Leala Holcomb
episode 31 to the classroom podcast
January 29, 2024
Jennifer Serravallo:
My guest today is Dr. Leala Holcomb, a researcher of deaf education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who accepted my invitation to teach us all about what true equity and inclusion looks like when supporting deaf children’s language and literacy development. At Dr. Holcomb’s request, I interviewed them in writing via a collaborative online document, and I have hired a voice actor, Ginna Hoben, to read Dr. Holcomb’s words for this podcast interview. As with all episodes, a transcript of this episode is available at my website, JenniferSerravallo.com/podcast.
Dr. Holcomb, you research language and literacy development in deaf education and explore deaf-centered ways of teaching and learning. To get us started, could you explain what it means to have a deaf-centered approach to teaching and learning?
Leala Holcomb:
A deaf-centered approach to teaching and learning involves examining the methods deaf adults—including parents, teachers, and other professionals—use to interact with and educate deaf children. This approach emphasizes cultural and linguistic responsiveness that aligns with the unique sensory experiences of deaf children.
Jennifer Serravallo:
I’m wondering what percentage of children in US schools are deaf or hard of hearing.
Leala Holcomb
According to estimates from the National Association of the Deaf, there are approximately 308,648 deaf and hard of hearing children aged between 5 and 17 years old in the U.S.
When considering educational settings, about 20% of deaf students attend deaf schools where American Sign Language (or, ASL) also referred to as English bilingual education, is provided. This leaves approximately 80% of deaf students in mainstream public schools. Within these schools, there are a few different educational models: some schools have specialized classrooms for deaf students, while in many instances, deaf children find themselves as the only deaf student in their general education class. The support services in mainstream settings can range from FM devices that aid auditory perception in noisy environments, to ASL/English interpreters, one-on-one aides, itinerant special education teachers, and more. However, the quality of these services is inconsistent. For example, the certified educational interpreting standards are low, and research shows that, on average, skilled interpreters conveys approximately 60% of the information.
Research indicates that simply placing a deaf student in a hearing-dominated setting, even with support services, often results in a superficial sense of inclusion. Many deaf students face challenges across various domains, from potential language delays due to incomplete auditory access, to the inherent nature of indirect access to communication and information when mediated through interpreters. The social-emotional growth that comes from natural peer interaction can also be impacted.
Every child, deaf or hearing, needs consistent access to language, both directly from their teachers and their peers, and indirectly such as the casual "overheard" conversations that are part and parcel of the educational environment. This concept is called incidental learning. While some deaf children with sufficient auditory and speech abilities can gain “just enough” access from their mainstream environment to make it through, many other deaf children are not as lucky and often find themselves at a disadvantage, missing out on mundane school experiences that their hearing peers take for granted. Interpreters, although invaluable, cannot replace the natural linguistic and social experiences that come with direct communication. All children, deaf included, deserve and need these direct experiences to thrive.
Jennifer Serravallo:
So are you saying that what's best for deaf children is to be in a specialized schools because the way that mainstream public schools are set up, even with interpreters or teachers who sign, means their ability to communicate and fully participate in the school experience will be inevitably limited?
Leala Holcomb:
Correct. This is the inherent limitation of being deaf in a speaking-dominant environment. Conversely, when deaf students are in a signing-dominant environment with a critical mass of deaf peers of similar age, academic level, and, ideally, with shared identities such as race, gender, and sexuality, they do not experience any issues with language access. In such settings, deaf students can participate fully in academic discussions, collaborate on classwork, and gain a deep sense of cultural belonging (e.g., connecting with their Black, Asian, LGBTQ+ identity), all through direct communication that is 100% accessible through signed language. This mirrors the school life experience of hearing peers.
This critical mass of deaf peers is often present in deaf schools. Additionally, many teachers in deaf schools are deaf themselves and understand exactly what deaf students need to effectively access general education curriculum and Common Core Standards through ASL and English. In mainstream settings, many deaf students find themselves isolated or paired with just a handful of other deaf peers who might be of a different age or academic skills. They are taught by hearing people who have limited knowledge of deaf ways of learning and teaching. Interacting with hearing peers involves a lot of labor and effort for deaf students who don’t have good hearing and speaking skills, often leading to social isolation. And even for those who have good hearing and speaking skills, the effort involved in working on understanding others often leads to listening and cognitive fatigue. Effortless communication is essential for any child. No child should constantly have to labor for access to learning, communication, and socializing, especially during developmental years.
