4.3 The second innovation: The Natural Auditory Oral Approach (NAOA), Cued Speech and
4.3.3 My first encounter with the Natural Auditory Oral Approach (NAOA)
153
154
of residual hearing through proper amplifications with proper technological devices. Research findings presented at the conference were extremely encouraging. With the optimal use of hearing aids, including cochlear implants and other supporting devices, Deaf children are able to acquire speech and language at the level of normal hearing children, although often at a slower rate. However, it is vital for Deaf learners to be surrounded by hearing children as much as possible.
Since then, I have read numerous empirical studies that have evaluated this approach.
Internationally, the findings show the same positive trends. Through this approach Deaf children make significant progress in language acquisition, receptive vocabulary and speech (Turan, 2010;
Turan, 2010; Young, Grohne, Carrasco & Brown, 2000). A recent case study conducted by Turan (2010) in Turkey indicated that the listening skills of Deaf children placed on the programme improved significantly. Longitudinal studies conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom by Turan (2010) revealed that children exposed to NAOA showed considerable improvement in speech. The key facets of NAOA are the creation of language-enriched learning contexts, the use of technology, high levels of support in classrooms, and intensive parental involvement.
The delegates at the workshop were a diverse group of people from organisations for the Deaf, schools for the Deaf, non-governmental organisations and the National Department of Education. I learned that the NAOA approach promoted complete inclusion for the Deaf learner in regular, mainstream classrooms and schools. Although I was impressed with the various presentations, particularly the results from the empirical studies, I could not help thinking that such an approach would without doubt raise highly political and ideological debates
— after all, it promoted mainstream education for the D/deaf.
Dr Clark presented evidence from her research conducted in Turkey, Japan, Singapore, Germany, Mauritius and Hungry to illustrate the success of NAOA in terms of speech and language outcomes for Deaf children using this programme.
155
Figure 57. Dr Morag Clark.
Figure 58. Classroom activity at the Aquarius School.
156
Part of the workshop programme involved delegates visiting the classrooms at the Aquarius School (Fig. 58). The Aquarius School is an independent private institution, with pre-school, primary school and high school sections. It is a mainstream, parallel-medium school offering English and Afrikaans as the languages of teaching and learning. The school is unique in that it caters for both hearing and Deaf learners. Deaf learners are educated alongside hearing learners.
Their classes comprise on average 25 learners. One Deaf learner for every five hearing learners tends to represent the composition of a classroom.
Without doubt, we were all impressed with the high language and literacy levels of the Deaf learners present at this school. We observed Deaf learners reading on par with their hearing peers. They were able to engage actively with texts, and to respond to questions based on texts read to them. When looking across the classroom, I was unable to distinguish the Deaf learners from those who were hearing during classroom participation. There were high levels of participation and involvement from all learners, including the Deaf.
I experienced a sense of euphoria. Would it finally be possible to achieve my cherished dream?
As the workshop proceeded and as I had predicted, the debates grew intense and exceedingly political at the various plenary and discussion sessions. There were two factions: the manualists (who promoted Sign Language and were rooted in Deaf culture), and the oralists. The manualists argued from a social-justice position that Sign Language was the only language for the Deaf and that any deviation from Sign Language was tantamount to oppression for the Deaf people and their minority culture. The oralists focused on the argument that the ultimate goal was for Deaf learners to become productive and independent citizens in a society that was predominantly a hearing world, and that it was essential to address the most pervasive barrier to full citizenship:
low levels of literacy and academic outcomes. To my utter dismay, the workshop ended with the Sign Language supporters storming out in anger and frustration. Those of us who remained were dumbstruck.
On our trip back to Durban, the audiologist and I contemplated our experience in silence for a good segment of the journey. I remember being absorbed in questions about why the discourses that circulate in Deaf education are so utterly and diametrically opposed to one another. Do they not see that the D/deaf are not a homogenous social group? Could they not concede that education had to cater for diversity in any learner population?
