There has been little attention given to the political nature of language practices in deaf education in Australia. Educators and policy makers have largely ignored the power relations in deaf education, the positioning of deaf people and their language, and issues of exclusivity. Despite recognition that native sign languages (NSLs) are legitimate languages and Deaf communities are cultural and linguistic minorities, the language and culture of the Deaf is largely denied or marginalised through educational policy and language practices.

Poor outcomes in deaf education propel the debate about language practices and pedagogy. There is constant reference in the literature to the low educational level and poor literacy achievement of most deaf school leavers (see Komesaroff, 1998). The explanation for this under-achievement is contentious among researchers and educators. One view points to the failure of deaf children as the result of deafness, claiming hearing loss is a barrier to learning (see Power, 1975, 1976; Walker, 1995; Walker & Rickards, 1992). The other emphasises the way in which deaf students have been educated, pointing to disabling pedagogy, rather than any disability in the child as their cause for educational failure. Supporting this view is a large body of research and commentary on the benefits of native sign language (NSL) as the first language and language of instruction for deaf children (see Komesaroff, 1998).

Most deaf or hearing-impaired students in Victoria are educated in regular, predominantly government, schools; only 23% of deaf or hearing-impaired students in Victoria attend schools for the deaf (Komesaroff, 1998). Most of these students, regardless of setting, are educated almost exclusively through English. It is not only regular teachers who instruct these students through English (with or without an interpreter). In the field of deaf education, most teachers of the deaf (TODs) use English as the language of instruction: the use of spoken English only is advocated by oral educators and the simultaneous use of spoken and signed English by educators who advocate Total Communication (TC).

Since the early 1990s a growing number of deaf students have been educated through Australian sign language (Auslan) in bilingual settings. Bilingual programs or schools for deaf students now exist in five states of Australia; however, it has only been in one state, Tasmania, that educational authorities have endorsed bilingual education and implemented it in all programs within the government sector (F. Gifford, personal communication, May 14, 1998).

There is a growing movement, both nationally and internationally, for Deaf people and their language to be represented in the classroom. Bilingual education, which positions the language and culture of the Deaf as central to educational success, challenges the approach traditionally taken by TODs. The decision to educate deaf children through NSL or to continue instruction through the dominant spoken language is a highly contested issue. A belief, still prevalent among many educators and policy-makers, is that communicating with deaf children through speech, contrived sign systems or NSL is merely a pedagogical debate. I challenge this belief by viewing what goes on in deaf education as a 'language' rather than a 'communication' issue.

Structural barriers at the school, university and department level block changes to language policy and practice in deaf education (Komesaroff, 1998). Teachers, reluctant to embrace the introduction of native sign language in education, often support majority-language values and deny the existence of a power relationship between themselves and Deaf people. This serves to maintain the status quo. Managers in departments of education rely on the advice of senior TODs, few of whom have knowledge or understanding of Auslan or bilingual pedagogy. Universities continue to educate TODs who qualify without proficiency in Auslan or an understanding of bilingual pedagogy. To effect change educators must become aware of the discriminatory practices within their own schools (Edelsky, 1991). The success of bilingual education for the deaf requires teachers to have a positive attitude to Deaf people, their language and culture, not only an ability to communicate fluently with them (Bergman, 1994; Davies, 1994).

With most studies in deaf education conducted by hearing people with few cultural or linguistic ties to the Deaf community, issues of language, power and identity are often absent from the discussion of educational methods, outcomes and pedagogy. With an interest in the political struggle of the Deaf, I sought to scrutinise teachers' practices, not through assessing the practices themselves (see Hyde & Power, 1992; Hyde, Power & Cliffe, 1992; Hyde & Power, 1991; Leigh, 1995), but through identifying the beliefs and structures that maintain them.
 

