After vehemently protesting a classmate’s opining on how Latin@s*–“illegal” ones, to be exact—have more language rights than Deaf U.S. citizens do, based on the availability of the “press 2 for español” telephone option. The professor emailed me later in the day, urging me to remove emotions from classroom discussions.

When I name statements rooted in oppression from classmates, professors have asked me to go back on track and cite “research” to support my claims.

What to do? I cannot, based on principle, allow an –ism to be said without naming it for what it is for the aim of community accountability.

I have been labeled as “too much,” “pompous,” “bitchy,” “not safe” and god knows what else when it comes to my dialectic style. In the past two years, I’ve attempted to tweak my approaches so that the message remains true, and deliverable within the classroom—but the status quo, adept as ever, counters with numerous refutations.

~

Academia has long been my intellectual refuge—a place where I could declare my innermost politicized ruminations, engage in hearty, challenging, and sometimes heart-wrenching dialogues that transformed into greater consciousness.

But this refuge is being threatened by the sweeping dismissal of emotions’ place in the classroom. To be told that you are being emotional—ESPECIALLY as a woman of color—is to experience a steel door slammed in your face, its metallic properties reverberating in your thoughts, your spirit even as you walk far, far, far away from the site whereupon such occurred. It remains within you, a heady rejection that makes you feel as if judging eyes are omnipresent, as if your thoughts must be contained, sealed, labeled for the protection of others. It, in short, makes you lonely.

We are reared to believe that emotions are automatic invalidations of academic discourses. But—discourses without emotions are direct contributions to the power systems that dictate our unconscious obedience. And through such unconscious obedience, many of us go on to create micro-scale systems in our classrooms, hierarchizing, organizing permissible and condemnable behaviors. When we permit such micro-scale organizations to occur, we perpetuate very real social categorizations based on the disenfranchisement of specific experiences that historically and currently have no solid place in academia.

In short, we become complicit with oppression.

~

Professors and students who turn their back to this reality take part in the continuation of monochromatic, monolingual, monosexual, monogendered (and so on) paradigms of the white, straight, male, able-bodied, wealthy dictations of what constitutes of “true” academia. The experiences and realities of other groups go on to endure repetitious stampedes that trample out their validity—and it all happens with

“You’re getting too emotional”

“I’m keeping emotions out of this”

“Don’t get angry”

“I can’t even listen to you now because of your behavior”

“Emotions aren’t the way”

“Just calm down.”

I won’t calm down. Instead, I’ll continue to follow the doctrine of the great Audre Lorde, who gave us words of wisdom that live on through those who engage in the struggle.

When we turn from anger, we turn from insight, saying we will accept only the designs already known, deadly and safely familiar…

My anger is no excuse for not dealing with your blindness, no reason to withdraw from the results of your own actions.

-The Uses of Anger

1981

~

How do I go on? I have not found neatly packaged answers yet. My insides remain messy, turbulent. I dredge through, trying to find seeds of love amid the destruction.

Despite this chaos, I know, I do know: we have to find the seeds whereupon we can plant the roots for a community of love, roots that can uphold us through the discomfort of decolonizing processes. While academia represents a multitude of colonizations, we owe it to the unseen/unheard to plant these seeds, so that our personhood can be fully realized through the human experience of sharing our emotions in the Ivory Tower. Only then can we reconstruct learning as for everyone, in all places of anger, struggle, joy, and peace.

-Dedicated, as always, to those who fight the good fight, tirelessly and constantly. this is for all of us.

[Editor's Note: The term "Latin@s" is derived from the use of gendered nouns in Spanish (Latino and Latina) and is meant to promote gender equality. This article first appeared in the author's blog on 2/16/12.]

Over the following years, I saw the growth of the VRS industry, and I applauded the arrival of several Deaf-owned VRS companies, as I believe that we, as Deaf people, must grow our own economic power, and support our people in doing so.  Ryan Commerson discussed this idea well in his video “VRS: Our Economic Power?”  Therefore, it was with dismay that several years ago, I saw several Deaf-owned VRS companies indicted by the FCC for engaging in fraud, with several executives of these companies (some of whom I knew personally) sentenced to jail  for their actions.  (I could digress into the fact that several Hearing-owned companies engaged in the same practices but managed to get out of it with a simple fine and no jail time for their executives, but that is not relevant to this discussion).  Video Relay Services are a needed and vital service for Deaf people to achieve functional equivalence to Hearing people who can use a telephone, and I do not want to see our VRS services being lost.  Since the VRS services are funded through the FCC, I entirely understand the FCC’s desire to end the abuse of the funds it disburses, and wholeheartedly endorse its search for ways to ensure the accountability and ethicality of VRS providers.

