At the turn of
the Century, the education system for deaf children was predominantly although
not exclusively oral. In 1886, the
Royal Commission, which included leading oralists and representatives of the
manual philosophy (predominantly missioners), reported the use of three methods
of instruction: oral, manual and combined.
There was recognition that while the State attempted to enforce one
(oral) method of instruction, the reality was that, particularly in the
Institutions, signing would prevail.
Consequently, as McLoughlin suggests, there has never actually been
total acceptance of the oral system, and indeed
‘there has always been a sufficient
retention of manual methods to justify the oft-reiterated phrase “opposing
camps”, and the conflict, bitterness and extremism of the warring factions has
been all too evident throughout the educational arena’ (McLoughlin 1987 p26).
By the end of the
19th Century, medical research was finally beginning to produce results. It was becoming possible not only to
diagnose varying degrees of hearing
loss more effectively but to diagnose earlier.
For example, a
report by Dr. James Kerr Love (1893) reported that only 10% of the pupils of
the Glasgow Institute for the Deaf were totally deaf and that the residual
capacity to hear of the pupils in the institutions for the deaf could be a
decisive factor in their speech improvement.
With this in mind, Kerr demonstrated a strong need not only for earlier
education but for a different and special provision for ‘late deafened’
children. On his recommendation, the
first school for late deafened children (post lingually deafened) was opened in
Glasgow in 1908.
This period saw
the beginning of the involvement of deaf children’s families in their
education. In 1912, the first
'peripatetic' teacher was appointed to work with very young deaf children and
their families, which led to the first nursery school for deaf children in the
same city in the same year. The
following year saw the establishment of the first residential infant school for
deaf children at the Royal School for the Deaf in Manchester, with Miss I.R
Goldsack as teacher-in-charge, later to become Lady Irene Ewing.
A survey
conducted shortly before this concluded that by 1904 there were 2,200 deaf
children in boarding schools and 1,100 in day schools in England of whom 2,600
were educated orally.
The early part of
the century also marked the beginning of what has been known as the Ewing
era. This was the start of a famous
partnership between Lady and Professor Sir Alexander Ewing, which was to
influence the education for deaf children over the next 50 years or so not only
in this country but throughout the world.
Sir Alexander Ewing, was based in Manchester University from 1915 until
the 1960s. His medical and highly
scientific background enabled giving much needed weight to the developing
theories.
In 1919, the
University of Manchester established a lectureship for training teachers of the
deaf on the oral method of teaching. In
effect this was the beginning of the Department of Audiology and Education in
the University. The first lectureship was
given to Irene Goldsack. The department
stayed in the hands of the Ewings for nearly half a century, until the
mid-1960s, gradually becoming world renowned for it’s development and
innovation in the field of oral education of the deaf.
The fact that
training was exclusively oral severed any possibility of a link between deaf
adults using sign and the education of deaf children. Throughout this period motions were unanimously passed at BDA
conferences objecting to the use of pure oralism. This significantly widened the gap between teachers of the deaf
and the deaf community.
The Ewings work
also established the need for a variety of educational provisions, for example
parent guidance programmes, units for partially hearing children and
integration programmes. In addition,
the evolution of many peripatetic and audiological services can be linked to
the work of the Ewings. The Ewings
wrote a comprehensive account of their beliefs and methodology in a book
entitled ‘Speech and the Deaf Child’ (1954).
In it they detail the three essential conditions of speech
intelligibility- understanding, skill and practice, stating that none of these
could be acquired by children on their own without the constant help of
sympathetic, knowledgeable and skilful teachers. Their methodology relied heavily on the use of residual hearing.
Last week we
discussed the fact that many early theories on the education of deaf children
were based on the unscientific and often subjective views of certain
individuals. From the beginning of the
20th Century, levels of science and technology in the field of deafness were
increasingly sophisticated. One
particular field had a great effect on education, namely the introduction of
the hearing aid. Hearing aids, among
other things facilitated the acquisition of speech in those children with residual
hearing.