Certainly, there's a time and place for hearing-deaf interactions, which naturally involve effort and adjustment, to attain successful communication and connection. There's also a time and place where deaf children should simply be allowed to be themselves, without exerting extra effort to understand or be understood. The classroom, where students spend eight hours a day for over a decade, is not the place for them to work double hard in accessing education. This should also be a setting where deaf children recognize their worth, experience seamless communication, and interact with diverse deaf peers and role models. These peers and role models can teach them how to confidently navigate a predominantly hearing society, how to have successful and meaningful connections with people (hearing or deaf), understand their rights, and advocate for their needs. Sadly, these crucial elements often go missing in mainstream settings, where deaf children are surrounded primarily by hearing peers and adults, with limited exposure to successful deaf role models and the broader deaf community. These hearing adults simply don’t know what they don’t know and cannot give deaf children these unique perspectives, experiences, and navigational skills.
So, going back to your question about whether mainstream schools are ever a good environment for deaf students… there are a few mainstream schools in the nation that house large deaf education programs for deaf students, where, for instance, more than 50 deaf students might be enrolled at a high school level. This setup could mean about 10 deaf students per deaf classroom, possibly satisfying the 'critical mass' essential for robust academic and socio-emotional development through direct access to communication and learning. However, such programs are far and few between. As the inclusion movement gains momentum in the educational system, these kinds of deaf education programs in mainstream schools are dwindling and closing down. This is due to hearing people’s desire to completely assimilate deaf students into hearing classrooms. This trend has detrimental effects on many deaf students unfortunately.
The number of students attending deaf schools has also been on the decline, largely due to the push for inclusion. Inclusion efforts often discourage school districts from placing deaf students in deaf schools. Typically, it's only when deaf students are significantly struggling, both academically and emotionally, and present challenges so profound that the mainstream school district cannot manage them, that the option of a deaf school is even considered. This is because, under the inclusion movement, deaf schools are viewed as the most "restrictive" option, only to be used as a last resort. Mainstream public schools are automatically branded as the "least restrictive environment" for disabled students, including deaf students. However, from deaf people’s perspective, it's clear to us that the reverse is true: public schools are often the most restrictive environments for deaf students. In contrast, settings where deaf students can directly communicate with peers, teachers, coaches, counselors, and others, are in fact the most liberating and accessible spaces we can ever be in. This is a nuance that many hearing individuals struggle to grasp. They often lean towards integrating deaf children into hearing classrooms, even if it equates to reduced access, empowerment, and engagement for those students.
Jennifer Serrvallo
That gave me chills. Totally get it. Thank you. I am wondering about hearing parents of deaf children pushing for inclusion, if that's a large driver of this move away from deaf-centric schools, or educators, or policy makers, or all of it.
Leala Holcomb:
Hearing parents, yes. Many hearing parents hope their deaf children will hear and speak so that they can better integrate into the family and broader society. They often have never met deaf adults and believe that “relying” (by the way, I really loathe the framing of this word “relying”) on signing might limit their child's spoken language development, English literacy, and future opportunities. Additionally, most medical and educational professionals, who are hearing, tend to reinforce and confirm these concerns. The professionals do not encourage families to expose their deaf children to ASL in addition to spoken language. Rather, they tell parents that their deaf children do not need signed language, and if their deaf children signed, they wouldn't learn to speak, would struggle with English, and would be segregated from society. These comments are far from true, as I grew up with signing deaf peers who are doing very well in life in all kinds of disciplines. They can read, write, and some of them can speak and hear very well. They are doctors, professors, lawyers, software engineers, and more. They are also mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and more. They are members of community-based clubs, play club sports, and vote for our political leaders. They are very much a part of the society, and signed language did not restrict them, or even me, from living well. It is true that ableism, discrimination, and prejudice still exist, and there are systemic barriers that still need to be broken down, and these are certainly not fun parts of life to navigate. And all other minoritized or marginalized groups can relate. It doesn’t mean being deaf or using signed language is inherently inferior or bad, and this narrative being pushed by hearing professionals and hearing parents need to stop. The negativity about the diversity, wonder, and beauty of human experiences, including deaf experiences is unnecessary, and deaf people reject them. Instead, we celebrate what we have brought into this world.
