Transgressing the Object: The Laboratory
ALA & RC : November 2011
Examples of Medico-Pedagogy:
“Pathology” by Susan Dupor
In 1970, PL 94-142 passed and some of the consequences of that law are shown in the examples below. What was intended to be a situation where the school environment became more inclusive ended up becoming a school environment where the hearing, “able-bodied” myth1 of a student would be exposed to “differences.” This particular student continues to enjoy a central role in the classroom and is taught by teachers who are like him (in other words, hearing teacher who does not sign). The ideas, tools, materials, and history taught and used in the classroom are reflective of his experiences as a hearing person, and all of those experiences are expounded as “universal.” Deaf students, like other minorities, are on the fringe in the classroom. They are marginalized and tossed scraps of education like a mangy dog that’s just a little bit too pathetic to give away.
Imagine, if you will, the deaf student who experiences any number of the following:
Countless hours of speech training, focusing on vocalizing and listening for sounds. Focus of training is not on developing a cognitive vocabulary but on rehearsal of vocalization. Student is frequently removed from the classroom resulting in interruption of instruction time. Student may even be required to attend in place of recess, playtime, and other recreational events.
Student is frequently applauded for correct pronunciation (even if answer is incorrect) and reprimanded when mispronunciation happens (even if answers are correct).
During speech training, child is physically touched a large number of times without his permission, on the hands, the mouth, and the throat mostly. Student is forced to touch adult, also on the throat, near mouth, and sometimes the nose. Student is forced to sit in very close proximity with specialist, despite discomfort (which at times is so severe that the child is in tears).
Student is subjected to intense periods of probing in the ears, using instruments, wax, and noise. Student is left with massive headaches, pain in the ears, ringing, dizziness, all of which interfere with concentration in school and at home.
Student often rides a separate, smaller bus and is dropped off at a different entrance than other peers at school. Student is required to go to a “special” office every day to pick up hearing devices and or to “check in” with teachers despite the fact that other peers are not required to do so. Student’s day in the educational environment begins with a definite sense of “apartness.”
Student’s bus driver usually knows no sign language.
In the classroom, student is required to sit up front, usually near the front corner or sometimes in the middle throughout the entire year even though his or her peers are frequently either allowed to choose their seats or change assigned seats periodically during the year.
Student is required to concentrate throughout the day, to lip read a teacher who moves a lot, to juggle watching teacher and interpreter with watching other visual tools in the classroom (power point, whiteboard notes, videos).
Student frequently experiences visual and auditory impediments, such as lights being turned off, teacher turning her back, students answering from different areas in the classroom, other noises interfering.
Student who has an interpreter usually has the same interpreter year-round. Experiences with interpreters vary and include the following dynamics:
•Friendly, personable interpreter who is very involved with student’s life, gives feedback during IEP meetings (which usually means reporting everything she sees, as opposed to remaining a neutral communication facilitator), talks frequently on the phone with student’s parents, attends many of the family events, invites student to his/her home, and sometimes “corrects” student in the classroom (assumes role of caretaker).
•Interpreter sits across the student most of the day and does not move around the room (i.e. stand next to teacher for better visual access and inclusion in the classroom).
•Interpreter shares more information with student about his personal life than is appropriate (veering into topics about dating, religion, frustration with co-workers).
•Interprets only teacher’s comments and voices student’s answers; may or may not (usually not) interpret casual classroom discussion in the classroom and/or hallways as well as cafeteria. Some interpreters may even chat with student’s classmates without signing, leaving the deaf student out.
•Interpreter may be excessively helpful, such as giving answers for student when teacher asks a question/ during exams.
•Interpreter may discourage participation on the student’s part out of fear of voicing or discomfort with student’s answers.
•When student does participate there is usually a lag time between he question posted and answer given, sometimes resulting in student answering “too late.” Interpreter may or may not explain this to the student/classroom.
•Interpreter may or may not be certified/qualified. Interpreter may be qualified to interpret some subjects and unqualified to interpret other subjects but will do so anyway.
•Schools that are looking to save money will often post a different job title (communication facilitator, paraprofessional) and hire someone with minimal sign language skills. School may or may not seek a substitute interpreter in the event that the regular interpreter is not in.
During downtime, between classes, after school, before school, during lunchtime, student is often on the outside observing her classmates interact and usually does not have anyone to chat with except the interpreter and a few random students who are willing to learn sign language.
Classroom discussions, if they are accessible, often feel like they do not apply to the student’s life. There is little to no discussion about deaf people, famous or infamous, deaf history, deaf art. Once a year or so the classroom will study “differences” such as disabilities and the deaf student is asked to talk about the deaf experience, and discuss deaf-related technology (tokenism).
