For parents who are informed that their child is deaf or hard of hearing, the number one concern is how they will be able to communicate with their child. My mother told me that when she learned I was deaf, when I was 13 months old, what pained her most was thinking I would never hear her say “I love you.” Yet with the advent of novel technologies, more and more children are gaining access to sound.
Though technology has developed rapidly and recognition of the power of individuals with disabilities has heightened immensely over the past few decades, those who are deaf or hard of hearing continue to face huge barriers to full integration into society. The realm of higher education is just one area where these challenges are overwhelmingly evident. Because one’s access to and experience in higher education can determine life outcomes — from employment opportunities to standards of living — better integration for the deaf in higher education is crucial to levelling the playing field.
Accessing Communication
There are four major communication approaches that deaf individuals can elect to pursue: Listening and Spoken Language, American Sign Language, Cued Speech, and Total Communication. While these methods all provide the hard of hearing with a mode of communicating with others, each has its own risks and shortcomings.
Listening and Spoken Language is the most common communication approach that involves using hearing devices such as hearing aids or cochlear implants and undergoing speech therapy to develop normal hearing and speaking skills. Today, more than 88 percent of families choose an LSL outcome for their deaf child, and that number is likely to continue to grow as incorporating deaf individuals into a mainstream school environment becomes more commonplace.
The deaf community, comprised of those who are “culturally deaf” and communicate primarily through American Sign Language, is often opposed to using hearing technology, as it is viewed as a suppression of deaf culture. The communication method predominantly used by this group, ASL, does not involve verbal communication, but instead relies on hand gestures to replace spoken words.
Cued Speech is a third form of communication which combines gestures with audible speech, aiming to allow children to internalize the basis of spoken language by making spoken language visible. Lack of trained professionals and services for those using cued speech has resulted in its waning popularity as a major communication approach for the deaf.
Finally, Total Communication is the most integrative of the strategies, defined as a “philosophy of educating children with hearing loss that incorporates all means of communication — formal signs, natural gestures, fingerspelling, body language, listening, lipreading and speech.” In an interview with HPR, Karen Putz, co-director of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Infusion at Hands & Voices, the leading organization promoting Total Communication, emphasized that it is not a uniform methodology so much as a guiding approach to encouraging language development.
Foundations for Success
Today, there is a lack of robust data that compares these four approaches. In spite of this, the widespread academic consensus is that regardless of the communication method used, early intervention, parental involvement, and an accompanying educational model to enhance early spoken language skills are the three major determinants of success among deaf children.
The first, early intervention, refers to the importance of diagnosing deaf children with hearing loss early in their lives. An article published in 2010 from the University of London concluded that the most successful deaf children, based on age-level reading skill attainment, tended to have earlier diagnoses. The largest benefits of early intervention can be seen with children who undergo surgery to receive cochlear implants at a young age, allowing them to fully access sound. A 2010 article in Otology and Neurotology concludes that “deaf children receiving cochlear implants before the age of 18 months show more rapid progress in auditory performance and speech intelligibility in comparison to children implanted at an older age.”
The second, often overlooked, key factor for success — family involvement — was highlighted in a Michigan State University study from 2000. Much of the success of a deaf individual, especially when pursuing a communication method that utilizes sound, is contingent upon having technology that is appropriately fitted, programmed, and worn consistently, along with broad and extensive access to therapy. Dedicated parents, therapists, and audiologists are integral to the success of children pursuing an LSL approach, along with consistent exposure to sound.
A longitudinal analysis published in June 2018 solidifies the relationship between childhood spoken language skills and adolescent reading comprehension, underscoring the importance of developing language skills early in order to reach proper educational attainment later in life — the third widely agreed-upon determinant of success. Further, there exists a clear link between the quantity and quality of sound and children’s educational outcomes. Early intervention to maximize the quantity of sound delivered, and the use of cochlear implants — the most powerful sound-provision technology — are thus two mechanisms through which these first two key variables can be prioritized to improve educational outcomes.
Disparities in Educational Attainment
Today, 90 percent of deaf children elect to pursue spoken language as a communication method and spend their school day among hearing peers. Yet despite this heartening shift toward equal access to education, deaf individuals continue to experience much lower educational attainment than the general population. Robust studies from the United States, Finland, United Kingdom, and Sweden, for example, conclude that deaf individuals have levels of education attainment that range anywhere from half to one-quarter of the rates of their hearing peers. And while the educational level of the deaf has increased over time, these gains are only on par with those of the general population, despite greatly expanded access to services and more comprehensive legislation.
