by placing him/her [sic] alone in hearing schools if proper interpreting service is [sic] not available during all lessons. Deaf children have the right to education in Sign Language and Deaf children have the r ight to be educated in their own schools (Aarons & Akach, 2002:161).

53

Surprisingly, within all three of my interviews, it was found that each individual disagreed with the proposal that Deaf children should be mainstreamed. This was interesting as each person was tackling the issue from a different view point, i .e. one interviewee was a parent of a Deaf child (Kemp, 2005), one interviewee was a South African Deaf adult (Pinto, 2005) and the third interviewee was an educator of Deaf learners (Coetzee, 2005).

During my interview with Kemp (2005), I asked whether she opposed or supported the idea of Deaf children being included in mainstream classes within South African schools as they function today. This was Kemp’s (2005) response, verbatim:

There are some children whose hearing loss is very mild and obviously with assistance these pupils can cope but for the bulk of children with a moderate to severe loss – it is unfair to expect them to cope in a mainstream environment. I feel very strongly that in these cases the need for small classes and individual attention is essential, i f any progress is to be made. They are rarely ful ly integrated into the mainstream of school and feel very isolated as they get older and become more aware of their situation (Kemp, 2005:5).

Pinto (2005:6) also disagreed with mainstreaming Deaf children and states that, “I oppose the idea of Deaf learners to be placed in any normal hearing school, even though they provide skilled interpreters.”

In addition I was also very interested in what an educator of Deaf children thought about mainstreaming Deaf learners. On this issue, Coetzee (2005) states:

There would definitely be more exclusion than inclusion. As a point in proof, we receive many learners who have already been

54

in some of the enormous mainstream classes. They have not coped there and come to us too late: depressed, academically behind and lacking in self-confidence. Some of our learners, those who function well academically, might cope, but the majority would flounder badly (Coetzee, 2005:5).

The Deaf child is considered to have special needs purely because their “special need is to have a different communication system in education” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:162). As soon as Deaf children are included into mainstream classes, Aarons and Akach (2002) explain that:

…this special need can only be met by specific and costly measures, such as employing ful l-t ime interpreters in every classroom in which there is a Deaf child, or ensuring that every teacher in a classroom where there is a Deaf child learn [ sic] to sign fluently (i.e. master [sic] an entirely new language) (Aarons & Akach, 2002:162).

It seems like an unreasonable request for a teacher to become fluent in Sign Language, considering the fact that he/she may need to gain proficiency in a second language. If the teacher is unable to communicate with the Deaf learner, an interpreter will be required.

“Providing interpreters for Deaf children in mainstream classes is extremely cost-intensive” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:162). Furthermore, Aarons and Akach (2002:162) state that, “there are only three qualified signed language interpreters working in South Africa.” Unfortunately, rather than using these interpreters for a Deaf child on an individual, one on one basis, it seems it would be more beneficial if these interpreters were given access to more than one Deaf person at a time. Hence, one can see the major dilemmas within the South African Deaf Educational system.

55

Aarons and Akach (2002) state that in order for inclusion to be successful, as it is intended, certain changes will have to occur. These changes are:

…teachers in mainstream schools will need to master an additional language, or ful l-t ime interpreters wil l have to be trained and employed; teachers wil l have to teach using different sorts of visual materials for Deaf children; classrooms will have to be organised differently; communication among pupils cannot be assumed; Deaf children will have to be ful ly accommodated, making teaching other children at the same time more difficult (Aarons & Akach, 2002:162).

Considering the above changes that need to occur, the whole arrangement seems ineffective and unsound educationally. More importantly, all these changes will be extremely expensive. Given the financial situation of South African schools, such changes are not feasible and therefore Deaf children will “not benefit from inclusion, but will be more marginalized and more oppressed” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:162).

Due to the fact that the barrier to learning and development for Deaf people is a language barrier, rather than any physical, mental or emotional barrier, both the SSFA and the NCSNET/NCESS Report contain specific recommendations regarding the education of Deaf learners.

The SSFA states that:Educational policies should take ful l account of individual differences and situations. The importance of sign language as the medium of communication among the deaf, for example, should be recognized and provision made to ensure that all deaf persons have access to education in their national sign language. Owing to the particular communication needs of deaf and deaf/bl ind persons, their education may be more suitably

56

provided in special schools or special classes and units in mainstream schools (UNESCO, 1994:18).

