Upholding rights of Deaf and Mute - Essay Example

Upholding the Rights of the Deaf and Mute Up to the early 70s, deaf and mute children had to suffer from thelack of government efforts to extend to the deaf and mute community adequate opportunity to get the same level of education that the hearing is receiving. That meant more than one million children could not attend regular school and were forced to attend special schools that were not sanctioned by the government. That meant school fees went way above what they can afford, curriculum did not match what is required by government, and there was no way on how policies may be questioned. Since many of these families weren’t earning enough to send children to a special private school, they were left with no choice but to keep their children at home with no education (Marschark, 1998). By mid the 70s, the congress finally became aware of this unfulfilled need. A series of laws were passed that were to provide the deaf and mute equal opportunity as the hearing. Different laws were enacted that covered the right that the deaf and mute should have been enjoying in the first place. The following policies were set in place (Lane, 1996): Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Public Law 94-142 (the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act) require that every deaf and mute child be given the same opportunity as the hearing to attend regular public schools with all their needs being met The Public Law 94-142 was amended in 1986 by Public Law 99-457 (Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986) to provide greater detail on ensuring that deaf and mute children enjoy the same privileges and opportunities as the hearing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was put in place in 1990 to encompass all the laws and policies that pertain to upholding of the rights of the deaf and mute Despite these efforts, there remain a lot of disparities between what the law is promising and what is actually being provided by public schools. In 1992, the Department of Education started a nationwide review on how public schools are meeting the requirement of the law when it comes to the deaf and mute and hard of hearing. Part of the objective of the review was also to identify the root of the problem on why many deaf and mute and hard of hearing still end up uneducated despite the law’s assurance that they are to be accommodated by public schools (Karchmer, 2003). The Department of Education learned that the biggest problem of the deaf and mute children that prevents them from getting the same opportunities as the hearing children is communication. Many of the public schools already accommodate deaf and mute children but are not providing these children with the same communication tools that are appropriate for their needs. The deaf and mute communication needs are highly specialised and, when unfulfilled, could be isolating. Worse, the absence of communication tool for the deaf and mute are making them perform poorly in school. It is affecting their ability to learn and develop their skills side by side other children. The deaf and mute and hard of hearing are also finding it difficult to develop relationships with their hearing classmate (Karchmer, 2003). More than one study has already testified that the transmission of knowledge outside of the classroom is critical in the growth of child and in the development of a child’s skills and abilities (Armstrong, 1994; Crossley, 2000; Curry; 1983; Mills 1959). When there is not enough socialization and interaction outside of the school, confidence and self-esteem also don’t develop enough to give them the willingness to pursue careers that the hearing is able to pursue (Marjoribanks, 200). The Department of Education also discovered that many public schools are not interpreting that laws correctly that are leading to many deaf and mute children being rejected by many public schools. Public schools are imposing the same requirement from the deaf and mute and are being screened in the same way as hearing children are being screened and tested. This meant that their exams, requirements and teaching are being done the same way as the exams, requirements and teaching of the hearing. Given that that the communication requirement of the deaf and mute are different from that of the hearing, many deaf and mute who get to enrol in public schools are left behind or, worse, forced to eventually drop out. The Department of Education clarified that the LRE provisions of the IDEA and Section 504 actually require public schools to meet the communication needs of the deaf and mute. This means that classes with deaf and mute and hard of hearing student are to be provided with sign language interpreters, different sections in the schools that require direct communication must have a sign interpreter at hand when needed. This is, in fact, the heart of the IDEA. The Department of Education that only when the deaf and mute and hard of hearing are extended these benefits should they be measured by the same standards as the hearing. A further clarification was made. Other public places and offices such as hospitals are required by law to provide the deaf and mute and hard of hearing the communication tools they need, i.e. sign language interpreters. This clarification led to the development of the Individual Education Plan (IEP) specifically for the deaf and mute and heard of hearing children. The IEP is the system that lays the system and process on how deaf and mute and hard of hearing children are to be assured they are getting the same opportunities as the hearing in regular public schools. It determines if the child need assistive technology, additional medical care, and other communication tools. It also assessed whether a child needs higher level of socialization outside and within the classroom. This review proved to be the most critical move, next to the enactment of the law, in ensuring that the deaf and mute as it supported the Bilingual Education Act of 1988. The law clarified the meaning of the phrases native language and limited English proficiency. For the first time, deaf and hard of hearing students were included in this terminology which assured the students that sign language is being recognized to be a par with other languages. As such, the deaf and mute, whose primary language is signing, are to enjoy and be recognized as other whose primary language is not English. The most telling and most critical of part of the whole process is the determination that it is only fairly recently that society is finally understanding the needs of the deaf. As such, continuous review must be done ensure that no one’s rights is violated and overlooked. There are more than 28.8 million (GRI, 2003) deaf and hard of hearing people in America and each of their rights must be preserved and upheld. References Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Crossley, M. (2000). Introducing Narrative Psychology: Self, Trauma and the Construction of Meaning, Buckingham: Open University Press. Curry, Lynn. (1983). An organization of learning style theory and constructs. ERIC Document, 235, 185. Gallaudet Research Institute (2003, December) Regional and national summary report of data from the 2002–2003 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth (GRI, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC). Karchmer MA, Mitchell RE (2003) in Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard of hearing students, eds Marschark M, Spencer PE (Oxford University Press, New York), pp 21–37. Lane, H., Hoffmesiter, R.., & Bahan, B., 1996. A Journey Into the Deaf-World, New York: DawnSignPress Marjoribanks, T. (2000) News Corporation, Technology and the Workplace: Global Strategies, Local Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Marschark, M. (1998). Raising and Educating a Deaf Child, New York: Oxford University Press Mills, C.W., (1959). The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press Read More