The History of Deaf Education The manual method vs. The oral method

Deaf children’s access to and ability to receive education and enlightenment is one of the oldest and most contested discussions in the history of Deaf people; it continues to be a controversy in many parts of the world. Throughout the past millennium the discussion on whether Deaf people should be taught using signs (also known as the manual method) or using speech (also known as the oral method) has been continuously debated - mostly by hearing people and other people with secondary knowledge about Deaf people. The discussion regarding education of Deaf people culminated temporarily in Milan, Italy in 1880 at the second International Congress on the Education of the Deaf-Mutes, where the participants passed a declaration stating that the oral method should be preferred to that of signs in the education and instruction of Deaf people . Sequentially, the natural sign languages used by Deaf people themselves were banned from most schools for the Deaf. As globalisation already had its firm grip of the world by the end of the 19th, the idea of the superiority of speech over signs was quickly spread all over the world despite continued reports that the oral approach in Deaf education failed Deaf children over and over again. Deaf people’s literacy level remained low, and limited their access to and participation in civil life.

An emerging bilingual education

A t the end of the 20th century, linguists started to document that the sign languages used by Deaf people all over the world were languages just as natural and rich as spoken languages, and that spoken (audible) languages did not have any inherent superior qualities that made them more human or more “natural” than the visual sign languages. This discovery, along with the continued poor results from the oral method, eventually led to a change in the way of thinking regarding Deaf education. A bilingual approach – using sign language as the language of instruction in all subjects for Deaf children (since this is the most effective language for learning and communication for Deaf people), with a parallel strong emphasis on teaching reading and writing of the language used in the country or society they live in – will give Deaf children a good basis for direct and independent communication in all surroundings. At this turn of the century, the bilingual approach is becoming more and more widespread in schools for Deaf children, especially in North Europe and in North America, with promising results. Deaf children’s literacy level is increasing, and efficient learning is facilitated so the children can focus on studying and learning the contents of the various subjects rather than using their effort to merely try to understand what the teachers say and what the books state. The replies recorded, however, show that the belief in the oral method is still strong, which means a good basic education continues to be out of reach for most Deaf children in the world. One example is the overwhelming majority of country respondents that report that the Total Communication (TC) approach (which promotes the use of speech and signs at the same time)is being used as the only or one of several, educational approaches in their country. TC might be better than the pure oral approach, since it permits visual signals in communication, but it does not respect the nature of either of the two languages involved. Research has shown that it is virtually impossible to adequately convey a message in either of the two languages involved through this method, and one or both parts of the communication will deteriorate. Using this method requires that both parties are fluent in both languages prior to communication; it is especially neither possible nor advisable to use it in situations where a person is in the process of learning one or more languages.

Educational approaches

Most country respondents say that more than one approach is used in the country’s schools for the Deaf. Total Communication is the dominant approach, and is used in 66 of the countries. In 35 of these countries, Total communication is one of several educational approaches. In 31 countries, Total Communication is the only educational approach.

Only23 countries say the bilingual approach is one of the approaches in their country, but only one country (Venezuela) says this is the only educational approach for Deaf children. Only five countries (Algeria, Argentina, Iraq, Malawi and Senegal) said only oral approaches (oral method or Auditory Verbal) were used in the schools.

A brief definition of the approaches:

Bilingual Education: Sign language is considered to be the natural language (‘mother tongue’) that will be acquired as a first language. Spoken language, which is not acquired naturally by Deaf children, will be learned as a second language as the child becomes cognitively/developmentally ready. Both languages are used throughout the child’s entire education.

Total Communication: All forms and modes of communications are used. This includes natural gestures, sign language, manually-coded spoken languages, sign systems, mime, audition and speech.

Oral Education: Spoken language is assumed to be the basis for standard social and academic communication, and the human system is assumed to be designed (pre-wired) to learn language expressed in speech. Children learn about and from spoken language. Also known as auditory-oral, aural/oral education. Emphasis on speech.

Auditory Verbal Education: Supposes that even minimal amounts of residual hearing can lead to the development of spontaneous speech and language, if that residual hearing is stimulated. Children learn to process language through amplified hearing. A method of oral education with an emphasis on listening.

Low awareness about bilingual education

While the bilingual approach is becoming more and more known compared to the replies to the WFD Survey on the Status of Sign Language ,there is much work left before it is possible to say that all Deaf children receive a true bilingual education. Teachers are not fluent in sign language and persisting low expectations about Deaf children’s ability to learn (probably a consequence of the failures of oral education and Total Communication) continue to keep the education level low. Many teachers, Deaf people and politicians are uncertain what a bilingual education for Deaf pupils essentially means. Some of the teachers have probably confused bilingual education with education in two spoken/written languages (for example Russian and Kazakh). Also, some teachers seem to confuse bilingual education with Total Communication. Many associations of Deaf people are not really aware nor do they have good knowledge.