Furthermore, the NCSNET/NCESS Report made a significant statement that is “in accord with the spirit of the SSFA ... as well as giving flesh to the equality clause in the South African Constitution” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:163). It states that:

It should be noted that schools providing teaching and learning through the medium of SA Sign Language are not considered to be a specialised learning context but rather a school identified by the medium of teaching and learning provided. Schools for learners who wish to learn through SA Sign Language would, therefore, be provided (Department of Education, 1997:47).

In order to establish what the proposed scenario is for Deaf learners in South Africa, the NCSNET/NCESS Report (Department of Education, 1997), the Integrated Strategy on Disability (Office of the Deputy President, 1997), the South African Schools Act (Department of Education, 1996), the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Constitutional Assembly, 1996), as well as many other policies and documents must be consulted.

57

Chapter 6: SASL as a fully-fledged language and as a medium of

instruction“Natural signed languages are fully-fledged languages entirely capable of expressing all the nuances of meaning that other natural languages can express” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165). Signed languages have been shown to have the same structure as for all other human languages. Furthermore, “signed languages may be used for everything that spoken languages may be used for” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165).

There are many different signed languages that have been documented. Aarons and Akach (2002) mention examples such as:

American Sign Language, Brit ish Sign Language, Swedish Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language, Kenyan Sign Language, Namibian Sign Language and South African Sign Language (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165).

58

Just l ike other natural signed languages, SASL “has phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatics” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165). DEAFSA (2005b:1) state that “Sign Language has its own grammatical structure independent of any spoken/written language…” Aarons and Akach (2002) are of the opinion that:

Signed languages are acquired at the same rate as other human languages; moreover, l ike other human languages, they are subject to change and systematic variation on account of social factors ( ibid.).

Natural Signed Languages demonstrate the human capacity to acquire language. The acquisition of a signed language often contradicts and supports many theories on language. Essentially, signed languages show that language “is not bound by physical impairment; language is in the brain and may be expressed and processed by humans in more than one modality” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165). Aarons and Akach (2002) explain that:

Deaf learners whose learning context is mediated by signed language will have the same access as hearing learners whose context is mediated by spoken language (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165).

The primary language used by the Deaf community in South Africa is South African Sign Language. “The course of development of a signed language is somewhat different from the course of development of spoken languages” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:165). According to DEAFSA (2005b:1) “a minority (10%) of Deaf children are born to Deaf parents and these children acquire Sign Language as a mother tongue .” This therefore means that:

The majority of Deaf people (90%) are born to hearing parents and therefore do not acquire Sign Language as a mother tongue . They acquire Sign Language at school from peers (DEAFSA, 2005b:1).

59

SASL makes use of “the hands, face , head and upper torso and is processed by the eyes” (DEAFSA, 2005b:1). SASL is a fully-fledged human language that has all the properties of natural human languages, such as “duality, discreteness, productivity, creativity, displacement, arbitrariness, conventionality, and being culturally transmitted” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:166). Therefore, SASL is fully capable of being used as a medium of instruction within schools.

Aside from literature, that supports SASL as a fully-fledged language which is capable of being used as a medium of instruction, there are various governmental documents and policies that protect Deaf individuals’ rights as well as dealing with the issue of language medium of instruction. As mentioned before, the NCSNET/NCESS Report (Department of Education, 1997), the Integrated Strategy on Disabil ity (Office of the Deputy President, 1997), the South African Schools Act (Department of Education, 1996) and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Constitutional Assembly, 1996) are to name but a few that make provisions and recommendations regarding SASL and Deaf education.

In section 9 (3), (4) and (5) in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa it states:

3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disabil ity, rel igion, conscience, belief, culture, language 5 and birth.4. No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

5 This is where my emphasis l ies.

60

5. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.(Constitutional Assembly, 1996:9).

Aarons and Akach (2002) state that:These clauses specifically protect learners from being discriminated against on the basis of characterist ics, which are unrelated to their education or their abil ity to take part in the learning process (Aarons & Akach, 2002:155).

In section 29 (2) the Constitution deals with the issue of language and states:

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable (Constitutional Assembly, 1996:29).