Methodology

Ethnographic research methodology fitted with my research questions and concerns and enabled me to discuss language practices against the background of interests and values implicit in participants' choices. Three case studies of educational sites for deaf students and interviews with stakeholders in deaf education provided the main source of data in this study. In the case study schools, I interviewed teachers, observed their classes, talked with students and collected policy documents. In the main case study, I also met with parents, worked with them formally and informally, interviewed them and responded to their requests for information.

Three surveys were also conducted in this study. They provided data on areas that had not previously been researched and were identified as central to my study: the extent and nature of bilingual education in Australia; the numbers of TODs, deaf and hearing, employed in deaf education in Australia including the language skills of those identified a deaf or hearing-impaired; and the number and placement of deaf students in Victoria and their access to deaf staff. Some of the results of these surveys are reported in this paper (for full details see Komesaroff, 1998).
 

Selection and Description of Participants

Fifty participants were interviewed in this study: teachers of the deaf in three case study schools (and parents in the main case study), principals and coordinators of schools or facilities for the deaf, organisation representatives, and other key stakeholders in deaf education.

Case study schools were selected by seeking participation from all schools or facilities in Victoria educating deaf pre-school or primary school students. Twelve sites met these criteria and two of these schools agreed to participate in the study. Given the poor response from Victorian schools, a bilingual school located in another state was also studied. This school was selected for its program, policy and practices which contrasted those of the other case studies. Eighteen teachers and eight parents participated in the case studies.

Senior TODs were selected by requesting participation from the principals and coordinators of schools identified as possible case study sites. Six senior TODs, three from the case study schools and three from other sites, agreed to be interviewed. Two retired principals with many years experience of oral education also agreed to be interviewed, selected in an effort to include as wide a range of views as possible.

Organisation representatives included five managers from the state and regional offices of the Department of Education, the national president of the association of TODs, the president of a state association of parents of deaf children, and four Deaf leaders representing state and national organisations of Deaf people. Other key stakeholders included a senior lecturer in the education of TODs, four parents involved in a complaint against a school for the deaf and the Department of Education (DOE) in Victoria, a cochlear implant surgeon, an international writer and researcher in the field of deafness and deaf education, and a Deaf TOD working in the tertiary sector.

Just over half the participants in this study were qualified TODs. These teachers were generally very experienced; eighteen of the 26 teachers had more than ten years' experience in deaf education. Just under half the teachers had no experience in regular education. Most of the TODs in this study instruct through English, spoken, signed or produced simultaneously. Five of the 26 teachers had native skills or fluency in Auslan and a further three teachers some skills or moderate skills in Auslan. They should not be considered a representative sample of the wider profession.

Most participants in the study were female and hearing. Of the eighteen male participants, half were in leadership positions in the DOE. Seven participants were deaf, just under half of whom were leaders of organisations representing Deaf people; no deaf participants were employed as principals or coordinators of schools or facilities or in other leadership positions in the DOE.

The language skills of participants, other than TODs, generally reflected their cultural status as Deaf or hearing people. The Deaf participants who were organisation representatives or parents of deaf children were native or fluent users of Auslan. English was the first language of all the hearing participants in this study, other than one TOD (the child of deaf adults). Other than some TODs, there were no other hearing participants fluent in Auslan; two of the parents of deaf children had some skills in Auslan and one other hearing participant had skills in another native sign language.
 
 

Data collection and analysis

The two Victorian case studies were longitudinal, interviews and observation occurring over an eight-month period. The main case study school was located in regional Victoria. I visited the school on a fortnightly basis staying for two or three days. I conducted interviews with TODs and observed class lessons in which I mostly adopted an active participant-observer role. In the second case study, I interviewed teachers and observed classes during fortnightly or monthly visits to the school. In the third case study, I observed classes and interviewed teachers during an interstate visit. Classroom observation in all three sites was unstructured with field notes written during or soon after the observation.

