|
|
|
|
The School In the last few years, the discussion of method has simply been transferred from oralism through Total Communication to the recognition of sign language. The issues, which are debated by the schools, are to do with policy and practice and are often not really about the adoption of language. So when the school changes policy to a bilingual approach, it does not necessarily mean that there is a real acceptance of the use of language and the context in which language occurs. It does not imply that the language is used throughout the school. Signing is not the same as the appropriate use of the sign language. Much of the pressure on the school comes from the educational system which is usually controlled by hearing people. Rarely, if ever, is there a majority of deaf people in the decision-making process. The educational system that results form this, is the majority one; this curriculum is likely to be hearing-centric that is, it draws on a hearing perspective on the world. A hearing perspective may be apparent in the sequencing of the curriculum and in the historical and geographic l content. Visual aspects of the experience of science may be much less significant that the learning of formula or the recitation of verbal propositions. Moving from one policy to another is usually a case of translating part of the curriculum into signed form. This is often done by hearing people. There is no guarantee of the integrity of the signed version and no assessment of how it works in linguistic terms - that is, we do not know if sign language is used within the school. If it is not - then it cannot be bilingual. |
Back to MLEDC
homepage |