However, the FCC’s latest solution appears to be this: instead of paying for each user’s actual time (per minute) of VRS use, each VRS user would be assigned a certain amount of money (per year) which would be used by the VRS companies to pay for the costs incurred in providing services to the users.  To illustrate and simplify, each of us would be given $100 in our personal “bank” to be used for VRS calls.  I tend to use Convo for my VRS calls.  Let’s say I made a one-minute call, and Convo billed the FCC $1 for that minute of my time.  However, suppose for some reason or other, I decided to use another service, let’s say Purple, and made another 1-minute call.  Purple would then be enabled to bill the FCC for another dollar.  In an honest world, with honest operators, this system would work fine and be entirely equitable.  But of course, our world is not quite so idyllic and utopian.  The FCC fears that under a per-user plan, it might be possible for each user to register with multiple VRS providers, resulting in the FCC’s paying more than the amount ($100) established for each user.  To prevent such a fraudulent occurrence, the FCC proposes that each user be “locked in” to ONE VRS provider, for a certain period of time (possibly 1 – 2 years).

I am personally opposed to such a plan, and in discussions with friends, I have found that I am not alone.  I think this plan is not only short-sighted, but it is potentially harmful to us as consumers of Video Relay Services.  First, it is my strong belief that VRS consumers, like consumers of any industry, benefit most by having freedom of choice – the choice to utilize the service that best suits their needs and interests.  Currently, if I feel that one VRS service does not meet my needs or interests, I am free to patronize other services, either exclusively or at random in a search for a good provider.  However, being “locked in” would remove my freedom of choice.  No longer would I be able to easily find my “match.”  If I found a provider I had been “locked into” did not meet my needs or preferences, I would be unable to switch to another provider until my “lock in” period was over, at which time I would then have to “lock in” to a different provider, and hope that that provider worked well for me.  This could easily become a multi-year process.

Further, I am concerned about who makes the choice of which provider I am “locked into.”  Is it going to be up to the FCC’s discretion as to who I have to live with for 1-2 years, or is it going to be my choice?  If I had to be “locked in” to one provider, I would want to be sure it is one that I felt comfortable with.  Yet, even if I was “locked in” to a provider of my choice, I still would not want to be “locked in,” since there is always the possibility that the service quality of that provider could decline at any point during that period.  Under a free market, I could express my displeasure with the quality of the services I was receiving by taking my dollars elsewhere.  But under the FCC’s current proposal, this would not be an option.

Moreover, with a “captive market”, each VRS provider would no longer have any incentive to provide quality services; instead, it is quite likely that they would seek to maximize profits and dollars received per-user by cutting costs.  Competition encourages improvement and innovation; removal of competition promotes stagnation and decline.

Some people have likened the “lock in” to some phone service plans, in which the consumer is obligated to remain “under contract” to that company for a period of around 2 years.  However, there is a major difference here.  With the phone service plans, the consumer is voluntarily accepting these contract terms, usually in return for a reduced (or free) price on a new phone or other similar enticement.  It is typically understood that the 2 – year contract is effectively a way for the company to amortize the cost of the equipment it provided.  But in the case of VRS services, we the customer are not being offered any enticements for accepting any “lock in” period, nor are we being provided the option of voluntarily accepting a limitation on our choices as consumers.  Therefore, what is the benefit for us in being “locked in?”  Nothing.  What benefit is there to the VRS companies in having us “locked in”?  Potentially everything.

Is this “lock in” plan a good idea?  No.  The FCC needs to find a different solution to the issue of fraud; one that controls and constrains the providers, not us as consumers.  I don’t know what the solution to the issue of fraud is, but I know that for me and you, this is not it.

If you want to submit comments to the FCC regarding how you feel about their plan, submit a filing on the FCC’s website  and under “proceeding number” type in “10-51.”

You read that correctly. This article does not concern HB 1367, the bill that is causing so much controversy and uproar in the deaf community of Indiana (and the wider national deaf community). Deaf Echo has recently come across information on a new bill that may have serious ramifications for the Indiana School for the Deaf. That bill is quoted in its entirety below. Please note, nothing has been verified about this bill beyond what you are about to read. The purpose of this posting is not to spread alarm but rather to promote discussion. What may be of interest to this particular community are items “K” and “14.” Further information/clarification on this issue, including information on whether or not this bill is still ”live” in the form quoted below, and what that might mean, would be appreciated.

