Laying the Groundwork for the Future of Education of the Deaf

Laying the Groundwork for the Future of Education of the Deaf Forum Summarist: S. Richard Silverman, Director Emeritus, Central Institutefor the Deaf Eight years ago Bill Castle, along with Ross Stuckless invited me to update The Conquest ofDeafness by Ruth Bender. I cannot resist quoting from a chapter in that revision. Referring to the 1965 Babbidge report, I wrote: "It is jarring to quote the first sentence in the summary of recommendations of that report: "The American people have no reason to be satisfied with their limited success in educating deaf children and for preparing them for full participation in our society.' Will the social ambiance and the deinsularization and maturation of the field discussed in (my) chapter cause a commission reporting in 1985 to write in a more commendatory vein? For all concerned with penetrating the barrier of silence that is the question." Some 20 years later such a commission is preparing to tackle that question again. My assignment is to summarize the 1987 Forum on Education of the Deaf. Based on our discussion at this propitious meeting we may lay the groundwork for the future of our field. Change, the Common Thread The major theme of the Forum has been change. Not a single presentation failed to address the changes we're experiencing , noting with varying degrees of emphasis its rapidity , its unpredictability, its pervasiveness and its complexity. The recognition of the opportunity for improvement which change presents is certainly our responsibility. Conversely, indifference to change is fraught with dire consequences for all of us, for the nation, for the world and for what brings us together here, our profession. In a very general sense, implicit in the remarks of most of our Forum speakers was a recognition of widespread consciousness raising about education among professionals, parents, politicians and, very importantly, the general public . The evidence is all around us. One report after another exhorts us to strive for excellence and urges curricular changes to attain it. We are, like it or not, part of the movement and we should exploit the climate that it creates. Identifying with a national trend reminds me of the '60s, when professionals, the deaf community and others concerned with deafness shared dissatisfaction with their place in the national scheme of things with various identifiable "minorities." We became actors in the emergence of vigorous , persistent demands for civic, social and economic rights. The current national attitude towards education confronts us with a distressing background of conditions, forces and problems that seem intractable. They challenge our best minds. Many of our speakers noted them and they are germane to our concerns if for no other reasons than that some of these problems are likely to compete with our quests for funds. We may wind up quite low on the list of priorities,· given the condition of our national social and economic health. Among these rather diverse problems mentioned by the speakers were illiteracy, dropping out, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, shifts in demographics (most notably the increase in proportions of minority groups), decline in America 's international competitiveness and increased national indebtedness . This is quite a hodgepodge of issues, but all in some way affect us. We should not fail to appreciate that we are not only members of a profession but also American citizens responsibly concerned with the national welfare. Individually and collectively we need to examine seriously the basis for the tough decisions that lie ahead. More specifically, our speakers from Capitol Hill, Judy Wagner and Pat Morrissey, brought us up to date on legislative actions and proposals of the Congress and anticipated issues of the '88 election campaign. They suggested we foster a coalition to promote preschool education, technology, job accommodation, adult literacy and bilingual education, which they foresaw as politically appealing. Questions from the audience indicated a gnawing concern about the various and conflicting interpretations of the "least restrictive environment." It reminds us once again that we need to understand the legislative process. Congress passes legislation and then moves on to other matters, leaving the writing of regulations and interpretation to others. Participants in the audience complained of ineffective congressional oversight. The issue of placement surfaced frequently , sometimes directly and sometimes...