Reflection:
Unlocking the Curriculum: Principles for Achieving Access in Deaf Education
In Unlocking the Curriculum, Johnson et al discuss the problem of accessibility in regards to deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The main failure is the way the curriculum is presented. These authors note that deaf children will likely fail “when only spoken English is available” (Johnson et al, 1989). Thinking about this made me reflect on my own education. I have personal experience of being spoken, sung, and read to as a child—the majority of this likely happening before I even entered a classroom setting. This experience has been validated by educational materials and informative public service pieces I have heard, all of which encourage new parents to talk, read, and sing to their children.
It seemed logical to me to have a school system which continued these practices. After all, it is almost instinctual to expect that a child who is given verbal communication will soon mirror it back, and a child who understand that verbal communication will soon likely learn how to synthesize that communication by writing and manipulating it in his or her own way. When I read: “critical to the educational process is the fact that the same children are expected from the first day to receive, process, and learn all curricular content through spoken English produced by their teachers,” I realized how very much I had taken this ability for granted within my own experience (Johnson et al, 1989).
As a native English speaker and a hearing person, I believe it might be easy to assume ASL as some variation of English, so modified so that deaf persons could learn it and therefore be fluently connected to the same resources as the rest of the citizens in the country. However, as the authors point out, ASL is a valid language all its own. What this means is that to expect a deaf student to have the same proficiency in English, even if that student is a native U.S. citizen, is to take for granted the fact that this student is having to learn two languages simultaneously—and one of them has no code or key provided. This dynamic reminded me a lot of the English-learning students I have encountered who have recently emigrated from Mexico. I have taught as a substitute teacher in several schools, and have noticed many times when these children are included in regular, English-speaking classes.
In these instances, I have noticed these students sitting silently, not engaging with the text, and also not wishing to disturb the class by asking for help or even anything to do. To me, they have appeared lost in a world which they clearly feel is not for them. Arguments I have heard in support of this approach is that these students get to have English interactions modeled for them all day long, and will therefore likely be able to start “diving in” more and more. The textbook suggests that this may be faulty logic, however, since an increasing problem in schools efficacy are in how they are serving “long-term ELs,” which are students who have been in English-learning programs for at least 6 years without becoming English-proficient (Banks, 2016). Because of these factors, I believe these two groups of students encounter the same set of respective difficulties. They both speak languages other than English, and both groups need to find ways to be able to participate in an English curriculum.
Because of the ultimate goal of participating with an English curriculum, bilingualism or a dual-language program would likely not make it easier or more efficient for students to learn. A possibility that the text does mention is transitional bilingual education (Banks, 2016). After researching transitional bilingual education (TBE) more, it seems to me that a foundation of bilingual resources should first be present at the school. Students can then encounter new concepts in their own languages, and work with educational professionals with the goal of transitioning into English programs within a specific, set time period. Educator Abelardo Villareal provides a suggestion about how to make TBE effective by promoting a sense of collaboration among teachers and also by making sure TBE links regularly with the mainstream curriculum (Villareal, 1999).
Conclusion
Many students come from backgrounds which mainstream, native English-speaking society can very easily take for granted. Students should be provided with advocacy before they are to get on to the business of competing with native-English speaking students, much less being tested and evaluated alongside them. This advocacy starts by first making sure there are resources which meet these students where they are, regardless of how much access to English they may have at the beginning. After this, creating specific plans with detailed goals can allow real research and real collaboration among teachers and administration, to maximize the good done for these students.
Sources
Banks, James; and Banks, Cherry A. (2016). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. 9th edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Johnson, Robert; Liddel, Scott; and Erting, Carol. (1989). Unlocking the Curriculum: Principles for Achieving Access in Deaf Education. Department of Linguistics and Interpreting. Gallaudet Research Institute. PDF. Retrieved from: https://nu.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-5275716-dt-content-rid-851356_1/courses/TED606-019154/unlocking_the_curriculum%20%281%29%281%29.pdf
Villarreal, Abelardo. “Rethinking the Education of English Language Learners: Transitional Bilingual Education Programs.” Bilingual Research Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, 1999, pp. 11–45.
No comments:
Post a Comment