A Note from the President
By Samuel J. Supalla
Is the Signed Language Interpreter Delivery System Robbing Deaf People?
I chose the title of this President's Note decidedly, posing a question to help us all think more
critically. I recently became aware of a particular crisis when I attended the Articulating Deaf
Experiences conference on November 6 th – 9 th in Rochester, New York. The National Technical
Institute for the Deaf (NTID) sponsored the event, and there I learned about a slow decline in student
applications and enrollment at this institution. This trend is confirmed over the last several years
according to the NTID Annual Report, as written in 2018 as part of meeting the Education of the Deaf
Act's requirement. As we all know, schools for the deaf around the country have experienced dramatic
student enrollment declines with some closing down. Over 80% of all deaf students in the United
States are currently placed in a regular public school for their education. One scholar wrote that
signed language interpreting has become synonymous with integration. Interpreted education has
become a powerful force all of its own. This explains, in large part, what is happening in American
society right now.
Due to policy constraints, I see great pressure for deaf students from Kindergarten through 12th
grade to study and learn alongside non-disabled students who can hear and speak. Deaf students are
provided with signed language interpreting services as if this will help make 'integration' work for this
population. I cannot help but scratch my head over the fact that hearing students who only know
Spanish would not be provided interpreters, for example. These students will need to learn English as
a second language and participate in typical educational programming. The fact that deaf students do
not enjoy access to English suggests a different course for policy. This is especially true concerning
how educators can best address deaf students' needs as signers. The importance of signing schools
cannot be further emphasized. Included here is the provision of a special reading methodology that
will help deaf students become fluent readers of English as a second language.
The widespread practice of providing signed language interpreting services for deaf students is
a poorly conceived notion. It does not matter if educational interpreters use ASL and 'help' deaf
students with communication needs, when the speaking schools themselves remain restrictive through
their curriculum and teaching practices. I understand that deaf students may be provided with itinerant
teachers of the deaf if needed, but that is not the appropriate way of addressing their educational
needs.
Deaf people and their allies in the hearing society need to take the term 'integration' back and
define what it truly means for deaf students. The current definition for integration applies to people
who can hear only. Deaf students continue to be excluded regardless of the fact that they may be
present in a regular public school. Special education deserves a hard look at its conceptualization of
education for students with disabilities and needs for alignment with the Education of the Deaf Act.
Reframing deaf education into signed language education is an important course of action to
undertake. This will help elevate the educational role of ASL as it holds the key to deaf students'
cognition for learning and measurement purposes, which includes the creation of a normatively rare
database.
(Continue on the next page)
The Power of ASL
5
Winter 2019 – Issue 16