Makes the following changes as the result of the enactment of SECTION 56 of HEA 1001(P.L.229-2011) concerning the state civil service system: (1) Removes responsibility for public employee collective bargaining from the budget agency. (2) Removes references to a state employee who is a party to a collective bargaining agreement or an employment contract in connection with leave for bone marrow or organ donation. (3) Amends or repeals provisions that conflict with the state civil service system law concerning: (A) the director and environmental law judges of the office of environmental adjudication; (B) the director and employees of the state library and the historical bureau; (C) the director of the state commission on public records; (D) veterans’ home personnel; (E) a superintendent of a state owned or operated correctional facility; (F) employees of the protection and advocacy service commission; (G) the director, administrative law judges, property managers, and employees of the department of natural resources; (H) the state veterinarian and employees of the board of animal health; (I) employees of the state department of health; (J) the superintendent of the school for the blind and visually impaired; (K) the superintendent of the school for the deaf; (L) employees of the department of labor; (M) employees of the civil rights commission; (N) the commissioner and employees of the department of insurance; (O) employees of the department of financial institutions; (P) the state lottery commission; (Q) the victim services division of the criminal justice institute; and (R) the appointment of assistants to administer welfare activities in the county offices of the division of family resources. (4) Provides that the executive director of the arts commission is the commission’s appointing authority. (5) Provides that the director and employees of the state library and the historical bureau are not subject to board approval for appointment and removal. (6) Removes restrictions on political activity by employees of the state library, historical bureau, department of transportation, and department of natural resources. (7) Removes the requirement for political party balance in hiring at the law enforcement training academy, the department of state revenue, the state police department, state board of accounts, and the department of natural resources. (8) Provides that the director of the criminal justice institute is the institute’s appointing authority. (9) Removes a reference to public retirement system employee classifications covered by a labor agreement. (10) Eliminates a term of office for the director of the state commission on public records, and provides that the director is the commission’s appointing authority. (11) Repeals unique personnel provisions for employees of the department of transportation. (12) Provides that the appointment of employees of the department of veterans’ affairs is not subject to approval by the veterans’ affairs commission. (13) Repeals obsolete transitional provisions concerning employees of predecessor agencies of the department of homeland security, state board of health, and department of workforce development. (14) Repeals provisions concerning salary schedules and contracts for teachers employed by the department of correction, state institutions, special institutions administered by the state department of health, school for the blind and visually impaired, and school for the deaf. (15) Repeals an obsolete provision concerning the compensation of district foresters and natural science managers. (16) Repeals a provision requiring the restoration of an individual who served as commissioner of labor to the same or similar position the individual held before the individual’s service. (17) Provides that the commissioner of the department of insurance is the department’s appointing authority. (18) Makes technical corrections and conforming amendments.

I was born in a small town.  And I live in a small town.  Oh those small communities.*

Okay, so my town may not be Mayberry; we do actually have modern conveniences like electricity and cable TV.  But how do you find the best resources when the nearest deaf “person” is your neighbor’s 15-year-old dog?

For my family, living in a rural area is great—lots of grass, plenty of cows, a close-knit community.  But when we discovered our son is deaf, we were so thankful that we live just outside of Rochester, a city with a well-known Deaf community.  Still, 40 miles to NTID, and almost 60 miles to Rochester School for the Deaf seemed like light years away when it came to connecting with people and resources.

An hour or longer bus ride to school every day was not something we wanted to pursue for our then-18-month-old child.  We loved the idea of him being surrounded by other kids like him, but we were also not willing to give up our son to a residential school at this age.  Fortunately, we have a wonderful preschool in our town that integrates special needs of all types with typically developing children, and even better for us, is funded by Early Intervention and school taxes.  This school offers the personalized attention my son needs, as well as visual communication via ASL and Cued Speech.  But currently, my son is one of only four deaf students there.  Despite the benefits and opportunities we have locally through this school, we found many of the Deaf resources lacking, particularly in the beginning of our journey.

Some of this is in hindsight for me, but I hope it can benefit other hearing parents of deaf children:  Early Intervention is required to present you with the option of having a Teacher of the Deaf come to your house and help teach you sign language.  Since we initially chose Cued Speech as our primary means of communication, we didn’t think it was necessary to become fluent in ASL.  My son’s speech therapist taught us a lot of ASL signs, but we never took advantage of the opportunity to also have a ToD.  That option is available, free of charge, to all families, even those who live out in the boonies.

