Some people may well say that we are doing
our best with the limited resources we have, but if the MOE is to make good
their pledge to "ensure all learners with special education need are
able to learn and succeed in the education setting of their choice” (emphasis added), changes will be necessary to
improve on the options available.
As for teachers, the UN recognises the
need for appropriate methods of communication for educating the Deaf and
promotes the employment of teachers, some of whom are deaf, who are
qualified in sign language.
Here in little Aotearoa, there
simply aren’t enough NZSL-fluent
teachers. The MOE could consider fast-tracking the creation of a NZSL syllabus so that students who become interested in NZSL at primary and intermediate level can continue their NZSL studies throughout high school and emerge with good skills to complement a possible teaching career. Let’s make mainstreaming a truly viable option by
training and providing more specialist teachers and support people who can be available to deaf students for all their subjects, throughout their school day.
The second available option is attendance at either KDEC or VADEC but places are limited. Couldn't there be more regional centres where more deaf students could enjoy specialist teaching and interpreting services and reap the benefits (“linguistic, social and educational”) of communal deaf classes?We could even get adventurous and offer more online learning as a valuable medium in Deaf education.
Between a compromised mainstreaming option and limited access to specialised Deaf education centres, how much choice do our deaf youth really have regarding their education? I’m afraid I have to say, not much.
I think over your posts are great and very convincing. Your style of writing is clear and concise, and balances academic proof with emotion and common sense.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think it's good that you've compared the UN and MOE ideals against what the actual reality is, but I'm wondering whether the brief for the assignment means you need to be in opposition of someone who's saying NZ does meet those ideals? I totally agree with everything you're saying, but does everyone agree with it, or are there actually people out there who disagree and believe that the current educational options are sufficient for Deaf children? If there are those people, I think it would add a lot of weight to your argument to link to them to show that (miraculously and sadly) they do exist and that there is something to fight against.
This might just be me being confused about the brief, though. If you did want to be in opposition of someone, perhaps tweak the topic/content so that it focuses on those who believe that NZSL shouldn't be a prominent feature of education (i.e. the oralist perspective which is so prevalent), and how the increasing numbers of children with cochlear implants may be affecting how the MOE wants to approach resources for Deaf children?
Sorry to ramble, and I'm not intending to be negative, I really do think your writing is great. I'm just unsure about how strict the brief is in terms of fighting against an opposing opinion.
Great work!
Thanks again for worthy critique, Julia. Mmmm, I had wondered about venturing near the CI thing, but the 1000-word limit put me off. The same with trying to use opposing views etc. Anyway, I'll give this more thought, along with your other comments. Thanks - you've been really helpful. Looking rforward to reading the rest of your posts.
ReplyDeleteAs there is some -- a little -- leeway on the word count, some information about opposing positions (e.g., the still persistent views that letting d/Deaf children use Sign Language will hinder their integration with the hearing majority or interfere with their learning English -- cf. the readings extracted from Dugdale's book) will probably help reinforce your presentation of your position. As it is, I'm still not quite sure of your stand: are you after mainstreaming with proper support? training more teachers in NZSL? training more teacher aides? opening more regional centres (like Kelston and Van Asch)?
ReplyDeletep.s. Please review your use of deaf and Deaf throughout your posts. Are you specifically writing about Deaf or deaf children in NZ education or both?
ReplyDeleteHi Ana
ReplyDeleteThanks again for posting feedback. I like your suggestion of an opposing position re SL hindering language acquisition and will look a bit more at that.
My viewpoint is for Deaf learners to have MORE CHOICE when it comes to their education, which means all the things you listed. Presently they have to simply take what they can get.
Re the d/Deaf terminology, I'm meaning both.
Looking good. Maybe if you find arguments saying that NZ is doing the best it can and that it has limited resources you could suggest online learning in the classroom with NZSL interpreters or teachers of the Deaf - I think there is a bit of it around, maybe in other countries. I think if your focus is that there should be more options then focus on that
ReplyDeleteAlso from my understanding one of the things NZ thinks is acceptable is having teacher aids for Deaf students, however the teacher aid may have only been signing for 1-2 years and is at University - hardly qualified to be in the position of teaching a Deaf child. So like you said the options they have available to them are not acceptable.
There might be something written about that somewhere or at least info on teacher aids - maybe MOE?
Thanks for that, Nic.
DeleteI haven't found much info regarding this, but am interested enough to pursue the idea of online tutoring options for d/Deaf kids, and might try to integrate it into my argument.
Good idea, too, to try to find some kind of "minimum requirement" laid out by MOE for the teacher-aides for d/Deaf students to support my claim here.
Jenette, you may then want to review your use of deaf, Deaf, and d/Deaf in your blog. There are places where an alternative to the term you used could apply.... Apart from that, as you know, I'm all for your stand.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, the blog's well presented and clear. It touches on valid points and the issue, sadly, remains contentious. In the meantime, it's d/Deaf children and their families that suffer.
Hi Ana
DeleteYes, thanks - I've decided to run with lower-case 'd' throughout as Lynette made the comment on my DCC assignment that deaf children usually haven't made the cultural decision yet as to whether to be identified as Deaf or not.