Right to use sign language in educational programmes

ORALISM... A FALSE METHOD ?
by Surdianus (Henk Betten) from The Netherlands

Oralism...? It is a method in deaf education, still used in many countries. Neo-oralism keeps cropping up in al the world…
It implies signing at school is prohibited; pupils only learn to speak and lipread.
What should we think of this? Is it the right decision to use this method for deaf pupils?
In my opinion and I'm probably not the only one; this method restricts the development of deaf children.
The consequence of this approach is that from the moment a deaf child is born, it is not offered any language. The child has to wait for this until the time it receives language teaching at school. Through this, the opportunity to acquire any language in the first three years of its life is lost... Parents are strongly discouraged to use signs to communicate with their own children.
In the schools, oralism has a negative effect on the joy of life as well as the self-confidence of pupils.
Furthermore the deaf child develops a lack of insight in the rules of conduct in society. At home the deaf child is isolated, because the casual chit-chat takes too much time and trouble. It is only natural that communication with a deaf child demands much more from the parents than with a hearing child.
Unfortunately it is not true that the deaf child after leaving school, is able to communicate in an excellent way with 'inexperienced' hearing persons.
To deaf adults who are familiar with Sign-language (as part of the Total Communication-philosophy), the conduct of former pupils of an oralist school shows, that they are less aware of their cultural deafness.
How did oralism make its way into the education of the Deaf? It was in the nineteenth century that hearing pedagogues decided to introduce oralism. The purpose of this method was to discipline the students. Certain other considerations, like matters of finance, played their part in this. Education was to be given in the vernacular. Part of these ideas are still being up held even in our times! How can the hearing adherents of this method say and expect even now, that this is the best for the sake of the deaf children? Have these hearing pedagogues had any physical experience in being deaf? Hearing parents, who are mostly ignorant in this area, follow the authority of these 'experts' all too easily. How can they know how much the education of the Deaf differs from regular education?
Because of the obvious inability of hearing teachers of oralist schools to sign and use fingerspelling, and because of their denial of the culture and identity of the Deaf, oralism remains firmly rooted in many countries, to the annoyance of many rightminded deaf persons. There is another world, a Deaf-world, to which Deaf-education simply must adapt itself. De L'Epée, Sicard and many others saw this long before, and they adapted their methods to their perception of the particularity of the deaf child. In their time there was no problem in combining educational and contactual principles in education.
Oralists and parents of simply misfortuned deaf children, should be fully aware of the enormous responsibility they have towards their children. Children who are not yet able to defend themselves because of their level of emotional and mental development.

Bilinguality in the education of the deaf: signing as well as using the spoken and written language, is seen as the pre-eminent means of communication for deaf pupils all over the world. Just as spoken language is considered as most useful in regular education. Parents of deaf children are offered a course in signing immediately after their baby is born. This means that deaf infants can receive their native language directly from their parents. Another advantage of the bilingual system is that deaf teachers are able to function fully at bilingual schools, thus becoming an important role-model to their pupils as well.

One important issue remains: deaf-teachers as well as hearing parents have to do more to come into contact with the world of the Deaf, which offers a culture, an identity and a history of its own.
Using the oralist method is unsuitable for the education and upbringing of the deaf child,and can therefore be judged as a form of educational crime.