Going back to the point of hearing parents pushing for inclusion . . . Most parents view differences as negative, and they are led to believe their deaf children will be able to hear and speak. There is the logic of… If their deaf children can hear and speak, then why is signed language necessary? However, as their deaf children grow up, their hearing and speaking outcomes will vary widely. Some manage well with the support of cochlear implants and speech therapy. Others face challenges to varying extents, and unfortunately, some experience long-term cognitive impairments due to language deprivation. Essentially, hearing parents are taking a gamble with this choice, but it is a risk many are willing to take.
Many deaf people in the deaf community who first learned signed language in adulthood often become angry and feel resentment towards their parents and at the system. They didn't realize how hard they had been working to access communication auditorily and what they had been missing out on all their lives. It's hard to know what full access is like until you experience it. This realization can be profound and emotional for many.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Can you describe a true inclusive, equitable, and accessible environment for deaf children?
Leala Holcomb:
Deaf children require precisely what their hearing peers need to flourish. A true inclusive, equitable, and accessible environment is one where deaf children have direct access to language, communication, interaction, and learning everywhere. However, many deaf children –often not given opportunities to connect with the deaf community, deaf mentors, teachers, and role models– have no choice but to rely on whatever hearing and speaking skills they've acquired. These skills vary widely among deaf individuals, and often, these deaf children don't quite know exactly what or how much they're missing in speaking environments. A common misconception is that such gaps in deaf children’s experience and understanding are inherent to being deaf in a predominantly speaking environment and that little can be done to alleviate them. However, many deaf adults, especially those who grew up in such environments, believe that such a norm is unjust when there are alternative environments populated by people who can sign.
Now, let's do a thought experiment: Many often perceive that deaf students gain by attending hearing schools and interacting with hearing students, implying a subtle bias that clusters of deaf students (e.g., deaf schools) might foster an "insular" environment. Yet, we rarely apply this logic to hearing students attending hearing schools without deaf peers. We do not ever perceive hearing students attending hearing schools and interacting with hearing students as them being in an insular environment. This bias clearly places the hearing students or hearing schools as the standard or “the norm”, while deaf students and deaf schools are perceived as “defective” or “lesser than”. The negative perceptions of the existence of deaf schools or of deaf children interacting with other deaf children contrast sharply with the nonchalance towards all-hearing schools. This indicates the problematic, and ableist, perception of the deaf community as lesser and in need of assimilation to hearing spaces.
I like to challenge people’s thinking about this. I value the preservation of deaf-centric spaces that embody the "deaf way," where language access and communication are never ever compromised. Hearing students can immerse themselves in our deaf-centric spaces and engage with us visually. Deaf students in a hearing-centric environment, on the other hand, will always face barriers. And these barriers are not trivial. They lead to ongoing compromised access, language deprivation, social isolation, social-emotional struggles, and additional disabilities impairing literacy development. We need to do more to promote deaf-centric spaces, and recognize that many hearing people are already very much integrated into these spaces.
Jennifer Serravallo:
This is such a powerful point. I think there is a tendency to think "what do we need to do to support the child to function best in the environment as it is" rather than "what is the best environment (or how can we change the environment) to best support the child." I feel like this applies to so many types of differences we see in children and the nature of schooling as it's designed.
Leala Holcomb:
You're absolutely right! There are schooling models developed and led by deaf professionals like myself who have the lived experience of growing up as a deaf child ourselves. We understand what works and what doesn't. Yet, our models are disregarded by mainstream society, essentially because they're perceived as too "deaf-centric." There's a strong bias that hearing schools and their ways are automatically superior. Pushing back against this devaluation of deaf-centric learning approaches is an ongoing struggle.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Now I am wondering, how common are deaf schools? What would need to change to make them accessible?