This clause plays an important role in the education of Deaf learners. Even though South African Sign Language is not an official language, the Pan South African Language Board, as cited in the Constitution, does acknowledge SASL and states:

5. The Pan South Afr ican Language Board must:

a. promote and create condit ions for the development and use ofi . al l official languagesii. the Khoi, Nama and San languages; andiii . sign language

b. promote and ensure respect for languages, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, and others commonly used by communities in South Africa, and Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and others used for rel igious purposes.(Constitutional Assembly, 1996:6).

The South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 does recognize SASL as an official language for learning purposes and states:

61

A recognized Sign Language has the status of an official language for purposes of learning at a public school (Department of Education, 1996:6(4)).

Although the NCSNET/NCESS Report made strong recommendations in favour of inclusion, the Report made it clear that more creative means must be found of accommodating Deaf learners. In terms of SASL, the recommendations are as follows:

SASL should be available as a medium of teaching and learning.

The choice SASL should be available as a medium of teaching and

learning. The choice of SASL as a medium of teaching and learning must

be located in the National Language Policy in Education framework.

Availability of interpreters and the development of SASL competence at al l bands of education must be addressed.

Within the Language, Literacy and Communication Learning Area, SASL should be an area of focus.

All educators and service providers, including houseparents [sic] providing service at SASL bil ingual centres of learning, should receive training which wil l enable them to become proficient in SASL.

Parents should also have access to SASL training(Department of Education, 1997:66).

Finally, the Integrated Strategy for Disabil ity White Paper of 1997 (Office of the Deputy President, 1997) strongly supports the proposal of SASL to be used as a medium of instruction. In recommendation 9B it states:

It is recommended that the Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Arts, Culture, science and Technology, the Deaf Federation of South Africa (DEAFSA) and other stakeholders, faci l itate a process for the development of a comprehensive education policy to promote and protect equal

62

education opportunities for children with communication disabilit ies and to protect their language medium (Office of the Deputy President, 1997:74).

In addition, the Integrated Strategy for Disabil ity White Paper (Office of the Deputy President, 1997) makes recommendations regarding Deaf learners’ education in terms of inclusion. In the footnote in chapter one (8) it states:

8) Although the overall policy recommendation is for the inclusion of children with disabil it ies in mainstream education, the Deaf community believes that Deaf children need special schools, claiming that this is of cardinal importance for their concept and learning acquisition [sic] (Office of the Deputy President, 1997:18).

The above mentioned documents are the main official documents that aim to protect and cater for Deaf learners in terms of their education and their fundamental rights. However, in practice, there are sti ll schools today that have not yet grasped “that they are acting in contravention and defiance of the legislation and proposed legislation” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:164). Aarons and Akach (2002) further state that:

The overwhelming majority of teachers in schools for the Deaf in South African cannot sign and maintain the belief that it is up to them to decide whether SASL should be sued in these schools or not (Aarons & Akach, 2002:164).

It is in this sense that Deaf children are discriminated against: by teachers and by the system that does not recognize their language, which is their basic human right without which they literally have no access to learning.

63

Chapter 7: Requirements of schools for the Deaf

According to the proposed recommendations for the new disabil ity policy, as discussed in the Integrated Strategy for Disabil ity White Paper of 1997 (Office of the Deputy President, 1997), as cited in Aarons and Akach (2002:166) “schools for the Deaf will have to be revisioned.” The authors explain that:

They [Deaf schools] wil l no longer be, as in the past, places where teachers who do not wish to learn to sign, can function. They wil l no longer have the option of using ‘Total Communication’ (a misnomer), ‘simultaneous communication’ (which is neither simultaneous, nor communication), speech, and manually coded spoken language, or any combinations of the above (Aarons & Akach, 2002:166).

Any future decisions that are to be made regarding the Deaf learner are to be in the best interest of the child. The Deaf child’s constitutional human rights and equality of access are always to be protected. Aarons and Akach (2002) state that:

No longer wil l the policy be to protect the system, the school, the teacher who believes that the Deaf child is inferior and must be dependent, and the professional whose job is dependent on perpetuating the disabil ity of the Deaf child ( ibid.).

64

In this chapter I wil l briefly discuss various solutions and recommendations regarding schools for the Deaf, that I feel are necessary to ensure that the Deaf child is protected and that his/her best interests are met.

One important way to ensure that the language barrier for Deaf children is removed is to transform existing Deaf schools into signed language medium schools, according to Aarons and Akach (2002:164). But the authors further state that:

…this should not be merely a survival strategy for the schools, by which they change their names, and continue doing as they have always done (Aarons & Akach, 2002:164).

