As a Deaf man and a concerned American, it's probably normal for me to feel concern for those Deaf, Deaf-blind and hard-of-hearing Haitians who survived the earthquake. While the Deaf community has its tightness and connectivity to support it in times of stress, often we lose out during emergencies due to lack of communication about supplies and services. Examples where Deaf people received limited information due to a lack of captioned emergency broadcasts are everywhere in the U.S., for example.
So it was with trepidation and excitement that I spoke with my senior class about beginning a project with which we could somehow do our part, or at least a little, to help this particular disadvantaged group. I began watching aggregators such as Deafvillage and Deafread and other places on the internet. I wanted to identify links and organizations established to help such groups. I also began to watch major Deaf organizations on the internet, such as the NAD and the WFD.
In general, there hasn't been a lot of blogging on this issue. The best has come from Deaf Anthology (videos provided) and Deaf Haitians - more on the latter later.
The World Federation for the Deaf (WFD) and American National Assiociation of the Deaf (NAD) both have issued letters of sympathy to the country in question. The WFD claims to be investigating connections and avenues. The NAD has said it does not have the resources to set up its own specific fund, but that leaves open the avenue of it connecting with international agencies and providing links, as well as other, future forms of aid. So it seems a lot of our national and international agencies are wondering what to do and who, specifically, to help.
Gallaudet University, however, has already organized fundraisers and activities (including, most notably, a Spin-4-Haiti event on February 5th and 6th) designed to raise money specifically for the Instituit Montfort, a school for the Deaf and Deaf-blind in Haiti which currently boasts some 600+ students. Montfort, which has sent many students to American Deaf colleges, reports that it has lost a school building in Port-au-Prince, and that students and faculty at the residential institution are currently unsheltered. Gallaudet departments and faculty members are also engaged in action and instruction targeted towards aiding the survivors of the earthquake, and specifically the Deaf community. They've partnered with organizations such as Global Reach Out, Inc. which works to enable Deaf youth to create change internationally. The Rochester National Technical Institute of the Deaf, another major Deaf institution in America, has yet to report on actions being taken in its college. Given, however, that it has many successful students and graduates from Haiti, such action is probably already underway. Colleges, of course, have the benefit of unlimited resources of energy: the passion of young adults.
Nationally and internationally, Deaf organizations such as Deaf Welcome are mobilizing to provide various resources. Deaf Welcome, for example, is providing laptops and sign language interpreters so that local survivors can use international relay services to contact family members and loved ones worldwide. It's as well to recall they're also drumming up business; such larger organizations have financial resources to make these products directly available to survivors. Personally, given that Haiti is a third world country, I'm not sure how beneficial providing videophone services is going to be right now, but they're also providing solar cells and (it seems) wireless devices, so it's possible this could be very beneficial for the people of Haiti.
But what about the rest of us? Who do we donate to, we who do not have either unlimited energy or resources? I discussed this with my students. How do we know that aid organizations will not waste our money, or spend it the wrong way? More importantly, knowing what we do about Deaf history, what concerns do we need to address before we can start giving? After a decade of stories and shocking revelations about abuses of Deaf children at schools, one might be concerned about donating directly to schools in Haiti - although as far as anyone has been able to tell, the two most hurt by the quakes (St. Vincent's and Instituit Montfort) have operated in an aboveboard manner, with respect both for the education of their students and their self-image. Evidence of this is how many successful graduates have gone on to higher education and are now returning to their schools in times of need. But questions like these, and the existence of a variety of local organizations in the country, make taking that extra step of choosing who is trustworthy almost a harder job than helping itself can be. This tangled web is examined by the website Deaf Haitians, where Deaf students who come from the shaken country are working to gather support for survivors. Deaf Haitians points out, for example, that CAPPA Haiti is the only secular (non-religious) organization serving the Deaf/HOH/Deaf-blind population in Haiti. Local perceptions like this are important to informed, sensitive giving. I look forward to reading more blogs from this site.
(Recently added)
Faithful Readers are getting in touch. Two sent in a link to the PAZAPA video embedded below. PAZAPA is a Haitian agency serving the disabled population, including the deaf and hard of hearing population. The video below shows some of their services.
Right now I'm with Gallaudet, and either of the institutes in question - and many of the agencies - look like great places to begin if you want to make sure your money is directed at helping deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind survivors. What's your school or organization doing to help survivors? Can you provide links to places I've missed? Only one thing is sure: our best comes out when we help each other.
Showing posts with label deaf schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deaf schools. Show all posts
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday, March 15, 2009
27: What do we want the future of Deaf schools to look like?
I think this is an important question which the Deaf community doesn't want to answer because such an answer would be extremely difficult. We complain about schools closing, but there is little proactive thought, based in historical analysis, on what would be a practical future for Deaf schools, and why.