Leala Holcomb:
There’s a deaf school in nearly every state. For those living far from the school, these schools often have dorms where students can stay during the week. However, with the rise of the inclusion movement in the educational system, many deaf schools are struggling. The number of deaf students has dwindled, making it hard to maintain a critical mass of deaf students. Some of these schools have shut down, which means deaf students in these states don’t even have an option for this type of educational environment even if they are failing and struggling badly in mainstream settings.
Many deaf families revolve their lives and jobs around moving closer to a deaf school so that their deaf children can have full and direct access to the schooling experience. Many hearing families, however, may not fully grasp the importance of doing this for their deaf children.
Deaf schools are not common. Small deaf education programs within mainstream schools are more common, but they are also not widespread. Within these small deaf education programs, we typically find a diverse group of deaf students in terms of age and ability, all clustered in one classroom. For example, in a deaf classroom with 5 or 6 deaf students, we would have a 2nd grader and a 5th grader learning side by side. Their language abilities likely differ widely, with one struggling with basic communication and using gestures (severe language deprivation impact) while another could be hard of hearing and speak well but have difficulty hearing well enough to follow spoken instruction effortlessly. Often these classrooms are led by hearing educators who are more reliant on auditory-based communication and are not proficient in signed language, leading the class to have asymmetries in accessing instruction and interactions. In a nutshell, the current structure of deaf education is tragic, and the system is not doing a great job creating a critical mass of deaf students and providing them with direct, high-quality, accessible education. In fact, the system is actively working against these two key concepts for the success of deaf students, and instead, considers a deaf student being alone in the mainstream classroom as a benchmark of success for total inclusion.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Let’s talk now about supporting language and literacy development for deaf children. Let’s start with ages 0-5. Can you share how language and cognitive foundations develop in young deaf children which pave the way for later reading and writing skills?
Leala Holcomb:
The foundational task for promoting literacy in deaf children is, first and foremost, ensuring they don’t develop cognitive impairments due to language deprivation. Cognitive impairments, –affecting areas such as executive functions, memory, attention, reasoning, and self-regulation– make it challenging for anyone, deaf or hearing, to attain fluency in reading and writing. Deaf children, like all children, are innately ready to develop language, which directly intertwines with cognitive development. A spoken environment that doesn't grant them sufficient access to language during the formative years (0-5) can significantly alter their brain development, including cognitive abilities. So, ensuring that language deprivation doesn’t happen to deaf children between 0-5 years old is one of the most important first things we all need to worry about.
The linguistic journey of deaf children who acquire signed language mirrors that of hearing children acquiring spoken language. For instance, just as hearing infants babble audibly, deaf infants exhibit hand babbling. This manual "babbling" lays the groundwork for their linguistic development.
Deaf children typically produce their first signs between 6-9 months of age. This onset is slightly earlier than hearing children’s first spoken word. The earlier use of signs is due to the fact that manual motor skills develop before vocal ones. This early communication advantage is also why many hearing parents introduce signed language to their hearing infants; early signing is believed to offer cognitive benefits.
By the age of 2, deaf children begin forming two-sign combinations. By their third year, they demonstrate grammar patterns resembling those of adult signers, with their fluency continually increasing. By the time they reach kindergarten, they are fluent signers. Additionally, between the ages of 3 and 5, many deaf children begin their journey with written language, learning to fingerspell, recognizing letters in print, and writing simple words like "mom," "dad," or "dog." Upon entering kindergarten, these children can write simple sentences, such as "I love mom."
Deaf children can easily access and acquire signed language in similar ways as hearing children can easily access and acquire spoken language. However, a majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents unfamiliar with signing. Often, well-intentioned but misguided advice from medical professionals dissuades parents from teaching signed language due to the unfounded belief that it could hinder speech development and impair English learning. This means many deaf children face the risk of language deprivation if the emphasis is solely on auditory rehabilitation and speech therapy. Research shows that many deaf children do experience language deprivation and may not be introduced to signed language beyond 5 years old. If they did not have good access to spoken language during their formative years, then literacy will always be challenging.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Let's now get into literacy instruction in school. What does research say is the most efficient and effective way to support deaf children's reading and writing development?
Leala Holcomb:
If a strong foundation of language and cognitive skills is established (often through unhindered access to language between ages 0-5), the next step would be to start teaching these children literacy skills. Instructional strategies would depend on their language access and knowledge.
