The Need for a Communication/Language-Driven Educational System Lawrence Siegel, Powrie V. Doctor Chair, Gallaudet University 1

1
The Need for a Communication/Language-Driven
Educational SystemLawrence Siegel, Powrie V.
Doctor Chair, Gallaudet University 1

• Society exists in and through communication.
  John Dewey
• PROPOSED
• Communication and Language must be a central and
  required part of any education system provided
  for deaf hard of hearing children

2
Current System 2

• Current system is not (and has not been) working
  for deaf and hard of hearing children
• Statistical evidence
• Human evidence

3
Status of Comm/Language in American Education
3

• IDEA
• Institutional Starting Point
• Placement-driven
• FAPE
• No formal recognition/provision of
  communication/language for deaf students

4
Status (contd) 4

• IDEA
• communication/language a debatable item
• Yearly IEP agenda matter
• Can only discuss
• Only option adversarial process
• Methodology
• Conclusion Without change in law, programmatic
  changes required will not take place
  systemically

5
The Central Importance of Language 5

• A fundamental human need/right
• Language and communication is
• Crucial for all educational experiences
• Precedes literacy, academic, social, development
• Central to a productive, happy, successful adult
• Central to the human experience
• The foundation for all learning.
• Language is inseparable from human beings. It
  is the instrument with which we form thought and
  feeling, mood, Inspiration, willit is the
  ultimate deepest foundation of human society.
  . Louis Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of
  Language, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
  1961, 77.

6
Communication/language Paradigm 6

• Communication/Language-driven educational
  paradigm
• Legal mandate
• Communication/language assessment
• Communication/language development
• Communication/language access

7
Recent Reform Activities NDEP 7

• Deaf Hard of Hearing Childs Bill of Rights
• Statement of Principal
• State reform
• New Mexico Colorado
• State reports
• Communication plans

8
Next Steps? 8

• Legal Challenge a deaf hard of hearing
  childs Brown.
• Establish right to language and communication
  under 1st 14th Amendments of the U.S.
  Constitution

9
Theory of Change 11

• How do institutions normally change? Unwillingly
• Desegregation Brown
• Bilingual law Lau
• Even IDEA litigation-driven Mills, Parc

10
1st Amendment 12

• Without free speech no search for truth is
  possible, without free speech no discovery of
  truth is usefulbetter a thousand-fold abuse of
  speech than a denial of free speech. The abuse
  dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of
  the people. Charles Bradlaugh
• Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free
  exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of
  speech.

11
1st Am. Speech only? 13

• Free speech as misnomer
• Free flow of information
• Right to know
• Freedom to receive and express belief
• The 1st Amendment is not concerned with the
  right of the speaker of this or that. It is
  concerned with the authority of the receivers
  of information to meet together and discuss.
• Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom
  (1948)
• The Constitution protects the right to receive
  information ideas access to social,
  political, aesthetic, moral and other ideas
  experiences. Kleindeist v. Mandel (U.S. Supreme
  Court, 1972)

12
1st Amendment and Schools 15

• The range of the right The vigilant protection
  of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital
  than in the community of American schoolsthe
  marketplace of ideas where there must be robust
  exchange of ideas. Tinker v. Des Moines (U.S.
  Supreme Court, 1969)
• Cases
• Tinker students are entitled to freedom of
  expression of their views which includes
  intercommunications among the students.
• Pico the right to receive ideas is a necessary
  predicate to meaningful exercise of rights of
  speech and political freedom. (U.S. Supreme
  Court, 1982)

13
Denial of 1st Am. Rights 16

• How are deaf children denied their 1st Amendment
  rights?
• Fundamentally denied access to free flow of
  information
• Teachers, other students cannot communicate
  w/deaf children
• Unqualified, no interpreters
• Denial of right to attend comm/lang-rich
  environments
• Failure to provide comm/lang programs

14
Other 1st Amendment Rights 17

• Freedom of association
• Lack of interpreters
• Legal impediment to language rich, peer
  environments
• Our Bill of Rights is designed to secure
  individual liberty and affords the formation
  and preservation of certain kinds of highly
  personal relationships a substantial measure of
  sanctuary from interference by the Statepersonal
  bonds have played a critical role in the culture
  and traditions of the Nation by cultivating and
  transmitting shared ideals and beliefs. Roberts
  v. U.S. Jaycees(U.S. Supreme Court, 1984, 468
  U.S. 609, 623)

15
14th Amendment Equal Protection of the Law
18

• No state shall deprive any person within its
  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
• The Brown standard its applicability to the
  rights of deaf children

16
Equal Protection Deaf Children 19

• Provided hearing children, not deaf children
  equal protection violation?
• Equal access to flow of information?
• Equal access to same rich language, literacy,
  communication environment?
• Equal access to technology, testing?
• Equal access to deaf and hearing peers?
• Equal access to all school activities?
• Equal access to best language communication
  models?

