It was Nice to be a Student Again

December 08, 2011 at 3:46 PM

On November 15, the Outreach Division of the Willie Ross School for the Deaf sponsored a seminar, “Educating Deaf & Hard-of-Hearing Children:  From Research to Practice.” The attendance was great, the information shared was timely and the interaction between attendees and presenters was productive and helpful to everyone. The faculty of the seminar offered presentations on topics ranging from language acquisition to cognitive development in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. The event was moderated by Dr. Marc Marschark of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf.

Science was at the center of discussion and was focused on the research-based data that has been developed by the impressive faculty who participated. Absent was any philosophical orientation or particular ideology which often dominates discussions about the education of the deaf and hard-of-hearing.

Certain trends did emerge, and a few resonated with me. In particular, how important it is for educators to be sensitive to our responsibilities to meet the evolving needs of our students. We must constantly assess our approach and be prepared to introduce changes if warranted.

I was struck by the fact that, while the field has heralded the advances in technology (cochlear implants, digital hearing aids and early identification through newborn hearing screening), the benefits are often not integrated into a comprehensive instructional approach. While it is certainly clear that cochlear implants have provided remarkable opportunities for deaf and hard-of-hearing children, and universal newborn screening has allowed identification of hearing losses sooner than ever before, the question still remains whether we have taken full advantage of these opportunities to create new approaches, or have we instead insisted upon molding these advances to comport with our existing models and beliefs?

Advances in technology and the possible academic and cognitive development opportunities that are present as a result are undeniable, but it is up to us in the field to make sure that we maximize these advances. The extent to which we have utilized these approaches to develop new and integrated systems is yet to be determined. We must realize that the heterogeneity of children with a hearing loss is expanding, in part, as a result of these advances.

The perils of a one-size-fits-all approach continue to be felt by children with a hearing loss. Old arguments regarding spoken language vs. sign language have recently reemerged, especially for children with cochlear implants. The energy that is expended in continuing this argument is truly counterproductive to the best needs of the children. Examining the capacities of different approaches and their ability to respond to the individual needs of children should be our focus. 

We can all agree that all schools have a responsibility to provide what their students need in order to enhance cognitive development and educational success. In the case of students with cochlear implants, it is clear that sign language is not a detriment to the development of spoken language. On the other hand, there must be opportunities present to develop and enhance listening skills and spoken language skills for students with implants.  Exposure to spoken language models is key, but does not mean that sign language cannot also be utilized to enhance educational achievement. The resistance of some to recognize the value of integrating approaches to create learning opportunities for students is unfortunate.

It is time to recognize that children are best served in a setting that responds to the array of their needs, a setting that strengthens their capacities by offering a continuum of services. Differential approaches that are helpful to enhancing educational achievement and promoting intellectual development must be present.
All of us in the field have a unique opportunity to maximize these advances by working together to ensure we offer all children with a hearing loss what they truly need. To fully bring the benefits of these recent technological advances to children, educators will need to establish instructional environments that offer more, not less.  

The seminar demonstrated clearly that a standard of educational practice which includes a sound diagnostic component staffed by individuals with knowledge about deafness and hearing loss should be our standard of practice.  

Let us then advance education and not philosophy. Let us focus on meeting the needs of children and not institutional advocacy. Let us offer what the students need based on sound assessments, one child at a time. I remain confident that the deaf education community is willing to do this, and given the number of our colleagues from other schools for the deaf that were in attendance and their commitment to expanding the capacity of existing programs, there is great cause for optimism. We owe the children nothing less.