For deaf children using signed language have visual access to English: Bilingual techniques are essential. By drawing consistent connections between signed words and their printed counterparts (often mediated through fingerspelling, reading, and writing), they form a bridge between languages. Adult-mediated activities like reading books, actively translating languages, discussing linguistic features, comparing language structures, etc., facilitate deaf children’s acquisition of English as a second language.
For deaf children using signed language have auditory access to English (through residual hearing, cochlear implants, or hearing aids): In addition to the bilingual strategies outlined above, conventional techniques used with hearing children, such as phonic-based word sounding and mapping, can be added benefits.
For deaf children who rely solely on auditory access to English (without signing): Conventional literacy approaches used for hearing children are suitable.
Jennifer Serravallo:
I’ve had a few guests on the podcast who have spoken about translanguaging with hearing bilinguals. How might the translanguaging framework apply when thinking about deaf children who sign?
Leala Holcomb:
Each deaf child (and all children!) develops their unique linguistic and communicative repertoire (or idiolects) from interactions with their environment. This repertoire may include various modalities like spoken language, signed language, and written language and languages such as ASL, Mexican Sign Language, English, Spanish, or Mandarin. Deaf children also regularly engage with a diverse range of individuals across various settings at home, in school, on social media, and in the community. It is natural for them to draw resources from their linguistic repertoire to communicate with others.
For those deaf children who sign, abundant exposure to and training in English is given in this country, leading ASL and English features to exist in their linguistic system. Yet, societal expectations often determine the language modality they are allowed to use. For instance, in interactions with white hearing individuals, the expectation might lean toward using Standard English, while with other deaf individuals, especially those with limited English proficiency, greater use of ASL features might be preferred. In more flexible scenarios, with ASL/English bilinguals, children could interweave both ASL and English features in their signed and written expressions. Thus, translanguaging recognizes and honors each deaf child's unique idiolect, allowing them the freedom of expression without adhering to socially dictated norms—though it's worth noting that these deaf children can and are often taught to adapt their communication methods based on contextual demands.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Phonological awareness, the ability to recognize individual sounds, widely regarded in the literature as an essential foundation for a child to develop the ability to decode and encode written words. What should we understand about phonological awareness in Deaf children? Do Deaf children need to be able to segment and blend sounds in order to learn to read and spell words?
Leala Holcomb:
Phonological awareness isn't exclusively about discerning sounds in spoken language. Broadly, it refers to the awareness of the smallest units in any language, whether signed or spoken. In signed languages, phonological units comprise parameters like handshapes, locations, movements, palm orientations, and non-manual markers (e.g., eye gaze, eyebrow movements).
By studying signed language—including its phonology, morphology, and syntax— in the same ways as hearing children study spoken language, deaf children can boost their metalinguistic awareness. Activities that allow them to break down signed words or substitute one parameter to alter meaning are suggested to be important for facilitating pre-literacy skills.
Spoken language isn't a prerequisite for reading in deaf children. My own family, spanning five generations of deaf individuals, learned to read predominantly through visual means, using bilingual approaches described earlier. My deaf peers from signing families share similar experiences with reading development. Research corroborating the experiences of skilled deaf readers reveals that phonological awareness, in the traditional sense for example, spoken-based, isn't mandatory. The continued insistence on auditory-centric methods for teaching reading to deaf children, especially those who've experienced language deprivation, is misguided and harmful. These deaf children already face challenges precisely because of an overemphasis on spoken language and a lack of signed language exposure during their early years. Their apparent language and literacy struggles do not mean they need more spoken language training. Rather, visual strategies that build on their foundation of signed language and bilingual strategies that bridge signed and written language are crucial for their overall literacy development.
Jennifer Serravallo:
I just had two guests on this podcast who specialize in phonics and I feel like they were suggesting that yes, we should use all aids and technology available to help children who are deaf or hard of hearing access spoken language as best they can as the primary pathway to literacy. I am so glad that you are helping to challenge my–and other listeners’--thinking about this.
Leala Holcomb:
The problem stems from an extremely limited, sound-focused mindset that many hearing people have. They struggle to conceive alternative ways of human existence.
