Editorial: Half of What We Taught You Is Wrong: The Problem Is We Don't Know Which Half

The above, probably apocryphal, statement has been attributed to a dean at a medical school commencement. Although it may not apply directly to us, there may be an element of truth in it. Or perhaps the dean had more self awareness than we do. For those of us who have the responsibility of preparing teachers, conducting research, and/or preparing teachers of teachers, the present time can be one of questioning and uncertainty. This, then, also applies to teachers and other professionals working directly with deaf students.

It was not too many years ago that a person training to become a teacher of the deaf received essentially the same instruction regardless of the location of the program. She or he would learn to use the Fitzgerald Key, memorize the Northampton Charts, be told that signs should not be used with children below 12 years of age, if ever, so the students would have the opportunity to succeed or fail orally. Math and science instruction were considered to be unimportant and should be secondary to speech and language, which really meant English. Deaf children attended residential schools or separate day schools and the residential schools not only acted in loco parentis, they should, in fact, be essentially parents.

I was taught all of these shibboleths when I was a graduate student at Gallaudet. I do not even mention any of them in the courses I currently teach and I cannot remember the last time I did. Looking back, the major benefit of my experience was getting to know a variety of deaf college students, many of whom are still friends and colleagues. The professors who taught the classes were intelligent, dedicated people who firmly believed what they were passing on to us. Their information and perspectives, however, are no longer relevant.

This, of course, brings us to the present. The process of change has sped up and there is no likelihood that it will slow down in the foreseeable future. Will everything, or anything, we teach (and preach) be relevant in 20 years?

There is an almost endless list of issues that we should and must be addressing. I would like to mention a few.

Cochlear Implants. Although implantation has been more popular in Australia and northern and western Europe, the procedure is spreading in the United States and its spread is inevitable. Personally, I would not want to implant an infant of my own, but I am not a parent of a deaf child. I am also aware that miniaturization is occurring and the devices are becoming more sophisticated. The question is, regardless of personal opinion, what do we do about the reality? Do we modify our curricula? Should these children be outside of our area of instruction? We already know from research in Scandinavia that many parents who chose an oral emphasis for their young implanted children are asking for more sign communication now that the children are adolescents. What are the implications for us and what do we tell parents and our students?

Inclusion. Theoretically mainstreaming, integration, and inclusion are separate concepts and imply different philosophies. In practice, they reflect a consistent mind-set that has been with us since the passage of PL 94–142 more than 30 years ago, which has evolved into the IDEA legislation. In fact, I believe it is a mind-set that was promulgated by A. G. Bell 150 years ago. That, in short, is the belief that it is better for deaf children to be taught with, and socialize with, hearing children rather than with deaf children. To me, this is discriminatory. Rather than use academic placement as a means to an end, it becomes an end in itself. I cannot put myself into the mind of a 10- or 12-year-old deaf boy or girl—none of us can—but it goes against the philosophy of making curriculum and placement choices on the basis of individual needs to set inclusion as a measure of success.

ASL. I believe we have a dilemma here. ASL has unprecedented popularity across the...