The primary data for this study were interview transcripts. Interviews were conducted with all participants; participants in case study schools were interviewed up to three times and two group meetings conducted with the parents in the main case study. Interviews were semi-structured and averaged 50 minutes in length. Participants received a transcript of each interview soon after the interview and were invited to make additional comments or alterations.

Interview transcripts were analysed using the data analysis software program Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorising (NUDIST). All transcripts were indexed and coded into abstract categories; these were initially constructed from prior theory and logic, but later emerged from an analysis of the data, a process of grounded theory (see Richards & Richards, 1992). For example, the categories 'Auslan', 'signed English' and 'oral' were established with sub-categories such as 'positive comments', 'negative comments', 'reasons for using' and further levels of categorisation emerging from the analysis of data. Reports were generated showing comments made by all participants about a particular topic. Participantsí comments were selected for analysis and reporting based on their relevance to the central research question. These "pieces of narrative evidence" as Fine (1994, p. 22) calls them were interwoven through my dissertation and have been selected for this paper to illustrate conflicting views of deafness, language learning and pedagogy.
 
 

Results

The analysis of the data relating to language use in deaf education led to the general finding that there are competing paradigms in deaf education that go beyond a debate over method. Disagreement over the place of English and Auslan, signing and speech, reflects a division among educators and other participants. Participants' comments illustrated a pattern of attitudes held about deafness and deaf people. This led to the identification of what I called a hearing perspective to deaf education. These participants supported English, spoken or signed, as the language of instruction. This perspective was in conflict with the view of other participants who supported bilingual education, the instruction of deaf children through NSL with English taught as a second language through reading and writing.

Regardless of the mode in which English is presented, participants who supported instruction through English were found to hold a hearing perspective of deaf education. Not all TC educators (who advocate the simultaneous use of spoken and signed English) would consider their practices should be partnered with those of oral educators (who advocate the use of speech only). Indeed, oral educators may see that they have little in common with TC educators. Some educators may assume that the debate is still over oral versus manual methods and assume that there is little significance about whether sign language is native or contrived. The beliefs of participants who supported oral and TC methods, however, reflect similar views about the appropriate language for instruction, the need for a variety of methods of communication, the place of parents in determining language policy, and the reasons for the failure or under-achievement of deaf students.
 

The appropriate language for instruction

The most significant difference between a deaf and hearing perspective of deaf education is the choice of language for instruction. Participants with a hearing perspective supported English as the first language and language of instruction for deaf students. They considered English provides the structure that deaf children need to acquire literacy. In some settings, Auslan is introduced as a LOTE subject, but not as the language of instruction.

Participants with a hearing perspective positioned English as the legitimate language for classroom instruction. Oral educators, for example, believed that spoken English was appropriate in deaf education because parents could not be expected to learn a foreign language for their child. They viewed the failure or under-achievement of deaf students to be the result of learning difficulties or disabilities. An oral educator, for example, said: "I mean, if as teachers of the deaf we don't acknowledge that deaf kids, profoundly, prelingually deaf kids, have a language problem then we've got a lot to learn as far as deaf education is concerned" (participant 16).

Participants who supported TC described English as 'structural' and 'formalised', with 'subtleties' and 'nuances'. Teachers based their preference for signed English on the view that Auslan lacked formality and structure and that to learn English students needed to see English 'on-the-hands'. Even though an accurate model of English is accessible to deaf children through written text, teachers sought to duplicate the way in which hearing children use their knowledge of spoken English to decode text. They expected signed English to make spoken language accessible to deaf children. The inconsistent and inaccurate model of English that simultaneous communication provides, however, has been well documented in the international literature including a study of Australian TODs (Leigh, 1995).