First we have to admit that there is little doubt that the old model of Deaf school is not capable of surviving in the current environment. More importantly, I am not sure we want it to. There are many reasons, some of them to do with both of these factors. Financial reasons are one; there simply aren't the funds available to support two Deaf populations, and this country has made a decision, without Deaf people's involvement, that mainstreaming is the way to go. On a deeper level, we as a community have rejected the old formulation of Deafness as a functional disability, preferring to view it, at most, as a socio-cultural disability, choosing to believe follow the pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuing to accept funds based on the old formulation of Deaf people as disabled charity cases poisons this more hopeful formulation of the future.
But the rejection of such funding forces us to face a horrible truth: that there is a prevalent disability among Deaf people. This disability is called language deficiency. It poisons Deaf peoples' ability to communicate in any language, whether it be A.S.L. or English or Swahili. It is a disease caused by lack of coherent, organized exposure to language. (One has, after all, to be able to discern a system within language, to recognize it as language, in order to use it as language.)
One of the reasons, poorly articulated, why the Deaf community harbors a smoldering resentment against cochlear implants, is because those who work in the core of the Deaf community, are the ones who work most often with the victims of such a disability. Ranging from mild (difficulty comprehending organized language and producing coherent sentences) to severe (bordering on heavy aphasia), these victims often work with Certified Deaf Interpreters, social workers, case managers, and volunteers.
What does this have to do with cochlear implants? The answer comes from the aforementioned historical perspective. We came from such a linguistically deficient position. (Think: the wild boy of Aveyron.) Once population numbers rose enough to develop our own languages, a distinct grammar, structure, and tradition arose. (Look at what researchers are discovering today in villages and towns in Nicaragua, for example, and Israel.) The rise of manual education, education using signed languages, minimized this condition by ensuring Deaf children had exposure to a language. The subsequent success of Deaf people led to the development of oral education. Deaf people, obviously, could be intelligent. Perhaps if one simply prevented them from using signed languages, they would begin to speak. This led to a rise in language deficiency, and a subsequent return to manual education.
The pattern has continued throughout history; the cochlear implantation situation is the latest such iteration. I will not go into all the arguments for or against here. I think what has not been said is that, at minimum, the Deaf community can be said to desire a guarantee that the children involved will not face linguistic deprivation. Since there is no guarantee of a cochlear implant's effectiveness, the only way to ensure such a thing is to use a bilingual form of education. This is the only way we can guarantee a child will not suffer from this terrible disability. And teaching A.S.L. is the only way we can guarantee independence for the individual in case of device failure.
It is hard to explain this to hearing parents because they do not see the distinction, often, until it is too late, and they meet signing Deaf adults - sometimes the very adults who wind up helping take care of their child.
Deaf schools have been trying for such a form of education. Bi/Bi education is one result of such efforts. In my own research, I've criticized such attempts, comparing them with attempts by other cultures. Schools which teach French and Spanish, for example, involve students from both cultures. Shouldn't a successful model of bilingual education for Deaf students also involve students from the hearing "world," who use English as their primary language?
"But that's mainstreaming!" people gasp.
Except for the fact that we are still involving Deaf adults in the process - yes. A bilingual program only succeeds if it is bilingual at all levels. A mainstream school has no adult models for the Deaf child. In New York, a program called Hearing Education Services sends Deaf or signing adults to different programs with mainstreamed Deaf students. They see a Deaf adult once a month. The hearing students in the school never do, and learn and have no respect for the Deaf child's primary language and culture. (Meanwhile, they celebrate as many as they can think of, and conveniently ignore our stripe in the multicultural rainbow.)
Equally true is that a truly bilingual program requires commitment from all participants, which means Deaf adults in the program, as well as being skilled in A.S.L., must show and maintain their skill in the second language, whether it's English or Spanish or what have you. Just as we demand excellence from hearing staff, we all need to demand excellence from ourselves.
And having a population with students from both groups has many obvious advantages - not least that, by asking Deaf students to compete with hearing kids, we're telling them we believe they can. (In my school, which is slowly studying bilingualism and deciding what's best for our program, we still separate Deaf and hearing kids during state tests, because I.E.P.'s demand it. The Deaf kids are continually comparing themselves to the hearing kids, and often do as well if not better. I imagine the kind of subconscious psychological boost this offers is extremely powerful.) Deaf and hearing kids have role models for Deaf and hearing behavior and interaction.
But without dealing with that horrific disability - the disability which hearing parents cannot see - we cannot reach this stage, and we cannot begin to remake not only how we see ourselves, but how the world sees us. I hope this offering has given people some idea of how future Deaf schools might look. I intended only to give people some thoughts...