By transforming the schools into signed language medium schools, the children will have the opportunity to have full access to SASL as a medium of instruction. A policy of “reverse integration” could also be considered. Webster and Wood (1989:177) define reverse integration as that of “…hearing children [that] come into a unit to work alongside hearing-impaired children.” Webster and Wood (1989:177) further add that with reverse integration, “there is recognition … that all children benefit, in terms of tolerance and understanding …”

Educators of Deaf children within these signed language medium schools play a pivotal role in the Deaf children’s lives.

It is their responsibi l ity to ensure that Deaf children are prepared to become independent and contributing members of the social, polit ical and economic l ife of the country (Aarons & Akach, 2002:167).

It is the duty of all educators of the Deaf to become proficient in SASL as well as be fully acquainted with Deaf culture. In order to be an effective teacher of the Deaf, “the teacher must engage in the Bilingual-Bicultural approach to Deaf education” ( ibid.).

65

Aarons and Akach (2002:167) state that in an ideal world, “teachers of the Deaf should themselves be Deaf, or near-native users of SASL.” However, in reality, this is very unlikely. Aarons and Akach (2002:167) explains that “there are currently only three qualified Deaf teachers of the Deaf in South Africa.” The authors are optimistic and state that:

As equity develops in the educational opportunit ies for Deaf learners, more Deaf people will be able to reach twelfth grade and study further to become teachers (Aarons & Akach, 2002:167).

In the meantime, “legislation on SASL medium of instruction in schools should ensure that teachers of the Deaf have to learn SASL” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:167).

Another important recommendation is that Deaf children be exposed to adult Deaf users of SASL as often as possible. Pinto (2005) concurs with my recommendation and states that:

…a Deaf child should interact with as many Deaf adults as possible during one’s childhood [sic] [this] wil l greatly help one to “prepare” him/herself with [sic] outside l ife and work, etc after the completion of school (Pinto, 2005:10).

Deaf adults could also be employed as assistants in schools. They could assist the teachers in the deaf schools by:

…working in conjunction with the teachers and signing the content of the lessons to the pupils, helping to answer the pupils’ questions, and generally serving as sign models and language advisors to the pupils (Aarons & Akach, 2002:167).

The role and the util ization of professional interpreters also need to be considered. They play a key role in facil itating the boundary and communication between Deaf and hearing people. It is expected that an interpreter for the Deaf should have excellent

66

spoken and written language skills in at least one spoken language and also should be proficient in SASL. In addition, it is pivotal that the interpreter has an understanding of Deaf culture as well as of Deaf communities’ structures and perspectives.

Aarons and Akach (2002) state that:Setting up signed language medium schools in the long run is more cost-effective than ‘including’ Deaf children in mainstream classes … Signed language medium schools wil l also be more efficient, and wil l provide more conducive learning environments for Deaf learners than do the current schools for the Deaf (Aarons & Akach, 2002:168).

In the interim, money is also going to have to be invested in setting up signed language training courses for all professionals involved in the education of Deaf children such as teachers, interpreters, student teachers etc.

The last recommendation is on the issue of equipment. As “SASL is a visual language” and users of SASL “perceive SASL with their eyes”, specific equipment needs to be made available at the signed language medium schools (Aarons & Akach, 2002:168). Equipment such as a video camera and a VCR should be within each class. This equipment can be used for assessment purposes to assess the learners’ SASL performance as well as for learners to analyze any SASL discourse, l ike a play, story or poem. Equipment like this is often more beneficial and of more value to Deaf learners than textbooks, “because SASL is the primary language of the learners” ( ibid.).

These proposals for Deaf children “make economic as well as educational sense” (Aarons & Akach, 2002:169). I feel confident that signed language medium schools are the most effective way

67

of removing barriers to learning for the Deaf child as well as enabling them to function fully through using a language to which they have full access.

ConclusionThe South African Educational System as well as its schools is currently faced with enormous challenges in regard to their change and development of Deaf education. Establishing signed language medium schools is merely one part of the wider challenge of developing a society of learning and teaching where quality education for all Deaf individuals becomes a reality within South Africa.

Due to South Africa’s apartheid era, in regards to Deaf education, as well as other negative contributing factors, Deaf schools are presently at different stages of development in terms of ensuring that schools provide the most “effective means”, most “efficient and … cost-effective … education …” and most “effective education” as envisaged in the proposals made by the SSFA (UNESCO, 1994:ix).