Although support for Auslan as a LOTE subject was high among teachers who endorsed TC, they had little doubt that they would continue to use signed English in the classroom. They believed signed English to be easier for hearing people to acquire than Auslan; two senior TODs saying that teachers could not be expected to speak or instruct through a language that was foreign to them. The principal of a school for the deaf that introduced Auslan (LOTE) in 1997 believed the move threatened some teachers and raised their fear that Auslan would take over as the language of instruction. The teachers' fear, he said, was without basis, as English would continue for instruction in the classroom. He suggested the approach a teacher should take if a child used an Auslan sign in the classroom: "Oh, I' sorry but that s Auslan; [in] signed English we use that sign for giraffe. that's the sign we use in this classroom" (participant 30). He paralleled the situation of TODs unable to understand their students' use of Auslan with the position of regular teachers faced with hearing students speaking a foreign language in the classroom:

One method or several?

Participants with a hearing perspective believed that one method was unlikely to succeed with all deaf children. Oral educators believed their method had proven its success in deaf education, a view disputed by participants who supported the use of sign language, native or contrived. Teachers described deaf students as having individual linguistic needs and their methods as being based on whatever works for the child, meeting individual needs and fitting the method to the child. The use of spoken and or signed English, however, instructs deaf children through one language only: English. Teachers talked about 'communication', 'making meaning' and 'interaction' but rarely about language policy. The generic expression 'signing' was often used to describe communication practices in TC settings, reference to 'communication mode' not 'language' (English).

Participants who considered oral education successful took pride in students' ability to interact in the hearing environment of the school. The students' success is judged on their ability to perform as hearing/speaking individuals. The coordinator of an oral facility acknowledged the struggle for deaf students to acquire oral skills, although she believed that, as deaf adults, they would agree it was worth the effort. She dismissed the criticism of oral education and considered bilingual education risky and unproven, an approach that may or may not succeed with deaf children. The following remarks are illustrative of this participant's rejection of bilingual education and her view of the political. Her claims of the success of oral education ignore the experiences of Deaf people and their preference for Auslan in education:

The place of parents in determining language policy

The cultural and linguistic membership of deaf children is a critical issue shaping decisions over language policy. Participants with a hearing perspective believed deaf children from hearing families could not be considered culturally and linguistically Deaf. Oral educators believed that deaf students could acquire Auslan at a later age if they wanted to join the Deaf community. Their argument that most deaf children are from hearing families and, therefore, cannot be expected to access NSL in the home is all the 'more' reason why teachers need to learn about the Deaf language and culture. Participants with a deaf perspective believed that, regardless of home background, deaf children have the right to be educated through the language and culture of the Deaf community.

The view of participants with a hearing perspective that deaf children of hearing parents cannot be considered culturally or linguistically Deaf is significant given that this accounts for 90 percent of the population of deaf children. A retired oral educator expressed this view most forcefully. She based her approach on her belief that most hearing parents want their deaf children to develop oral communication and have the right to decide on language practices in deaf education: "I believe that the clients of a program or a school are the family, not the childí "it is desirable for children to learn the language of their culture and to me for a deaf child in a hearing family, the Deaf community is not their culture (participant 6). She added:

Reason for the failure and under-achievement of deaf students

Participants with a hearing perspective believed that instruction through English is serving parents' wishes and that the failure of deaf children is the result of lack of communication in the home or language and learning disabilities. They expected deaf children to succeed when there was communication in the home, regardless of its form, as long as it was being used consistently by everyone around the child from infancy. A recurring theme in this study was their belief that the difficulty deaf students encountered at school was the result of limited communication in the home. A clear example of this is shown in the comments of a TC educator discussing the poor behaviour and learning difficulties of a group of deaf students:

A Deaf perspective of deaf education

The views of participants described in the previous section stand in stark contrast to participants with what I have called a Deaf perspective of deaf education. These participants believe that deaf children, given access to Auslan, will acquire age-appropriate language development. They considered English to be a second language for these deaf students which would be developed through reading and writing. These criticised the use of spoken and signed English in deaf education for its lack of meaning and the linguistic and visual confusion it created. There is considerable support in the literature for their view that Auslan should be endorsed as the language of instruction and developed as deaf children's first language. With a strong language base in native sign language, deaf children are expected to learn English as a second language and acquire English literacy skills.

