"Success for All - Every School, Every Child" - Reality for Deaf students? - Post 3

Given that New Zealand Sign Language is now recognized as our third official language, and is actually deemed as their first language by a number of Deaf people, wouldn’t it be grand to see it utilised more in the classroom?  It is not just an idle wish, but a basic right, that our deaf children should have the choice of a truly bilingual education – not just an NZSL interpreter and an under-qualified teacher-aide for a few hours a week, but full instruction and access to the curriculum in NZSL.  To be fair, the MOE has launched some NZSL initiatives lately.  In 2009 they launched their “NZSL Tool Kit”, designed for use in intermediate schools, to introduce students (hearing) to NZSL.  Also, from February this year, they have been giving funds for interpreters for deaf parents when they attend school functions.  However, as positive as these moves are, there still remains a lack of in-classroom provision, such as NZSL-fluent teachers, qualified interpreters and well-trained teacher-aides.  The fact that there is no New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) pathway for NZSL learning in high school possibly contributes to this lack as students will only choose subjects that gain them credits towards their study and career goals.  What's more, I suspect that not enough funding is made available to train more of these much-needed professionals.

Although it has been believed that Sign Language hinders the acquisition of linguistic skills in deaf children, more research is proving the opposite.  It is also more generally acknowledged that lip-reading is no substitute for Sign Language and that there are a number of benefits to fostering a bilingual environment for deaf students, such as enhanced cognitive and language development and a stronger cultural identity.  

In connection with this, I was interested to read an article in The New Zealand Herald recently on bilingual education and the effectiveness of not only teaching the target language, but teaching other subjects using the target language.  A noteworthy aside is that the report also commented on the MOE’s disinterest in the research.  Perhaps that disinterest has something to do with the lack in the service it is currently offering deaf students?