Many devices were
constructed initially to channel sound with some amplification into children’s
ears. Various versions of the ‘speaking
tube’ were used, some specially constructed to enable the deaf pupil to hear their
own voice as well as their teachers- an early recognition of the significance
of the concept of auditory feedback in speech development.
In 1900,
Ferdinand Alt from Vienna developed the first electrical amplification device
for use of the hard of hearing. Since
then progress has been made in producing smaller, more versatile and more
powerful aids. Many of these
developments have hinged on concurrent research into speech and residual
hearing. For example research in the US
and UK by Ewing, Ewing and Littler (1929), confirmed earlier findings by Kerr
Love (1893) and established that only a minority of children in schools for the
deaf were ‘totally’ deaf.
In 1933, binaural
group aids designed and produced by T.S. Litter and Ewings in Manchester and
were soon were being used by many deaf schools in England. The reports from the schools were unanimous
in stating that ‘substantial benefit in terms of speech and language
development had occurred from regular use of the aids’ (Markides 1985)
A major
development also came in the provision of free hearing aids on the NHS by the
end of the 1940s. Since then, many
group and individual aids have been produced including body worn, ear level
aids, hearing aid in spectacle frames, radio aids, infra red aids etc. etc.
The number of
units for partially-hearing and deaf children expanded rapidly from one or two
in the late 1940s to nearly 500 in the early 1980s. The period also witnessed many children’s integration into
mainstream education.
Increasing
concern at dropping standards despite the wide spread availability of hearing
aids led to the government instituting a 24 - person committee under the
chairmanship of Professor Lewis. The
aim of the committee was to investigate the role, if any that sign language and
fingerspelling could play in the education of the deaf. The Lewis report (1968) was based, rather
precariously, on the results of questionnaires sent to all the schools and
partially hearing units in Britain. One
outcome was that the research established that although schools for the deaf in
England still supported an oral approach, oralism was often not the practice in
schools. Of 45 schools for the deaf, three-quarters used manual communication
in some context, though often unsystematic.
The eight main
statements to be published from the Lewis report were as follows (McLoughlin
1987 p31):
1) The dual aim
in educating deaf children demands great effort and leads to conflict between
aims.
2) Oral methods
must be used for partially-hearing children.
3) For deaf
pupils there must be no return to silent education.
4) If introduced,
there was conflict of opinion over the timing of the introduction of manual
methods.
5) Non-oral
methods should be used for multiply-handicapped pupils.
6) For older
children there were differences of opinion over if/or when to introduce manual
methods
7) There was a
difference of opinion about the effects of manual methods on oral methods.
8) Signing is
non-linguistic.
In many senses,
while making lists of ‘warnings and precautions, the committee left the
methodology of the education of deaf children, largely as it stood’.
For children in
mainstream schools, the teaching of speech was beginning to lose
prominence. In deaf schools, the
teaching of speech survived but with wide variation from school to school in
terms of emphasis, method, expertise and expectation. In general terms the expectation of oral competency was becoming
quite low.
Two bodies of
research which supported these suspicions:
1) Conrad (1979)
Among other findings, concluded that deaf school leavers (aged 16 years) in
1974-6 had an average reading age of 8.5 years, lower still for profoundly deaf
pupils.
2) In the US a
survey of the results of the National Achievements Tests- carried out by the
Office of Demographic Studies at Gallaudet University in 1974 found that in 20
year old deaf populations the average student had a reading ability below 5th
grade level, only 10 percent read at above eighth grade level (Trybus and
Karchmer 1977, in Evans 1982 p10)
The Lewis report
made way for scientific study of many important aspects of communication used
in deaf schools in Britain in the 1970s.
During the 1970s several meetings took place, coordinated, for example,
the RNID and now BATOD, exploring the benefits and drawbacks of all methods of
communication.