Technology and tools in the classroom are modified for optimal comfort for hearing students (use of music in classroom, volume adjusted for “normal range” of hearing, instruction split between lecture and visuals (with assumption that students can watch/listen simultaneously), lingo used is drawn from hearing culture, including songs, rhymes, and idioms, humor used is often grounded in sound). Classroom is set up to complement the auditory experience as opposed to visual experience (i.e. students are seated in rows).
If a deaf student joins sports or activities, student usually will not have interpreting services. Often depends on a “nice classmate” who takes on interpreting duties (very little communication). Unless student is already a stellar athlete she or he is frequently benched despite having potential for becoming a great athlete with some coaching.
Student is frequently bullied by peers, usually put up to do things that get the student in trouble. Students often poke fun at speech and will test deaf person’s hearing ability.
Classroom assignments are often “dumbed-down” or simplified for deaf student. deaf student is frequently told that he/she does not “have to” do things.
When deaf student attempts to participate in class, entire class screeches to a halt, room becomes uncomfortable, awkward. Student answers, and teacher usually smiles, nods, and then moves on with the discussion without engaging student in more as he/she would with other students (especially if the answer is wrong). In some classes, deaf student raises hand but teacher never calls on him/her.
Some students are taken out of public classrooms and placed in special classes (Resource Rooms or “deaf classrooms”) where they are taught using a different curriculum (usually several grade levels below their peers).
For families considering the possibility of moving their child to a boarding school: During IEP meetings, the school district, out of fear that they will lose the deaf student (and money), often claims that they will hire people to meet the student’s needs, but then fail to do so.
That doesn’t mean, however, that boarding schools2 that specialize in working with deaf students are more conductive to learning. Students in public schools often struggle with very limited access to what is sometimes3 a fertile ground of educational, organizational, and athletic opportunities. In contrast, students at boarding schools have full access (for the most part) to a limited, dumbed-down curriculum and have few organizational and athletic opportunities to choose from.
Students may experience any one of the following:
Many teachers and staff, despite having between ten to thirty years of teaching experience at boarding schools have very poor signing skills, leaving students with similar experiences as deaf students in public schools.
Special treatment is given to students with strong skills in English (written and spoken); they are automatically placed on a college track. Students who are clearly intelligent and demonstrate language fluency in American Sign Language (but not English) are usually not placed on a college track (or are told that they “need to” go to Gallaudet or community college).
Students frequently sign with fluency and vocabulary that surpasses their own teachers’ ability (and often parents’ ability as well).
Students at boarding schools seeking tutoring after school often find themselves with an adult who knows little to no sign language.
Athletic teams at residential schools often hire coaches who do not sign; those coaches do not effectively communicate with student-athletes.
There are fewer sports to choose from, which usually has an even larger impact on female students (less opportunities given to female sports/ female teams).
There are fewer elective classes, organizations, clubs, and activities at boarding schools (in part because there are less students at boarding schools than at public schools).
Deaf and hearing teachers at boarding schools usually do not establish rigorous learning environments for students.
Students often have few deaf role models in boarding schools. Many of the teachers and administrators are hearing. Students at times observe colonized behavior in their deaf teachers, such as deaf teachers looking to hearing teachers for guidance, even if the hearing teacher is not necessarily more knowledgeable than their deaf colleagues.
Students at boarding schools usually find themselves in classes with new students recently transferred from public or oral schools with little or no fluency in American Sign Language (or any sign language, for that matter). Those new students often have rudimentary academic knowledge and social skills, in part because of the lack of access at their previous schools. This often results in a slower pace of learning in the classroom.
In addition, teachers usually will modify their communication style to meet the needs of recent transfers who do not sign well, resulting in very limited access to language.
Students who come from a family whose first language is American Sign Language are usually high-achieving students at or above grade level. They are often expected to serve as language models for all other students, teachers, and administrators and frequently report feeling “unchallenged”.
Although boarding schools are supposedly designated as deaf spaces, most of the environment accommodates the auditory experience rather than the visual experience. This is especially true of the physical design of the buildings and classrooms as well as specific systems (PA system, theatre/microphone & speakers, phones in classrooms).
1 We term “able-bodied” a myth because no one is “able” in every possible way. This is why the word: “disability” is also a fallacy.
2 We use the term “boarding schools” in place of “residential schools.” Residential is a term that is often associated with group homes and/or mental health environments and we feel the former term is a more accurate representation of the school-for-the-deaf environment.
3 We acknowledge that the public school curriculum is not necessarily conductive to critical thinking (see article II.i).