Disabiling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf Education

Index

133 Apple Hills, 56–75; adopting bilingual pedagogy at, 56, 71; Auslan at, 57, 58, 59, 60–63, 65–66, 73; barriers to bilingual programs at, 71, 74–75; changing teaching practices at, 57, 73; Deaf Community at, 65–66, 69–70; deaf students at, 58, 67–68, 69, 75; demonstration lessons of Auslan at, 67, 68; developing bilingual programs at, 58; effect of Auslan on children’s language development at, 65–67, 69; impact of bilingual program at, 63; language practices in deaf education and, 57; modeling of bilingual practices at, 59, 63, 67, 68; native sign language at, 60; rejection of Signed English and Total Communication at, 58; use of Signed English, 58–59, 64, 66, 68–69, 72; teachers’ lack of Auslan skills at, 64, 71, 72, 74 Aquiline, Carol-Lee, 8, 109 Auslan, 4, 18–19, 28–29, 41–42; access to, 24–25, 27, 40, 84, 102; as language of instruction, 15, 48, 56, 82, 83, 102, 110, 112; as LOTE, 31, 32, 99; as sign-supported speech, 51; at Apple Hills, 57, 58, 59, 60–63, 65–66, 73; controversies about, 52, 93; differences with English, 30, 32, 98; exclusion from classroom, 16, 22, 24, 36, 38, 80–83, 85, 100–101, 102–3, 107; first dictionary of, 52; how represented in courts, 87–100, 103; inappropriate for deaf children from hearing families 23; incentives for teachers that use, 81; increasing interest in, 37; marginalization of, 32, 38; negative views of, 98–99, 103; potential barrier to acquiring literacy, 60, 82, 83, 87, 99, 113; recognition of linguistic legitimacy of, 11, 52, 56, 107–8, 110, 113; signs of, 13–14, 67–69; teachers proficiency in, 3, 6, 8, 26, 31, 37–38, 53–54, 55, 80, 82–83; tool of communication, 30, 66. See also language, native sign language Australia: bilingual programs in, 5, 52–53, 75, 76, 85, 99; Federal Court of, 84, 86; High Court of, 108; history of deaf education in, 12–16; human rights policy of, 76–77, 108; language policy in, 35–38; limited number of Deaf people in Index 134 Index educational institutions in, 9; recognition of Auslan, 113; recognition of Deaf Community as minority, 113; recognition of sign language, 107; rights of linguistic minorities in, 77, 112 Australia’s Language, The Australian Language and Literacy Policy, 52 Australian Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 102 Australian Association of the Deaf, 8, 17, 36, 55, 107; policy on education, 110 Australian Capital Territory Catholic Education Office: complaint against, 87–93 Australian case law, 101 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), 78, 79, 81, 83, 86 Australian Sign Language, 13, 17, 52 Australian Sign Language Development Project, 13 Australian universities, 39 Beasley v. Victorian Department of Education, Employment, and Training, 87; details of, 95–97 bilingual education, 6, 18, 48, 65, 72, 74, 75, 82, 103; barriers to, 38, 55; comparisons with foreign languages, 56; deaf children’s right to, 109, 112; lack of, 27, 86, 94; successes of, 52, 62, 64, 68, 70; supporters’ views of, 55; teacher’s concerns about, 21, 37, 60, 63, 71. See also bilingual programs bilingual practices: modeled, 18, 59, 63, 67, 68 bilingual programs: absence of, 86, 94; as agents of change, 16; Deaf people central in, 33; failure of educational authorities to consider, 104; growing number of, 3, 76; in Australia, 5, 52–53, 75, 76, 85, 99; in Sweden, 34, 52, 113; in United States, 52; increasing interest in, 37; parents lobbying for, 64–73, 82; studies of, 17–21, 41–50, 85. See also bilingual education Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 106 British Sign Language, 110 Clarke v. Catholic Education Office and Another, 86; advising against Auslan, 90; comments of Justice Madgwick , 90–93; allegations of discrimination, 88–89; details of, 87–93; distinction made between native sign language and Total Communication, 90; limited access to Auslan, 88, 89 cochlear implants and surgery, 1, 18, 15, 51 Commonwealth Office of Education, 13 communication, 37, 65, 69; approaches to, 21–34; Auslan as tool of, 30, 66; critical view Australia (continued) Index 135 of in action, 36–38; in Clarke v. Catholic Education Office and Another, 90–92; in Hurst and Devlin v. Education Queensland , 94, 96; interaction with language, 4, 16, 30, 54, 96; limited between deaf and hearing students, 67; methods of, 97, 102, 106, 107; structures that control, 36...