Note: This was originally published in a column by Tim Curry in GONG magazine of the Czech Republic, May 2015.
Mainstreaming for Deaf Students
Traditionally in the USA, there were and are schools for the Deaf. These schools were usually founded by graduates of the first Deaf schools of the east coast areas, including the schools started by Gallaudet and his son. Each State in the United States has or had one or more Deaf schools. However, some parents chose to send their deaf child to a public school. This became much more prevalent in the 1960’s when laws were passed that mandated these children be accommodated with interpreters in the school system. This was the main start of mainstreaming.
Mainstreaming was seen as positive in many ways. This plan meant that parents could send their child to a public school that was close to their home. Deaf students didn’t need to live far away from the parents or sleep away from home most nights. Deaf students learned about the hearing culture every day. Deaf students had access to the same curriculum as hearing students. The government would save money by not maintaining a large residential Deaf school, which included a fulltime staff of teachers, dorm supervisors, janitors, principals, gardeners and more. The negative stigma of segregating a group from the majority was removed. However, not all of these positives are truly wonderful. In addition, there are many negatives to mainstreaming as well.
At mainstreamed schools, many times there is only one or a handful of deaf students within a large group of a few hundred or a thousand hearing students. This often excludes the deaf student from many conversations in the hallways, at recess, at lunch, before and after school and during activities. Most of the hearing culture that the deaf student learns is the same culture that they experience in everyday life at home, going to restaurants, shopping, etc. The hearing culture that they already know is only magnified all day as they try to swim in a culture that already excludes them merely by ignoring them. The same curriculum for the hearing students includes famous hearing people, hearing culture, hearing language, videos with music and talking, and other such exclusion elements. The staff and teachers rarely can communicate directly to the deaf student. Lastly, local schools must pay for more accommodations for the deaf student, such as captioned videos, tutors, speech therapists, staff training, special emergency lighting and alarms and for interpreters. The one notable aspect of mainstreaming in the USA is that by law, schools must provide qualified interpreters for deaf students.
ASL/English interpreters must meet the testing standards for the State in which they work. Therefore, deaf students are with an interpreter for most of the interactions while in a mainstreamed school. The system is not perfect, but most interpreters also allow for the students to interact with their peers, teachers and staff without too much exclusion. Each class is interpreted, as well as, lunch time, recess, sports, events and field trips. Deaf parents of deaf children or hearing children are also provided interpreters at schools. Having interpreters in schools is wonderful, but it does not solve some of the other issues.
Deaf schools may seem negative, like segregation, but the positives can outweigh the negatives. Deaf students already know the hearing culture quite well, just by everyday experiences, television, shopping, etc. The school allows for the students to interact with others in their culture. They share the same language, thus they teach each other about the curriculum just as hearing students teach each other the subtle meanings that teachers did not explain. The language and culture matures within this group as they grow. The deaf students and Deaf teachers bond in a stronger way than in mainstream schools, giving lifetime mentorship a chance. Adult role models are everywhere for the students. The curriculum includes famous people from their culture, using their language. There is no or little need for outside specialists, such as interpreters.
Mainstreaming, inclusion or whatever term is used, must take into account the viewpoint of the groups that are being considered. What may seem the best plan at first, may actually cause the opposite of what is intended.
Tim Curry, M.S.
Note: This was originally published in a column by Tim Curry in GONG magazine of the Czech Republic, May 2015.