One aspect which all Deaf schools will however have in common is that they all are faced with diverse learning and developmental requirements which need to be effectively addressed.

When embarking on all these overwhelming challenges, South Africans, and especially educators, need to keep in mind aspirations “about empowering people to be themselves…” (Tilstone et al., 1998:273).

Through my research I came across a remarkable poem that absolutely encapsulates exactly what a Deaf person could and

68

does feel like in a hearing world. This poem was written by an anonymous Deaf person and it states:

How Does It Feel to Be Deaf?

What is it l ike to be deaf? People have asked me. How do I explain that? Simply, I can't hear? Nooo, [sic] it is much more than that!!!!! [sic] It is similar to a goldfish in a bowl. Always observing things going on. People talking al l the t ime. It is being on a desert island, or among foreigners. Isolation, is not a stranger to me. Relatives only say hi and bye, as I sit for hours with them. Taking great pleasure at watching amusing babies, reading books, resting, or helping out with food. My natural curiosity perks up when I see laughter, tears or someone upset. When I inquire "what's up", only to be meet [ sic] with "Oh never mind" or "Oh, it 's not important"! [ sic] A short summarized statement of the story I 'm supposed to smile and show happiness. Little do they know how truly miserable I am. Hearing people are in control of their language usage, I am at a loss and very uncomfortable. Always the feeling of being an outsider Among the hearing people even if it was not their intention. Always assuming that I am part of them because of my physical presence, not, understanding the importance of communication. When I am faced with a choice between a deaf camping weekend or a family reunion Forced to choice [sic] between family commitment or deaf friends

I must make the choice constantly!! [sic]Any wonder why I choose deaf fr iends???? [sic]I get such great pleasure when I am at a deaf club.

69

Before I realize it, its 2:00 a.m. But I anxiously look at the clock every few minutes at a family gathering. With Deaf people, I am so NORMAL!!! Our communication flows back and forth Catching up with litt le trivial things-- about our daily l ives --about our frustration in the bigger world. Seeking the mutual understanding Contented smiles, and laughter are l ike music So MAGICAL to me We're so attuned to each other's feelings Truly this happiness so [sic] important!!! I feel more at home with Deaf people We don't see people as being short or tal l, various colors [ sic], or rel igions. As I do when I'm among my own hearing relatives And I wonder why? Our language is common. We understand each other. Then I realize, its being at loss, not in control of my environment.

That is a "Lack of COMMUNICATION" People panic and retreat to avoid the deaf. We feel l ike we have the plague But Deaf people are sti l l human beings, with dreams, desires and NEEDS We want to BELONG just l ike everyone else

(Berke, 2005a:1).

The above poem is unbelievably powerful. Through the authors words it confirms, now more than ever, that the education of Deaf children within South Africa urgently needs to be revised and improved on in an immense way.

70

Ideally, perhaps we as South Africans can one day corroborate with Spoonface Steinberg’s viewpoint as cited in Tilstone et al. (1998:273) which states:

“…everybody is different and that is quite good indeed…”

References1. Aarons, D. & Akach, P. (2002). Inclusion and the Deaf child in South

African education. Perspectives in Education. 20(1):153-170.2. Baker-Shenk, C. & Cokely, D. (2005). Pidgin Sign English in the Deaf

Community. [Online]. Available: http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/pidgin.htm (24 June 2005).

3. Beninghof, A.M. (1997). Ideas for Inclusion: the classroom teacher’s guide to integrating students with severe disabil it ies. Longmont: Sopris West.

4. Berke, J. (2005a). Poem on deafness. [Online]. Available: http://deafness.about.com/od/deafliteratureandfun/a/deafpoem.htm (12 July 2005).

5. Berke, J. (2005b). Total Communication. [Online]. Available: http://deafness.about.com/cs/communication/a/totalcomm.htm (5 July 2005).

6. Bishop, M. [Ed.] (1979). Mainstreaming: Practical ideas for educating hearing-impaired students. Washington: The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc.

7. Cockburn, A. (2002). Inclusion and the Deaf society. [Online]. Available: http://www.childrenfirst.org.za/shownews?mode=content&id=19668&refto=3593#top (24 June 2005).

