4.2 Troubling language policy and curriculum practices at Hilltop School: Where did it all
4.2.1 Collaborating for change: A pilot project for the hard of hearing
4.2.1.2 Self-questioning our professional practices
After a week of pondering, I daringly began discussions with staff, sharing my concerns and reflections, and inviting them to engage with me. I was as open as I could be, laid bare my own limitations and inadequacies in this area of the curriculum, and invited what I sincerely believed to be their expert advice and support. The debates we had were intense, absorbing, honest and extremely insightful. Staff voiced their fears, concerns, possible barriers to change and different possibilities. Figure 36 is an extract from my diary that captures my thoughts at the time.
Figure 36. Journal extract: 18 August 2002.
These were all troubling questions. I was pleased to notice that the staff were beginning to self- question their professional practices. Many critical issues emerged from debates and discussions, including the fear of change, the concern about exclusionary pressures from certain sectors in Deaf education who were thought to be politically powerful, and anxiety about how the curriculum would be reconfigured and mediated for learners.
From these discussions I came to see that the hard-of-hearing learners were exposed to what I considered exclusionary pressures and even exploitation in our classrooms. This deeply troubled
124
me. Teachers were using them almost as teacher assistants! My question was the following:
Although using learners as resources to peers is a good concept, to what extent was this compromising access to education for the hard-of-hearing in this context? A class teacher commented at one of our meetings:
We use the hard of hearing learners to help us to communicate with those that are profoundly Deaf.
Since hard of hearing children understand us better when we sign and speak, they are able to teach other children. They are like teacher assistants and can communicate better with other learners using Sign Language. They are able to use two different languages, English and Sign Language. We really depend on them. But because we are a signing school, we don’t really encourage them to speak in the classroom to other learners. Sometimes some teachers pretend that these learners can’t hear.
(Mjwara, 2002) A member of my management team made the following remarks:
In the hostels, there is often rivalry between those who can speak and those who cannot speak. Although only a few learners can speak, they are regarded as the ‘pets’ of the housemothers. Everyone knows them because of the recognition they receive from the hostel staff. Because they can speak, they communicate better with the staff and are therefore always required to run errands and assist the staff with communication. Staff in the hostel have limited signing skills; therefore, the hard-of-hearing learners are considered valuable to them in their work.
(Sithole, 2002) These critical issues mentioned in the extracts above intensified my determination for a strategic intervention for the learners at Hilltop School. I grew strongly committed to the goal of unlocking the literacy potential for all Deaf learners, including those who were hard-of-hearing.
To my dismay, I learned that hard-of-hearing learners were very rarely assessed. Elementary audiological tests were conducted for admission purposes only. In addition, due to limited funding and the shortage of adequately trained audiological staff, hearing aids were allocated only to newly admitted learners. New admissions averaged about twenty learners per year. The primary aim of the hearing aid for these Deaf learners was not to access speech sounds but to identify louder environmental sounds. I was assured by the audiologist that an increase in the identification of environmental sounds was a safety precaution for Deaf learners; for example, when a Deaf child attempts to cross a road, he or she will be able to hear the low-pitch sounds of cars and trucks approaching through the use of a hearing aid.
125
I requested audiological testing of our learners to ascertain and identify the total number of hard- of-hearing learners in the school. The outcome of these results was that twenty-four learners out of a total of 320 learners had moderate hearing loss. Moderate hearing loss means that learners would be able to access speech sounds with appropriate amplification. The assessments further revealed that these learners were able to speak, although not completely fluently. They were using English as a form of communication with each other in social settings, such as playgrounds, dining halls and in the hostels. It was interesting to note, however, that they did not speak in the classroom.
In the days that followed, I sensed a new excitement in the attitude of both the therapist and audiologist as they began to question their own professional practices within the school. They soon agreed that the learners who possessed usable residual hearing were marginalised by a curriculum that failed to cater for the language needs of the hard-of-hearing learner. They proceeded to petition for a language policy that would address this inequality. They explained that with appropriate auditory management, in terms of hearing aids and speech and language therapy, these learners were capable of using audition as their primary channel for acquiring an auditory-based language system. The audiologist reassured me further with the following remarks that I recorded in my journal (Fig. 37):
Figure 37. Journal extract: 1 September 2002.
126
The conclusions that arose from the assessments by the audiology team inspired a new confidence in me. It became clear that it was imperative for the school to design a language policy that would cater for the diversity of all learners within the school. Thus, when the audiologist and speech therapist suggested a pilot project for the hard-of-hearing learners, I felt that my prayers had finally been answered. I agreed with the proposal that the Grade 5 hard-of- hearing learners (those I had heard speaking outside my office) would constitute the pilot class.
There were ten learners in total. I decided that grouping the Grade 6 learners in one class would be an easy operational task. To my surprise, a substantial number of teachers showed enthusiasm for this idea (Fig. 38). Many now came to understand that the language curriculum for those who were hard-of-hearing needed urgent review. An insightful interview with a Grade 5 teacher conducted during the writing of this thesis captures this sense of enthusiasm:
I was very excited at the prospect of the new class. I often felt that it would be a good idea to have all those that were hard-of-hearing in one class. So when I heard that it was going to happen I was overjoyed. But I was also worried because I knew that there would be some that wouldn’t be happy at this idea since some learners were helping teachers teach other learners. I knew that the timetable would have to change and we would have to include speech reading as well as adopting the oral approach while still being aware that the speech therapists would guide and support in the process. I knew that the learners were going to benefit so I was willing to work hard and help them.
(Radebe, 2012)
Figure 38. Discussing the hard-of-hearing pilot class at a staff development workshop.
127