17
Title III NCLB 21

• to ensure that children who are limited English
  proficientattain English proficiency, develop
  high levels of academic attainment in English,
  and meet the same challenging State academic
  content and student academic achievement
  standards as all children..
• to develop high-quality language instruction
  educational programs designed to teach limited
  English proficient children.
• to assist all limited English proficient
  childrento achieve high levels in the core
  academic subjects
• to promote parental community participation in
  language instruction educational programs for the
  parents of limited English proficient children.

18
Title III NCLB 22

• to hold State educational agencies, LEAs and
  schools accountable for increase in English
  proficiency.
• all teachers will be fluent in English and any
  other language used for instruction.
• ensure that limited English proficient children
  master English.
• develop language skills and multicultural
  understanding
• developto the extent possible, the native
  language skills of such children.
• develop programs that strengthen/improve the
  professional training of educational personal who
  work with limited English proficient children.

19
Bilingual Cases 23

• Cintron v. Brentwood Sch. Dist.
• use of the childs mother tongue as a medium of
  instruction concurrent with an effort to
  strengthen his/her command of English acts to
  prevent retardation in academic skill and
  performance.

20
Bilingual Cases 24

• Serna v. Portales Munc. Schools
• when Spanish surnamed children come to school
  and find that their language and culture are
  totally rejected and that only English is
  acceptable, feelings of inadequacy and lowered
  self-esteem develop.
• Therefore Spanish surnamed children do not have
  equal educational opportunity and thus a
  violation of their constitutional right to equal
  protection exists.

21
Bilingual Cases 25

• Rios v. Reed
• the school district is required to take
  affirmative action for language-deficient student
  by establishing an ESL and bilingual program and
  keep the students in such programs until they
  have attained sufficient proficiency in
  Englishthe Districtcannot be allowed to
  compromise a students right to meaningful
  education before proficiency in English is
  obtained.

22
Bilingual Cases 26

• Castaneda v. Pickard
• As in any educational program, qualified
  teachers are a critical component of the success
  of a language remediation programif the teachers
  charged with day-to-day responsibility for
  educating these children are termed qualified
  despite the fact that they operate in the
  classroom under their own un-remediated language
  disability the bilingual education program is
  clearly unlikely to have a significant impact on
  the language barriers confronting limited English
  speaking school children.

23
Other NCLB 28

• Declaration of Rights under NCLB
• the parents of English language learners, can
  expect
• To have your child receive a quality education
  and be taught by a highly qualified teacher.
• To have your child learn English and other
  subjects such as reading and other language arts
  and mathematics at the same academic level as
  other students.
• To choose a different English language
  acquisition program for your child.
• To have your child tested annually to assess his
  or her progress in English language acquisition.
• To have the opportunity for your child to reach
  his or her greatest academic potential.

24
Remedies 29

• A constitutionally recognized right
• Must hire qualified ASL/English bilingual
  interpreters
• Must hire/train ASL/English bilingual proficient
  teachers for deaf students in the mainstream,
  special classes, state schools
• Must provide ASL communication development
  programs ASL instruction in addition to English
  instruction
• Accommodate, not impede access to (social and
  academic) ASL/English bilingual environments
• Must provide ASL instruction in addition to
  English instruction

25
A Reasonable, Equitable Goal

• All deaf and hard of hearing children are
  entitled to, and must have a language-rich
  educational experience. They must have the
  opportunity to develop age-appropriate language
  skills and to be in a classroom and school where
  communication is fully available, where there is
  a critical mass of communication peers and where
  staff can communicate effectively and directly
  with them and an educational system that
  formally recognizes that communication is at the
  heart of human and academic growth.
• The National Deaf Education Project, 2000