8. Coetzee, M. (2005). Interview with an educator of Deaf and hearing-impaired learners. Cape Town: Mary Kihn School.

9. Constitutional Assembly of the Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Cape Town: Government Printer.

10. DEAFSA. (2005a). Bil ingual Education. [Online]. Available:

71

http://www.deafsa.co.za/asp/education.asp (24 June 2005).11. DEAFSA. (2005b). Sign Language. [Online]. Available:

http://www.deafsa.co.za/asp/signlanguage.asp (24 June 2005).12. De Klerk, N. (2003). Spoken / sign language as a criterion for

school readiness among Deaf pre-schoolers. [Online]. Available: http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/submitted/etd-08262004-155244/unrestricted/cd1.pdf (24 June 2005).

13. Department of Education. (1996). South African Schools Act, no. 84 of 1996. [Online]. Available:http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a84-96.htm (9 Apri l 2005).

14. Department of Education. (1997). Quality education for al l : Report of the National Commissions on Special Education Needs and Training and the National Committee for Education Support Services. Pretoria: Government Printer.

15. Department of Education. (2001). Education White Paper 6 on Special Needs Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System. Pretoria: Government Printer.

16. Engelbrecht, P., Green, L., Naicker, S. & Engelbrecht, L. [Eds.] (1999). Inclusive Education in action in South Africa. 4 t h . edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

17. Findling, C. & Houlton, J. (2000). Why learn American Sign Language? [Online]. Available:http://www.li lysworld.com/benefits.htm (30 June 2005).

18. Gallaudet University. (1997). Notable quotes. [Online]. Available: http://pr.gallaudet.edu/dpn/viewpoints/own_words/quotes.html (2 July 2005).

19. Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD). (2005). Frequently asked questions and answers. [Online]. Available: http://www.deafhoosiers.com/Parents/ParentsFAQ.asp (5 July 2005).

20. Kapp, J .A. [Ed.] (1991). Children with problems: An orthopedagogical perspective. 2n d . edition. Pretoria: J .L. van Schaik Publishers.

21. Kemp, S. (2005). Interview with a parent of a Deaf child. [Online]. Available e-mail: suekempdesign@ananzi.co.za (1 July 2005).

22. Lynas, W. (1986). Integrating the handicapped into ordinary schools: A study of hearing-impaired pupils. London: Croom Helm.

72

23. Office of the Deputy President, Republic of South Africa. (1997). Integrated National Disabil ity Strategy White Paper. [Online]. Available: http://www.independentl iving.org/docs3/sa1997wp.pdf (11 July 2005).

24. Pinto, I. (2005). Interview with a Deaf adult. [Online]. Available e-mail: xdesigns@fusionreactor.za.net (6 July 2005).

25. Quigley, S. & Kretschmer, R. (1982). The Education of Deaf children. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.

26. Reed, M. (1984). Educating hearing-impaired children. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

27. Tilstone, C., Florian, L. & Rose, R. [Eds.] (1998). Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge.

28. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action: World Conference of Special Needs Education. France: UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science, Spain.

29. Webster, A. & Ellwood, J. (1985). The hearing-impaired child in the ordinary school. London: Croom Helm.

30. Webster, A. & Wood, D. (1989). Special needs in ordinary schools: Children with hearing difficulties. London: Cassell Educational Limited.

31. Wikipedia. (2005). Manually Coded English. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manually_Coded_English (4 July 2005).

73

Bibliography1. Chippendale, B. & Arnold, P. (1995). Teachers’ views of l ipreading.

The Journal of the Brit ish Association of Teachers of the Deaf. 19(1):7-10.

2. Fraser, B. (1996). Supporting children with hearing impairment in mainstream schools. London: Franklin Watts.

3. Lloyd, J. (1999). Interaction between hearing-impaired children and their normally hearing peers. Deafness and Education International. 1(1):25-33.

4. Reese, A. (1995). Hearing Teachers and their Hearing Impaired Pupils. The Journal of the Brit ish Association of Teachers of the Deaf. 19(1):1-6.

5. Watson, L., Gregory, S. & Powers, S. (1999). Deaf and Hearing

Impaired pupils in Mainstream Schools. London: David Fulton Publishers.

74

Appendix 1Interview with an educator of Deaf and

hearing-impaired learners

75

Appendix 2Interview with a parent of a Deaf child

76

Appendix 3:Interview with a Deaf adult

77