The second source of ASL instruction that we discovered locally is through classes at our community college.  Three years ago, I incorrectly assumed that taking courses at a college would be expensive, something not covered by Early Intervention, and something we couldn’t afford.  I learned later that many colleges, especially community colleges, allow family members of deaf children to audit ASL classes—to fully participate in the classes, but not for course credit, so there is no charge.  For us, still, there was the issue of logistics in being able to attend these courses, as my husband works 10 hours a day, and I am at home with two kids.  For this reason, I stress the importance of the ToD even more.

Then comes self-study.  While sub-optimal, this is where we began to focus most of our ASL efforts.  The Internet has helped us tremendously, with sites like Signing Savvy, ASL Pro, ASLU, and ASL Browser.  But while Internet videos can teach you vocabulary, they’re not very helpful with learning grammar, sentence structure, the intricacies of facial expression, or Deaf Culture (like you would in an actual ASL college class).  Plus, there are so many regional signs, it is difficult from the Internet to decide which sign to use or which signs are more prevalent in your geographical area.

Bottom line, I recommend a combination of the Internet, college classes, and a local Teacher of the Deaf.  Also, don’t let the fear of finances negatively affect your decisions for your children; Early Intervention and local school taxes have covered all of the services for my son, and will continue to provide him with a transliterator and speech therapy as he continues through school.  Finally, my tax dollars are working for me.

And as a bonus, if it’s possible, it’s probably best to learn ASL hands-on from actual groups of people that are part of Deaf culture.  For us, this has been a struggle, living so close, but so far away, from Rochester and a strong Deaf community.  Those events and groups we have sought out sometimes result in discouragement and judgment because we chose a cochlear implant for our son, and because we use Cued Speech.  My advice with that is to try not to get discouraged, and just keep reaching out to people until someone accepts you and sees it as an opportunity to help, educate, and offer support, rather than an opportunity to criticize.  Deaf topics can become very polarizing issues (if you don’t know this yet, you will!), and while some people may reject you for differing opinions, that’s their issue and there’s nothing you can do about it except move on and find people who are more tolerant and accepting.  My son enjoys and benefits from being around other deaf children; if we lived closer to the city, we would be able to expose him to even more.  Not everyone has full access to the best possible scenarios, but it is still feasible to teach your child based on the resources available to you.

In our area, Cued Speech is also quite prevalent, though not in the local ASL Deaf Community.  Nazareth College in Rochester is well-known for its Deaf Studies, Speech-Language Pathology, and Cued Speech education.  The local preschool my son attends also uses this method of communication with a variety of students, from deaf and hard of hearing, to children with apraxia, autism, and Down Syndrome.  So for my family, finding accessibility to Cued Speech was easier.  Nazareth College also hosts Cue Camps during the summer for families to attend a fun and educational weekend-long event, learning the entire Cued Speech system.  It’s also a great resource for meeting other hearing families with deaf children, and meeting other cuers.  Cue Camps can be found around the country, and details and videos of Cued Speech can be found, among other places, at The National Cued Speech Association.

I’ve addressed the benefits of Cued Speech in other articles, so I won’t delve into much of that here, but I will say, from an accessibility standpoint, it was much easier for us to learn the entire Cued Speech system than it would be for us to become fluent in ASL.  Parents in rural areas, as well as those in cities, even those with established Deaf Communities, would benefit from exploring all these options for their deaf children, keeping in mind, as we have learned, that there’s no need to choose just one form of communication.  Children with cochlear implants should still learn ASL.  Children without cochlear implants can still use Cued Speech as their sole form of communication.

Geographical limitations to accessibility of information make it more difficult, though certainly not impossible, for hearing parents to gain all the information they need. Online resources can help you every time you ask “What’s the sign for …?”  Online research can lead you to real-life local people.  The Internet is your friend.  Scour.  Read.  Learn.

Dear Senator:

My name is Dr. Christopher Jon Heuer, and my dissertation, professional research, and work all fall within the fields of literacy, language acquisition, and Deaf Education. HB 1367 will soon come before you for review. I hope you will consider my arguments against it and oppose it. At the very least, I urge you to demand FAR more investigation into it than has been made to date, and allow for an appropriate amount of time for all parties concerned to conduct such an investigation.

1) It makes far more fiscal sense to leave the outreach center where it is and either hire additional staff or make staffing adjustments that will address the concerns of bias being voiced by supporters of Hear Indiana than it does to establish an entirely new center. The former costs less, the latter may cost far more. Simple as that. If this argument is wrong, where is the detailed analysis, the detailed cost breakdown necessary to justify approval of a new center? To justify an investigation into the cost of establishing one is one thing. To approve the establishment of a new center without sufficient investigation into the matter is entirely another.