Another thought experiment: If every human were naturally deaf and we all used sign language, never having known spoken language, and developed a written system based on our signs (or continued to use written English due to existing knowledge somehow), none of us would question our ability to learn to read and write without spoken language.
However, in our heavily phonocentric world, many can't grasp the idea that literacy can exist without spoken language. For us deaf folks, reading and writing without any reliance on sound is our daily reality and the norm. We see signing deaf children reading and writing all the time without any problems (I have a deaf child and three deaf nieces, and they all learned to read just fine and are at grade levels). When we hear claims about the necessity of sound for reading, it seems profoundly misguided from our perspective.
Jennifer Serravallo:
What should teachers keep in mind when it comes to assessing reading (by “reading” I mean word reading, but also fluency and comprehension) with Deaf children?
Leala Holcomb:
First and foremost, teachers must understand the intertwined relationship between language deprivation, resulting cognitive disabilities, and a deaf child's current language and literacy skills. Before evaluating the deaf child's literacy abilities, it's crucial to examine environmental factors for potential language and communication barriers. Delays in development typically signal the environment's failure to prevent language deprivation and to provide instruction in a manner that champions deaf-centric ways of teaching and learning. In other words, barrier-free learning environments.
The next point is, if deaf children are developing bilingually through signed language and written/spoken language, like I did, then our trajectory should be understood as being similar to hearing children who are developing bilingually. We do not develop language and literacy skills in the exact same way as monolingual children do. We have different linguistic repertoires to work with. Being a second-language learner of English means a different set of variables are introduced to the developmental trajectory such as student motivation, amount of engagement, quality of instruction, and more. Our journeys as bilinguals and the unique experiences and skills that come with should be normalized and honored without relying on the benchmarks of monolingual speakers of English.
A word of caution: many assessment tools are tailored for monolingual English speakers. While they can provide some insights, their limitations, especially in the context of deaf learners or any bilingual learners, should always be considered.
There are approaches to assessing and tracking deaf students’ reading development bilingually, particularly in the areas of vocabulary comprehension, reading fluency, and comprehension. For example, deaf students can be asked to provide signed translations of the words they read. They can be asked questions about the text. This can be used to determine whether the book level is too easy, too hard, or appropriate for the student’s current level.
While it's crucial for students to achieve proficiency in reading and writing, there's a danger in over-prioritizing these skills at the expense of a deaf child’s overall well-being. A more holistic assessment should consider the breadth of a deaf student's school experience, including their ability to participate without barriers in clubs, sports, and everyday interactions during breaks. We must remember the bigger picture: mental health issues and suicidality rates are notably higher among deaf individuals, particularly those who are disconnected from the deaf community. Therefore, it's essential to approach the education of deaf children with a broader perspective, understanding that literacy is just one facet of what truly defines success.
Jennifer Serravallo:
I am excited to welcome my colleagues, Cristy Rauseo and Angie Forero to have a conversation about that fascinating interview. Welcome Cristy and Angie.
Cristy Rauseo:
Hello.
Angela Forero:
Hi Jen. So glad to be here.
Jennifer Serravallo:
So none of us are experts in teaching deaf or hard of hearing students, but I thought I'd start off by asking you, have you ever had a deaf or hard of hearing student in your mainstream classroom?
Cristy Rauseo:
I have for two years. I have the same student was with me in second grade and last year in third grade, he lost his hearing at age around five. So he had some exposure to phonics, but it was also the year of the pandemic. So not that much exposure. And he has a hearing aid. So I teach in Spanish. This kid's primary language is English. So it was an interesting thing to see him navigate my classroom, a full day of immersion in Spanish, reading, writing, math, social studies. The support I received was an FM unit. A DOE person would come set me up, explain how to log in into his Bluetooth unit, set him up with the iPad for any sound that he doesn't need the headphones, it goes automatically through Bluetooth. So I would have to give the FM unit to every teacher who had contact with him during the day. But I never knew exactly what was his, if he was hearing was, I mean he was hearing, but in a classroom of 16 kids, it was interesting to see him try to read cues around the room and see kids on his table, what's happening. It was even more challenging because it was in Spanish, the days that I teach in English, then he was more prone to participate because it was easier to follow. But one thing I found interesting. It says “hearing adults simply do not know what they don't know and cannot give deaf children this unique perspective and experiences and skills.” And from the teacher's perspective, I think I found incredibly hard to make sure that he was getting what he needed because I didn't know. And as a mainstream teacher, you have so many other things that even if you want to research and do the best you can, the deaf teacher would come once a week, pull him out, give him some education about the anatomy of the ear and some sort of information about that and what strategies to do when you don't hear what's happening in the classroom or how to communicate with kids. But it was like a 30 minute, once a week situation. So I don't think it was enough.