There was considerable criticism of spoken and signed English as the language of instruction among more than half the participants in this study. Oral education was rejected by both TC and bilingual educators for its failure in deaf education and the bias towards speech and oral methods. Teachers with experience of oral education criticised the fervour with which oral educators impose spoken English and recounted stories of students who had failed to acquire language through these methods. Several participants, including Deaf leaders and teachers who had observed or worked in oral schools, commented on the failure of oral methods. A Deaf leader, for example, commented on the entrenched nature of practices in deaf education and the difficulty facing teachers if they are to acknowledge the need for change:

Criticism of signed English came from fifteen TODs, several of whom had many yearsí experience instructing through this sign system; only two of these teachers were native Auslan users, most acquiring (or yet to acquire) Auslan as a second language. The approach these teachers supported, therefore, had required a change to their language practices or called for language skills that they lacked. Signed English was rejected for its lack of emphasis on meaning and the linguistic and visual confusion it creates; the inability of a contrived sign system to function as a viable, natural language; and the difficulty in production and reception of simultaneous communication. The strength of participants' objection to signed English is illustrated in the following comments. One participant rejected any approach that cannot provide deaf children with complete and accessible language, stating that there was no systematic serious research to show signed English facilitates language acquisition: "And it would be truly astonishing if it did work because it is so counter to everything we know about language and psycholinguistics" (participant 28). A bilingual educator stated that signed English conflicts with the basis of bilingual pedagogy that two languages should remain separate. This participant called signed English a halfway step, popular because it is easy for hearing adults to pick up:

Participants with a deaf perspective believed parents should be provided with the opportunity to acquire Auslan, and that they had traditionally been led to spoken or signed English on the advice of hearing professionals. They believed disabling pedagogy accounted for the poor results in deaf education. They accepted the deaf child as a Deaf person who needed Deaf role models to acquire the language and culture of the Deaf community: "" the child is deaf so Deaf culture makes a lot of sense, rather than trying to make the deaf person fit into a hearing world' (participant 15).
 

The context for deaf education in Victoria

TODs in Victoria have had little or no access to Auslan in teacher education. In Victoria, there is no prerequisite for Auslan fluency for entry to teacher of the deaf training, no formal assessment of Auslan, and no requirement for students to pass Auslan in order to successfully complete the course although they must reach a satisfactory level in the use of signed English (R. Jeanes, personal communication, February 20, 1998). It is possible for the DOE to pursue the issue of language competency among TODs with Victorian universities, but a regional manager interviewed in this study doubted this would occur. Consistent with the view of the school as autonomous, all managers made it clear that the DOE would not instigate changes to language practices in schools for the deaf. They viewed the debate as a methodological argument over 'communication' rather than a broader issue of 'language' policy. Schools are expected to take responsibility for resolving what managers in the department of education see as a professional debate:

Discussion

This study has shown that the beliefs underlying teachers' language practices demonstrate a particular assumption about Deaf people and language learning. The educational practice that dominates this field, instructing deaf students through English, legitimises the values of the dominant group. Teachers who endorsed instruction through English believe that the difficulty deaf students experience acquiring literacy results from lack of exposure to English. Therefore, their approach is to use more English. They assumed English is more structured, more formal and more appropriate than Auslan for use in education. The research does not support their assumption that signed English will enable deaf students to acquire literacy. Despite more than two decades of signed English in Australian schools, high levels of functional illiteracy are reported. They considered Auslan was only appropriate for Deaf children from Deaf families, for informal language use, or as a last resort if other methods fail. The view of several educators that deaf students will acquire Auslan informally and at a late age if they decide to enter the Deaf community disregards the importance of early language acquisition and the link between language and culture.