2) If you agree that the supporters of Hear Indiana have valid concerns about bias–if you agree that because the center is located on grounds occupied by people who strongly support ASL as the pathway to language acquisition, then the construction of a “neutral” center should ensure that NO approach is presented more strongly than any other. I will now attempt to show you why this is unlikely to happen:

a) Staffing – If a new “neutral” center is staffed by for example seven people, and only two are familiar with ASL, the other five, biased or not, are not in an equal position to inform parents about this option.

b) By default, medical approaches and oral approaches ALREADY stand at the forefront of available options. Ninety to ninety-five percent of parents of deaf children are themselves hearing. Ask yourselves what you would do if you discovered your child was deaf. Would you want him to be able to hear and speak, or would you want him to sign? (Or both?) Would you go to a doctor first or would you go to the deaf community first? I’ve been a member of the deaf community for decades, but I’m also the father of a four year old hearing child. Please bear with me… it’s crucial you understand this.

In a recent trip to the ENT, it was found that there might be issues with my son’s adnoids… a very common condition. One possible result, if not countered, could be the development of something called adnoid facies. I knew nothing about this so I looked it up. The website I first looked at is among one of the top ten listed in a google search under “adnoid facies.” This is some of the information listed:

• Eustachian blockage causing glue ear-deafness

• The deafness and inattentiveness interferes with the learning

• child grows with lowered intelligence and understanding

This information, provided by an ENT, is incorrect, and is misleading (most likely not deliberately, but it still is). Deafness does not interfere with learning or cause lowered intelligence or decreased understanding. If that were true, you would not be getting this letter at this level of discourse. Rather, a lack of language acquisition is what causes an interference with learning and subsequent lowered intelligence and lack of understanding.

But this distinction is not strictly a medical issue. It’s also an issue of one’s approach to providing a child with access to language. But how is a parent supposed to know this from reading medical literature and speaking with ENTs and the like alone? And in addition to that point, how likely is it that an ENT, trained in medicine, is going to know enough about the mechanics and specifics of language acquisition to suggest ASL or cued speech as a viable option (either independently or in conjunction with a medical or technological approach)? There is ignorance all around, and in some cases bias, as will be discussed below. The point here is that information about medical approaches to dealing with deafness is abound, as is information about technological approaches. Information on other approaches, including ASL, is not as widespread or supported in medical literature, which is likely to be the first type of literature parents investigate.

c) In addition to the argument above, my own research as well as testimonies by other parents (I will quote one such argument below) shed light on instances in which hearing parents of deaf children are told by medical professionals to not sign or cue to their children so that the child depends entirely on his or hear hearing aid or cochlear implant. Hear is a quote from one such article:

Just as cued speech and its purposes are misunderstood by many, ASL is also met with misconceptions and ignorance. I read through websites with outdated opinions that suggested that ASL will make a child “retarded,” or worse, suggested that deaf people already are mentally disadvantaged. Misleading literacy statistics don’t always point out that lower reading level abilities only reflect a person’s grasp of English, and have nothing to do with their mental capabilities or abilities to express themselves fully in their native language.

Another bias against ASL that we discovered was that it should only be used as a last resort if hearing aids, cochlear implants, and speech therapy do not work for a particular individual. Some attitudes we encountered regarded deaf schools and ASL as the final option, something to fall back on, rather than embrace up front. Much of this probably stems from doctors and audiologists; I “met” a woman online whose son was receiving sounds from his implant, but whose audiologist scolded them for signing and told them only to use it if the implant didn’t work. In the meantime, the child was at risk of losing valuable language-learning years.

In summary, the information I have provided you with should be more than sufficient support for the argument that HB1367 deserves far more investigation than it is getting. The approval of a new outreach center without proper and in-depth planning regarding how it will be staffed, what information it will provide, how it will provide it, and how the government of Indiana can ensure it is doing what it is supposed to be doing is not a good idea. I therefore urge you oppose this bill, demand sufficient investigation, and be perpetually on guard against future proposals such as HB1367 that do not adequately address the entirely reasonable and well-supported concerns I have outlined above.

Thank you for considering my arguments.

Sincerely,

Christopher Jon Heuer, Ph.D.