First we have to admit that there is little doubt that the old model of Deaf school is not capable of surviving in the current environment. More importantly, I am not sure we want it to. There are many reasons, some of them to do with both of these factors. Financial reasons are one; there simply aren't the funds available to support two Deaf populations, and this country has made a decision, without Deaf people's involvement, that mainstreaming is the way to go. On a deeper level, we as a community have rejected the old formulation of Deafness as a functional disability, preferring to view it, at most, as a socio-cultural disability, choosing to believe follow the pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuing to accept funds based on the old formulation of Deaf people as disabled charity cases poisons this more hopeful formulation of the future.
But the rejection of such funding forces us to face a horrible truth: that there is a prevalent disability among Deaf people. This disability is called language deficiency. It poisons Deaf peoples' ability to communicate in any language, whether it be A.S.L. or English or Swahili. It is a disease caused by lack of coherent, organized exposure to language. (One has, after all, to be able to discern a system within language, to recognize it as language, in order to use it as language.)
One of the reasons, poorly articulated, why the Deaf community harbors a smoldering resentment against cochlear implants, is because those who work in the core of the Deaf community, are the ones who work most often with the victims of such a disability. Ranging from mild (difficulty comprehending organized language and producing coherent sentences) to severe (bordering on heavy aphasia), these victims often work with Certified Deaf Interpreters, social workers, case managers, and volunteers.
What does this have to do with cochlear implants? The answer comes from the aforementioned historical perspective. We came from such a linguistically deficient position. (Think: the wild boy of Aveyron.) Once population numbers rose enough to develop our own languages, a distinct grammar, structure, and tradition arose. (Look at what researchers are discovering today in villages and towns in Nicaragua, for example, and Israel.) The rise of manual education, education using signed languages, minimized this condition by ensuring Deaf children had exposure to a language. The subsequent success of Deaf people led to the development of oral education. Deaf people, obviously, could be intelligent. Perhaps if one simply prevented them from using signed languages, they would begin to speak. This led to a rise in language deficiency, and a subsequent return to manual education.
The pattern has continued throughout history; the cochlear implantation situation is the latest such iteration. I will not go into all the arguments for or against here. I think what has not been said is that, at minimum, the Deaf community can be said to desire a guarantee that the children involved will not face linguistic deprivation. Since there is no guarantee of a cochlear implant's effectiveness, the only way to ensure such a thing is to use a bilingual form of education. This is the only way we can guarantee a child will not suffer from this terrible disability. And teaching A.S.L. is the only way we can guarantee independence for the individual in case of device failure.
It is hard to explain this to hearing parents because they do not see the distinction, often, until it is too late, and they meet signing Deaf adults - sometimes the very adults who wind up helping take care of their child.
Deaf schools have been trying for such a form of education. Bi/Bi education is one result of such efforts. In my own research, I've criticized such attempts, comparing them with attempts by other cultures. Schools which teach French and Spanish, for example, involve students from both cultures. Shouldn't a successful model of bilingual education for Deaf students also involve students from the hearing "world," who use English as their primary language?
"But that's mainstreaming!" people gasp.
Except for the fact that we are still involving Deaf adults in the process - yes. A bilingual program only succeeds if it is bilingual at all levels. A mainstream school has no adult models for the Deaf child. In New York, a program called Hearing Education Services sends Deaf or signing adults to different programs with mainstreamed Deaf students. They see a Deaf adult once a month. The hearing students in the school never do, and learn and have no respect for the Deaf child's primary language and culture. (Meanwhile, they celebrate as many as they can think of, and conveniently ignore our stripe in the multicultural rainbow.)
Equally true is that a truly bilingual program requires commitment from all participants, which means Deaf adults in the program, as well as being skilled in A.S.L., must show and maintain their skill in the second language, whether it's English or Spanish or what have you. Just as we demand excellence from hearing staff, we all need to demand excellence from ourselves.
And having a population with students from both groups has many obvious advantages - not least that, by asking Deaf students to compete with hearing kids, we're telling them we believe they can. (In my school, which is slowly studying bilingualism and deciding what's best for our program, we still separate Deaf and hearing kids during state tests, because I.E.P.'s demand it. The Deaf kids are continually comparing themselves to the hearing kids, and often do as well if not better. I imagine the kind of subconscious psychological boost this offers is extremely powerful.) Deaf and hearing kids have role models for Deaf and hearing behavior and interaction.
But without dealing with that horrific disability - the disability which hearing parents cannot see - we cannot reach this stage, and we cannot begin to remake not only how we see ourselves, but how the world sees us. I hope this offering has given people some idea of how future Deaf schools might look. I intended only to give people some thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)