157
My audiologist and I then began interrogating our experience, and it was clearly an emotional space that we were in. We were experiencing all kinds of conflicting emotional spaces ranging from despair and trepidation to excitement and hope. We were adamant that deafness is more than a medical condition; and that education has to be responsive to diversity. We held strong joint views that for D/deaf children, identification with Deaf culture and the Deaf community is a crucial part of social-emotional development, in the same way as growing up with a particular ethnic or religious affiliation. In the same vein, we believed that the social and educational goal for D/deaf children is eventual and full integration into the larger society. Wauters and Knoors (2008), and Marschark and Knoors (2012) emphasise that the crucial goal is to leave the education system with the best possible proficiency in reading and writing.
We questioned our observations of the NAOA programme at the Aquarius School, particularly during the classroom visits. A number of key issues emerged that would prove critical to any decision we would take at our school.
Full audiological management was crucial to the programme, which included intensive parental support, parental guidance programmes, state of the art hearing aids, cochlear technology, advanced FM technology in every classroom (to ensure an optimal listening environment for the Deaf and to minimise the effect of distance background noise) and well-trained teacher assistants.
The Aquarius School is a private school that is funded by affluent parents who pay high school fees to fund the programme.
Not only are digital technology and support systems expensive to purchase, but the maintenance of such equipment requires sustained funding.
Many of the learners at this school had received or were awaiting cochlear implants.
A cochlear implant is when an electronic medical device is implanted surgically in the ear and replaces the function of the damaged inner ear. Unlike hearing aids, which make sounds louder, cochlear implants do the work of the damaged parts of the inner ear, (cochlea) to send sound signals to the brain. This is an expensive medical procedure with an estimated cost of R300 000 per ear in South Africa (Kerr, Tuomics & Muller, 2012).
The language of communication at the Aquarius School and the home language of the learner are the same, namely English. This is a critical advantage. English is the spoken and written language at school and is reinforced at home.
158
Strong links between the home and school are essential for support of the programme.
To this end, parents are provided with regular parental support sessions to assist the children in their home environment.
We navigated through a range of competing and complex emotions. We were in awe of the programme and its potential to enhance language and literacy. We were exhilarated by the powerful possibilities and outcomes that the programme promised. We agonised about the funding implications. We were filled with sadness and utter dismay that the key stakeholders of Deaf education could not work together in the best interests of our children. We were disappointed that ideology and political agendas blinded certain individuals, who clearly refused to acknowledge the worth of the programme in promoting language and literacy. Finally, we were consumed with fear and trepidation at the thought of having to face those who wielded power in Deaf education, if we made the choice to implement the programme at our school.
I questioned myself constantly in the days that followed.
Why can we not find common ground?
Why is there such a dichotomy in the ideological arguments?
Are the rights of our children truly the focus, their right to an equitable and quality education?
Can we not bridge the deep ideological divide?
If technology is utilised to enhance hearing, does this really translate into pathologising deafness and the Deaf culture?
This took me back to the concerns that had begun to become etched into my very heart and soul: the poor language and literacy levels of my learners. Was it not the task of us leaders to actively promote and protect the linguistic rights of learners by enhancing literacy? Is choice of language not a fundamental human right enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution?
The Sign Language Education and Development (SLED) organisation in South Africa recently released some troubling statistics that support the findings that most Deaf learners who matriculate are functionally illiterate (SLED, 2010). Because of this they are forced to find jobs as unskilled workers with meagre earnings, and find themselves generally trapped in a space of dependency and poverty. Findings by DeafSA (DeafSA, 2009) indicate that 75% of the Deaf
159
population in South Africa are functionally illiterate as a result of the poor literacy outcomes at school level.
My audiologist and I saw many barriers to the implementation of the NAOA at Hilltop School.
We realised that we would need funding as it would be a costly intervention. We would have to win the support of the school management team, the SGB, teachers and parents. As previously mentioned, Hilltop is a residential school that serves rural children whose families mostly live long distances away from the school. We were also aware that the school did not operate in a political vacuum. How would we deal with what would in all likelihood be strong opposition from powerful organisations that promoted the exclusive use of Sign Language in schools for the Deaf?
Despite these reservations, after a week of deep contemplation I decided I was going to embark on the ‘impossible’. I knew that no matter how challenging this would be, I had to seek the support of all the relevant stakeholders. I would have to sway them to embark on this risky endeavour. I was anxious and nervous, and experienced many troubled, sleepless nights.