For the background on the story, see Michele Westfall’s recent DeafEcho.com article. The following is a recent update on the issue: HB 1367 apparently passed in the House in Indiana, and will soon make its way toward a final vote (with amendments). Below is a slightly revised version (note to the general audience: don’t post on Facebook when you’re too upset to closely scan your first draft) of the post I made on Hear Indiana’s FB page for “Support HB1367.” The post so far as I can tell has since been deleted. But I think this is something that needs to be shared with a wider audience, because yes, the field of Deaf Education is changing. The marginalization of American Sign Language is growing. Schools for the deaf that utilize American Sign Language are under assault as they haven’t been in decades. And we need to respond. On a large–a very large–united front. Soon.

Here is what I said:

Have you really considered what it is, exactly, that you’re fighting to win?

ISD has said, and I have no reason to doubt them, that its outreach center is separate from the school. Furthermore it has said that it has roughly two different kinds of students. One kind has been with ISD since childhood and overall they do quite well. The other type joined ISD very late, and is so far behind in their language acquisition it’s almost impossible to catch up. And while that type pulls ISD’s state test scores down overall, when you consider the first type, the scores are much higher.

Now I ask you. Where do you think students of the second type, the ones who are joining ISD later, went to school first? I don’t know, but I’m asking if YOU do. And furthermore I’d like to ask you this: If all of THOSE students were taken out of ISD, and placed in an oral school, what would happen to that oral school’s state test scores?

People, 90% to 95% of parents of deaf children are themselves hearing. Meaning that most parents are just like you. And it makes perfect sense to me that a hearing parent of a deaf child would first want that child to learn to speak and to use whatever hearing he or she has.

But can you meet me halfway here and admit that, based on what ISD is saying, it would follow that some parents who start out going the oral route, going the assistive listening technology route, nonetheless later find out it’s not working for their child? And then they try to go another route. Well, what do you think will happen, both to the child and to the parents–YOU–if someday there’s no other route to go?

Do you think the House is voting yes because it has some deep expertise in Deaf Education, or do you think it’s at all possible that they are voting yes simply because they don’t want the state of Indiana to pay for ISD anymore? I don’t know the answer to this question but I’ve seen a lot of deaf communities in various states where that seems to be the general sentiment.

I have a Ph.D. in Adult Literacy, and the subject of my dissertation was hearing parents of deaf children and how they cope and how they arrive at decisions. Some of my findings: 1) pediatrician misdiagnosis is widespread, which delays the discovery of deafness. That means there’s that much less time to acquire language with assistance the child could have gotten earlier. 2) Parents feel an enormous amount of stress and distrust over time related to trusting the word of medical professionals AND educational professionals for various reasons. Among them are, for example, people blindly advocating for this or that approach–this is related to both signing AND oralism—and, in the case of medical professionals, telling the parents outright not to cue or sign so the child will depend on the assistive listening technology as much as possible. One parent in particular regretted that enormously and wished she had gone ahead and signed and cued anyway even with the implant (though she didn’t regret the implant itself).

I’ve been a teacher for twenty years now… the last twelve at Gallaudet University. I’m telling you directly, regardless of educational approach, I’ve seen language delays in all kinds of students. Educated orally, with cued speech, with ASL, with some type of a more “English” version of sign language… sometimes their writing is great; sometimes it looks like it went through a paper shredder.

My point is that whatever approach you happen to favor at the moment, there’s one thing no outreach center can offer you: a solid line in the sand telling you when to give up on one approach and start another so that your child will acquire language. I can’t guarantee I’m right but I’ll take a professional guess here… Anyone who tells you differently is selling something…. selling their approach. And some of you will be lucky. That approach will work out.

Some of you will not be so lucky. And neither will your child.

So what I ask of you is simply this: Show your opponents the dignity and respect you would want to be shown on the day you find out that what you hoped for your child isn’t panning out. Because that’s what’s really wrong with Deaf Education today. It’s not a hundred plus years of Deaf people trying to tell AGBell its philosophy is very destructive for a good number of them, and it’s not Deaf people rudely rejecting anything that isn’t ASL or “Deaf enough.”

Purely and simply what’s wrong is a lack of basic respect, a lack of basic cooperation, a lack of willingness to really listen (ironic in this particular field of education), and too much focus on “hooray!” and “whoo-hoo!” and “yippee!” when a victory on any one side inevitably means some other kid isn’t going to get what he needs.

Thank you for considering what I have said here.

Christopher Jon Heuer, Ph.D.

Maybe you have been hearing stories coming out of Indiana and wondered what the fuss was all about. To understand the situation in Indiana, you need to know the back story. I will give you a hint upfront: oralists are up to no good.