Jennifer Serravallo:
And that story in the context of what we heard from Dr. Holcomb makes me think that every year that goes by where he's just getting partial information from his linguistic environment sets him back further and further. And I have to say I never had a deaf or hard of hearing student in my own classroom, but I visit many classrooms where I wear the FM unit to support a student's hearing. And absolutely the objective always seems to be to provide a support so that the child is hearing not to change the environment to that the student is with like peers who communicate through signing and have rich exposure to language through sign language.
Cristy Rauseo:
So he's starting to do that and learning to sign. I think that part of what impacts the kids deaf kids or hard of hearing is also the social aspect. I carry the FM unit and he could hear me loud and clear and not three tables down, he cannot hear everything that's happening. So those social things that happened in the classroom organically, he will miss that. And he didn't know maybe, or maybe if someone started laughing and everyone followed, he would be like, what happened?
Jennifer Serravallo:
That's such an important point, Cristy. Yeah, the teacher wears the FM units. You could hear the instruction, but so much of the language comes from your peers. And then what about lunchtime, recess, all those other opportunities for language. And it's just like a single channel to the teacher.
Cristy Rauseo:
And it's funny because when I had it on, there's a mute button on it and I will forget to mute it and I'm in a reading conference or something and he's like, I'm hearing what's happening. I don't need to hear that. Or if I'm solving an issue with a student would be like, can you mute it? I don't want to hear that.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Or think about some of the times when you have whole class conversations or book clubs where you really do need to hear what your peers are saying to even communicate for academic purposes. Right, having an in-depth discussion, or did you pass the FM unit around so he could hear the other students?
Cristy Rauseo:
Not in a whole group. We were on the carpet. It's relatively close, but if it's something separate, yes, they would pass it. It's not a thing that just goes around to whoever's talking. It wasn't, I think again, it goes to the personality of the kid. If you are really interested and want to participate, you do whatever you can to find that out. Some other kids, I haven't had these kids, but I can imagine other kids tuning out. I'm like, I am not doing this. I'll just pretend to be here.
Angela Forero:
I think that speaks to what Dr. Holcomb was saying about mainstream public schools and how in some settings they are not the least restrictive environment. And this is what so often happens in our educational system. I mean, it's monolingual, it's English-centered, spoken- and written-heavy, and all of that. And I think that even though those policies and the people backing those policies may seem well intentioned, it's actually harmful in many cases. And so in those settings, it might not be the least restrictive. We don't have the resources to support students, but that needs to change. And I know just to bring in, I was interested in the topic. So I was reading about what Dr. Holcomb wrote with their colleagues on translanguaging framework for deaf education and the importance of really validating what students bring to the classroom, their idiolects, their full linguistic system. And for students who might be language deprived, they might come to the classroom with not ASL, but maybe other forms of home signing and gestures. And so it's important for teachers to assess where students are and then validate what they bring to the classroom and then build on that. And so in that translanguaging framework, we're talking about first validating what students bring to the classroom, which is across the board important all the time. And then working towards coming to a shared understanding in the classroom on a concept in using different languages, modalities. And that's where the translanguaging piece comes in.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Absolutely. I have a couple of videos actually, that Dr. Holcomb shared with me that I'll put into the blog on my website for anyone interested in taking a look from when they were a preschool teacher supporting deaf students in a deaf immersion school. I wonder whether translanguaging, as you've described it, Angie, is really possible in an all hearing environment, especially with a student who may not have a sign language interpreter with them or, well, I guess especially in that case, right? We talk about Spanish-English translanguaging, you could say, oh, well, you could kind of take something a child has written and pop it into Google Translate and get a close enough translation of what they're trying to say. And you could still evaluate their work. You can use Google Translate to help communicate with the child, but I don't know of anything like that for sign language.