The most significant legislation that educational institutions must abide by regarding students with disabilities are the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The IDEA mandates that “to the extent possible, students must be educated in the least restrictive environment,” and schools have tended to interpret that to mean accommodating students within the mainstream school system. Under these laws, all schools, including colleges and universities, are required to “provide qualified interpreters, captioning (now called CART), assistive listening devices, and other auxiliary aids and services to deaf and hard of hearing students” and the cost of such services is not to be imposed on the individual with disabilities. For those with a hearing loss, accessible buildings and facilities must also be provided, which can often take the form of visual fire/smoke alarms and bed-shaker alarm clocks.
Despite these and other great strides that have been made to equalize access to education for those who are deaf and hard of hearing, a significant gap remains: only 83 percent of deaf individuals receive a high school diploma, as opposed to 89 percent of hearing individuals. In an interview with HPR, Gayla Guignard, the chief strategy officer from the Alexander Graham Bell Association, attributed this disparity to a lack of equal access. Guignard explained that “if you are in a classroom and you don’t have a notetaker, don’t have CART, or don’t have assistive listening devices, then you don’t have access to your education, and you are not in a situation where the playing field is level.” That is what the ADA is about — leveling the playing field.
Increasingly, universities have recognized the value of the perspectives that students with disabilities bring to college campuses and are working to increase diversity within their student bodies. But still, a surprisingly low 1.5 percent of all students registered with the Accessible Education Office at Harvard University report having some type of a hearing loss, according to Grace Moskola, the director of the Accessible Education Office. Nonetheless, in an interview with the HPR, Moskola emphasized the importance of recognizing disability as an important aspect of diversity, explaining the AEO’s philosophy centering on “equity, access, and social justice for all students.” She noted that an important component of fulfilling this mission lies in forming relationships with partner organizations on campus, including Counseling and Mental Health Services, University Disability Services, the Bureau of Study Council, BGLTQ+ Services, and others to adopt a truly holistic approach to providing accommodations to students. Efforts like those at Harvard forecast a more equitable future ahead.
Employment and Life Outcomes
Employers who value a diverse workforce are also aiming to increase representation from this historically underrepresented talent pool. A 2018 report from McKinsey concludes that “many successful companies regard [Inclusion and Diversity] as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” Lime Connect, an organization that connects talented individuals with disabilities with top employers, is working to “rebrand disability through achievement,” shattering stereotypes about individuals with disabilities.
Despite the optimism from organizations like Lime Connect, reality paints a slightly grimmer picture of the achievement gap that still exists for those who are deaf. While a third of the normally hearing population receive a bachelor’s degree in the United States, less than a fifth of deaf individuals do. Though official unemployment rates are similar for deaf and hearing individuals, this statistic is highly misleading as close to half of deaf individuals are not even considered to be in the labor force — defined as those who are working or actively seeking a job. In comparison, the labor force participation rate for those who can hear normally is twice as high. This can mean that deaf individuals experience long-term unemployment or give up seeking work, among myriad other possible explanations. It is heartening, though, that salaries for those deaf individuals who do work mirror those of their similarly educated hearing colleagues, reflecting a similar rate of pay increases accompanying higher educational attainment.
Looking Forward
With early intervention and years of therapy, it is possible for deaf children to achieve the same level of educational and life outcomes as their hearing peers. Ultimately, improving outcomes for deaf individuals comes down to increasing access to information, language, and resources. Guignard emphasized the importance of providing parents with adequate information to empower them to make decisions regarding their child’s communication method and educational placement. She stated, “Our goal is awareness, and providing parents with the resources they need to ensure that their child will arrive in school ready and able to learn.” Organizations such as the National Institute for the Deaf and the Alexander Graham Bell Association are also working to increase awareness and access to information.
It is also clear that for deaf individuals to reach their fullest potential, the first few years of life make all the difference. Early and effective access to language, regardless of its form, is the most important factor in supporting educational outcomes among deaf children, with those exposed to sound and/or therapy earlier performing better on standard indicators of literacy.
Finally, access to resources in an educational setting is imperative to promoting learning among deaf children. Continuous and robust monitoring from a young age is crucial to ensuring grade-level language skill attainment. Frequent testing and implementation of adjustments are necessary to continuously refine the accomodations provided both inside and outside of the classroom setting.
Armed with the knowledge of these key components for success — better technology, more robust legislation, and increased accessibility of information — this generation has an unshakable foundation on which to build a society where deaf individuals are valued and provided the resources they need to succeed.
Image credit: flickr/Travis Isaacs