The back story begins with Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD). Some spots opened up on their board several years ago, and after some delay and prodding, the governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, filled these seats last spring with these people: Ann Reifel, Mary Susan Buhner, Scott Rigney, and Lucy Witte.  Out of these four, only Ann Reifel fit the bill of an ideal ISD Board member: she is Deaf, a teacher, an ASL advocate and is an alumna of ISD. The other two have ties to Hear Indiana, a local chapter of A.G. Bell in Indiana. Mary Susan Buhner and Scott Rigney are married to spouses who currently sit on the board of Hear Indiana. Lucy Witte is currently the director of special education of Metropolitan School District in Wayne Township. These three also have been observed not signing in meetings, as seen in these videos. Additionally, Mary Susan Buhner and Scott Rigney have deaf children who do not get their education from the Indiana School for the Deaf. All of this adds up to a relatively clear portrait of three hearing people with no obvious ties to ISD. Clearly they don’t fit the ideal profile of an ISD board member. One wonders why Daniels chose them. Daniels could do much better, as Indianapolis has a large Deaf community to choose from.

Indiana School for the Deaf is a nationally known, much-admired bilingual-bicultural school. What that means is that ISD uses American Sign Language as the main language of instruction. English is taught as a second language, as well as reading and writing in English. The mission of ISD does not jibe with that of Hear Indiana, which endorses oral approach in education. Oral schools would not invite or choose known ASL supporters to sit on their boards, much less allow them to be part of their boards. So why is it acceptable for oralists or their supporters to sit on a board of a bilingual-bicultural, ASL-using school? Why is it okay for an ISD board member to have no obvious ties to ISD, such as being Deaf, using ASL to communicate, being an alumna of ISD, or having a child who attends ISD? Shouldn’t a school for the deaf have more deaf people on its board to assure equal representation? Letters, protests and rallies were held in an attempt to remove these three new ISD board members, all to no avail. Marvin Miller, president of Indiana Association of the Deaf, posted an update on the ISD board situation in a video, and the situation isn’t good. There are now nine hearing members on the ISD board and only one deaf person on the board.

Then the next blow fell on January 11, 2012: the Indiana General Assembly (state government) introduced a bill entitled House Bill (H.B.) 1367. The purpose of this bill: “Deaf and hearing impaired education services. Establishes the center for deaf and hearing impaired education to ensure that children who are deaf or hearing impaired acquire optimal communication and academic abilities. Requires the office of management and budget to determine an appropriate agency to provide office space and staff support for the center. Transfers the outreach services and consultative services to local education agencies to assist in meeting the needs of locally enrolled students with hearing disabilities of the Indiana School for the Deaf to the center for deaf and hearing impaired education. Provides that the Indiana School for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Indiana School for the Deaf are subject to accountability provisions for performance and improvement, but are not subject to sanction provisions.”

After reading the above quote, you may be thinking that it sounds fine. What’s the big deal? If you listen to Hear Indiana, they claim that this bill would “balance the education budget in Indiana” and would “establish a neutral outreach center.”

First, the bill was written by Indiana state Representative Cindy Noe and Adam Horst, the state budget agency director. Both are also non-voting members on the ISD board. That’s your first red flag. Why would these ISD board members write such a bill that is clearly designed to hurt ISD? Shouldn’t their positions as ISD board members require a degree of loyalty? What about the appearance of conflict of interest? Most importantly, Deaf people at ISD, Indiana Association of the Deaf, and the Deaf community in Indiana were not consulted while the bill was being developed. Deaf people in Indiana only learned about this bill in a meeting on January 9^th before it was introduced to the Indiana General Assembly on January 11^th. This echoes what happened with AB 2072 in California: Deaf people in California were not consulted, and were largely ignored during the writing process of AB 2072. There is a pattern of not including Deaf people in the legislative process, and it keeps happening. This is unacceptable.

During that meeting on January 9^th, Deaf people learned from Adam Horst that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) apparently views ISD as being less than equal in quality to their state public schools as evidenced in their PowerPoint presentation: “Add ISD and ISBVI to IC20-31 (P.L. 221) to ensure that the quality of education are equally [sic] to public schools.” Really? ISD isn’t as good as Indiana public schools? ISD is accredited by the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf (CEASD). The high school program at ISD complies with the Indiana Academic Standards and is accredited by the Indiana Department of Education through the Performance Based Accreditation (PBA). Additionally, the middle school program at ISD follows the curriculum as set forth by the Indiana Department of Education Proficiency Standards, and is also accredited by the North Central Association (NCA).   How much more ‘equal’ can ISD get to Indiana public schools? Seems to me that ISD has already been doing what they are supposed to. Why isn’t that enough for Adam Horst, OMB, and Hear Indiana? Think about that. That’s your second red flag.