The belief of some educators that deaf children from hearing families cannot be considered culturally and linguistically Deaf is used to legitimise language practices and perpetuate the exclusion of Auslan from the classroom. It is illogical to deny deaf children's access to linguistic and educational development through NSL because their parents are not deaf. Limited access to Auslan which most deaf children face in their homes and the wider community is more reason for the language and culture of the Deaf to be a central part of education.

This study identified a lack of consideration of bilingual deaf education by policy-makers in the Victorian DOE and an absence of debate over language practices among teachers. Auslan is marginalised by policymakers and educators who view it as an additional subject in the curriculum and not a legitimate language of instruction. Interviews with department managers indicated lack of awareness of bilingual deaf education at state and regional level and unwillingness on their part to become involved in the issue of language practices.

This study has also exposed the way in which Auslan is positioned in education. The inclusion or exclusion of Auslan from the classroom positions Deaf people and their language as either insiders or outsiders in deaf education. Auslan is excluded from the classroom in oral settings, and marginalised as a possible addition to the curriculum in TC settings. It is only in bilingual education that Deaf people and their language are central to the education of the deaf. The requirement for schools to teach languages other than English has resulted in some access to Auslan in education. Teachers who continue to instruct through English and give Auslan and deaf adults a marginal role in deaf education, however, maintain linguistic control. Existing power structures remain intact and Auslan is marginalised as an addition to the curriculum, when English is the language of instruction in the classroom. This approach fails to recognise deaf students as minority language bilinguals and the importance of their language and culture being represented in the classroom. Adding Auslan to established approaches maintains the position of English as the language of instruction and resists structural change. Adding NSL in this way can be expected to do little to improve the education of deaf students . Including minority students' first languages and community participation in school programs can shift attention away from the attitudes and approaches of educators whose actions empower or disable minority students . I believe that the inclusion of Deaf studies and Auslan as ancillary subjects in some schools has moved attention away from teachers' continuing instruction through signed English.

Hearing policy-makers and teachers almost exclusively control education for the deaf. Hearing TODs in Australia represent 97.4 percent of the profession, teachers who are deaf or hearing-impaired and native or fluent users of Auslan making up only 0.9 percent of the profession (Komesaroff, 1998). This research has found a correlation between participants' linguistic skills and their rejection of bilingual education. All participants who rejected bilingual education lacked proficiency in NSL. In fact, supporters of oral-only methods could not use any form of sign language, native or contrived. Teachers' support for English, their native language, must be viewed with suspicion. By defending current practices these teachers are protecting their own interests. Their support for English can be charged as self-serving, maintaining the control they have traditionally held in deaf education. The same correlation was not evident among participants who rejected oral education or TC.

Deaf teachers and other representatives of deafness organisations interviewed in this study voiced their dissatisfaction with teacher education, criticism of teachers' language practices, and anger at the control hearing people continue to exercise in deaf education. The policy of state, national and international organisations that represent Deaf people support their views, calling for instruction through NSL (United Nations, 1989; Victorian Council of Deaf People, 1992; Australian Association of the Deaf, 1992; World Federation of the Deaf, 1993; UNESCO, 1994). Despite the authority of these organisations, most Australian teachers, schools, and Departments of Education endorse English as the language of instruction.
 

Implications

The findings from this study have a number of implications for deaf education. The first is that language is a critical issue in this field. Dismissing the conflicting views among educators as a methodological debate ignores the central issue of language use. Viewing what goes on in deaf education as 'language' practice rather than 'communication' method led to the identification of the power relationships that exist there.

The second implication is that the control of deaf education by hearing educators has resulted in the dominance of hearing values and language practices. Lack of Auslan skills among TODs and the small number of Deaf teachers in the field are significant barriers to the introduction of bilingual education. Further research is needed with a larger number of TODs to identify the language skills of these teachers.

A third implication of this study is the importance of viewing language as inherently political and being aware of the way in which language policy can serve the interests of educators who, almost exclusively, come from the dominant group.
 

References