Cristy Rauseo:
Yeah, I think, I don't know if it exists, probably there's some sort of technology out there, but it's not clearly mainstream yet. So that we all know if we get a hearing, a student in our class, one thing that got me thinking about that was the parents' perspective and how the parents think that inclusion, it's like the way to go because they don't want their kid to miss out on other things. But how that is without realizing it, they're making their journey harder because they cannot freely communicate. But in a school where everyone's signing, then they can communicate freely. And then there's another phrase Dr. Holcomb said about bridging. They form a bridge between languages and being ASL or whatever sign language from their country and spoken language. And that, I see it from the classroom perspective. If a kid comes signing and I have no background on signing except the signs of restroom, water, then I wouldn't be able to assist that kid in that translanguaging.
Angela Forero:
I also think it takes for the teacher to recognize that and know that there are inequities in the classroom and be committed to changing that and start with things that they can do, possibly use more of the role playing use, drawing lots of visuals and videos, gestures, things like that. But then also seek outside support. Thinking about finding deaf interpreters, people in the community and trying to speak with administration about how to get these people in the classroom because you can't wait. I mean, you can't wait for the year to pass by without making sure that, without making sure that you're addressing these what Dr. Holcomb calls “access asymmetries.” So I think that's really important to start with.
Cristy Rauseo:
For other students in the class, I always feel like when I have some sort of inclusion scenario, I think it benefits the other kids more than the kid, because it creates this sense of empathy of, oh, there are other kids with other needs that I maybe didn't even see. And then how we all can be together in this little micro world of this classroom and get along and participate.
Jennifer Serravallo:
What I kept hearing from them though is that we should be advocating for deaf schools. That is the best environment. And they did not mince words, right? They answered, I asked a clarifying question. They said it again, there should be more deaf schools. Deaf schools should be accessible. That is the best environment. I wonder how universal that opinion is and that this push for inclusion and this push for providing supports that deaf students can get as much as they can from a hearing environment is not the best thing for deaf students. So it just made me wonder, what can I be doing to advocate for deaf schools?
Cristy Rauseo:
It is like a systemic change because it's not only that, but it's also changing. Like I said before, parents thinking about that. The parents is the ultimate one that's going to choose where the kid goes to school and if their opinion is based. And Dr. Holcomb also mentioned it is doctors, the last resources at school. So it's like a systemic change. That opinion and that approach needs to, we need to be more educated about it to make a better decision for the student or their child. And I see how you could think, oh, they're going to miss out on other things. But Dr. Holcomb explained: along the way, you are limiting their communication. They won't be able to fully communicate in that classroom.
Angela Forero:
I think I was hearing the same thing, Jen, about that, that mainstream public school classrooms are not the least restrictive environment and that there was a need for other settings. At the same time, what a loss. What a loss for all of us to not be in an inclusive setting where we are meeting the needs of our deaf bilingual students because we need to open up spaces where we provide all of our students with access to language and where we are in racially, culturally, language, diverse schools, where we're all learning from one another. And I think this needs to be something that we all are aware of and all working towards dismantling. And I think that in the ideal world, we would have diverse racially, culturally, language, diverse settings. And then we can have also within that, and this was another thing that Dr. Holcomb and their colleagues were talking about, is we could have a focused time for where the minoritized language is centered in that space. And then flexible spaces, what they call critical translanguaging spaces where you are translanguaging across languages, modalities, language varieties. And I think that is what we want to work towards. But right now, that's not happening according to Dr. Holcomb.
Jennifer Serravallo:
Well, I think they gave us a lot to think about, and I thank you both so much for taking time to talk through some takeaways with me in this conversation. Thanks, Angie. Thanks, Cristy.
Angela Forero:
Thanks Jen. It was great. Bye. Thank you.
****
Video Leala made a long time ago when they taught preschoolers aged 3-5 years old. This video will gives you a gist of how deaf children develop English skills through interactive reading and writing activities mediated by parents / teachers / adults.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3llKtPpY90
A video Leala made of their mom and nephew (her grandson) interacting with a book through ASL and English.