This eventually
led to the introduction of total communication approaches in some schools by
the late 1970s. It took until 1984 for
the National Executive Council of the British Association of Teachers of the
Deaf to formerly accept Total Communication as a method of education available
to deaf children (Montgomery,J. in Densham 1995, p67).
This period also
saw the beginning of a steady decline in numbers of deaf schools. In many ways the focus of deaf school changed
during this period, with many more deaf children arriving with an additional
handicap. In other ways, the identity
of deaf schools changed, for example deaf schools tended to be ‘deafer’ on
average.
In 1974 another
committee was established under the guidance of Lady Mary Warnock. The aim of their inquiry was
‘to review the educational provision for
children and young people handicapped by disabilities of body or mind, taking
account of the medical aspects of their needs, together with arrangements to
prepare them for entry into employment’ (McLouglin 1987 p50)
The Warnock
Report of 1978 ‘Special Educational Needs’ concluded that wherever possible,
the practice should be of integration or inclusion. This policy was broadly echoed in a less flexible manner in the
Education Act of 1981. Consequently
there was a considerable increase in the number of children in mainstream
schooling.
Important
initiatives were also being made in the increasing involvement of deaf people
by the late 1970s early 1980s. One
notable character was Allan Hayhurst of the BDA, whose research led to an
acknowledgment by teachers of both the needs and role of deaf people in
education. Such initiatives were backed
up by research which demonstrated the higher achievements of deaf children from
deaf families brought up with sign langauge (e.g. Meadow 1968 in Evans 1982
p11).
The early 1980s
witnessed a shift from oral to more (but rarely exclusively) manual methods
e.g. cued speech, Padget Gorman, British Sign Language, Fingerspelling, or
Total Communication.
Changes from the
1980s onwards in for example levels of parental involvement, as well as recent
changes in government legislation have influenced the education system in
existence today. We will consider the
current situation in more detail from next week onwards.
To summarise, at
the turn of the Century there was increasing recognition that despite an
official policy of oralism, manual methods were often being employed in
education, although rarely systematically.
By the end of the
19th Century, medical research was finally beginning to produce results. It was becoming possible not only to
diagnose varying degrees of hearing
loss more effectively but also to diagnose earlier, which created some
diversity in educational provision.
The early part of
the Century witnessed initiatives to involve the family in education as well as
the launch of the peripatetic teaching services.
Many of the more
significant advances, particularly in the field of audiology came from the Ewing
partnership, later to become the Ewing Foundation in Manchester
University. Their success was in part
due to advancing technology in amplification devices. While these achievements are notable, they signified a deeper
rift between the strengthening deaf community and, essentially, medical
professionals.
Persisting
concern over educational standards led to the The Lewis report of 1968, which,
while being ultimately inconclusive revealed that oralist methods was not being
widely used.
Two bodies of research
proved timely in supporting these findings, stating more explicitly that
oralist policies were failing the majority of deaf children. Total Communication policies were
increasingly being employed in schools, although not formerly until 1984. This period also saw the beginning of a
steady decline in numbers of deaf schools and increasing practices towards
mainstreaming.
The Warnock
Report, finally published in 1978 concluded
that wherever possible, the practice should be of integration or inclusion. This policy was broadly echoed in a less
flexible manner in the Education Act of 1981.
Consequently there was a considerable increase in the number of children
in mainstream schooling.
Important initiatives
were also being made in the increasing involvement of deaf people by the late
1970s early 1980s.
Changes from the
1980s onwards in for example levels of parental involvement, as well as recent
changes in government legislation have influenced the education system in
existence today. We will consider the
current situation in more detail from next week onwards.
Clearly the
changes we can trace go beyond the simple adoption of a communication
method. We can now see a different
relationship between the family and the school, and an involvement of many
other professionals aside from the teacher of the deaf.
The very existence and structure of
the deaf schools has changed almost beyond recognition, and with these changes
come an inevitable impact on the deaf community itself. Over the next few weeks we will look at some
of these areas in more detail.