The bill would take away outreach services from ISD and place it in a center staffed by an agency chosen by the Indiana Office of Management and Budget. Ask yourselves, why? Why is this move necessary in times of tight economy and limited budgets? Indiana School for the Deaf already provides top-notch outreach services to all parents in the state. The ISD outreach office is staffed by people trained in Deaf education and/or Deaf-related fields. They know their stuff. Would you really want a center that most likely will not be staffed by trained, knowledgeable personnel who will know little or nothing about deaf and hard of hearing children and/or who may only know or view deaf people through the lens of the medical model? Additionally, having the outreach services at this new center would mean that ISD would no longer be able to talk with parents of deaf and hard of hearing children. The parents of deaf and hard of hearing children would most likely receive information about options that do not include sign language, and this would further affect the enrollment numbers at ISD. That’s your third red flag.

Hear Indiana claims that this bill would equalize how Indiana spends its education budget. The executive director of Hear Indiana, Naomi Horton, said: “At the end of the day, this entire conversation is about right-sizing the budget for deaf education in Indiana,” Ms. Horton said. “No one wants to take the ASL option away; we simply want to see that parents who choose listening and spoken language instruction (over placement at the Indiana School for the Deaf) have equal access to a free and appropriate public education.”  Well, I would like to believe her, but the fact that Hear Indiana allowed at least two of its members to be chosen to sit on ISD board clearly contradicts her statement. They have ignored everything that Deaf people have expressed about this situation, and if they truly respected Deaf people’s right to be educated in ASL, they would instruct Buhner and Rigney to quit their ISD board positions immediately as a show of support and good faith. This has not happened. That’s your fourth red flag.

The bill has been declared “as an emergency,” as seen in the last line in this link. Why? Why the rush? The outreach office at ISD is certainly not broken and does not warrant an immediate “fixing.” Seems to me that the whole thing is actually a power struggle, and oralists in Indiana are actively destroying ISD from within and without. Shame on Hear Indiana, its members, and their supporters. How many more red flags do you need? After what almost happened in California with AB 2072, don’t let the oralists win in Indiana. Remember, AB 2072 was defeated only because the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to sign the bill. You can be sure Mitch Daniels (governor of Indiana) will sign this bill (HB 1367) if it makes it to his desk. Fight back!

[Author's Note: At press time, this writer learned that the House’s Education Committee has put this bill on their calendar to be heard on January 25^th at 8:30 a.m.]

[Editor's Note: Credit for the creation of the logo for the Indiana Deaf Education Coalition used in this article goes to Ken Arcia.]

References

Davey, M. (2011, July 26). Among twists in budget woes, tensions over teaching the deaf. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/us/27deaf.html?pagewanted=all

Hear Indiana (n.d.). Board of directors. Retrieved from http://www.hearindiana.org/Default.aspx?pageId=84301

Hear Indiana. (n.d.). Our mission statement. Retrieved from http://www.hearindiana.org/Default.aspx?pageId=84299

Hear Indiana. (n.d.). Support deaf and hard of hearing education (HB 1367)—An unbiased center to serve all families. Hear Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.hearindiana.org/HB1367

Indiana Association of the Deaf. (2011, May 12). Parents confront oralist board members of Indiana school for the deaf. (video). Retrieved from http://www.iadhoosiers.org/2011/05/parents-confront-oralist-board-members-of-indiana-school-for-the-deaf/

Indiana General Assembly. (2012, January 11). HouseBill 1367. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2012&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=HB&docno=1367

Indiana School for the Deaf (n.d.). School board: School board members. Retrieved from http://www.deafhoosiers.com/schoolboard/members.asp

Indiana School for the Deaf. (n.d.). Educational goals. Retrieved from http://www.deafhoosiers.com/AboutISD/mainAbout.asp

Indiana School for the Deaf (n.d.). Vision/mission/legal mandate. Retrieved from http://www.deafhoosiers.com/AboutISD/mainAbout.asp

Indy Deaf News. (2012, January 12). Indiana school for the deaf update: House bill 1367. Retrieved from http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff32b7be3a4ff40ca028202fb&id=9481bc1f62

Miller, M. (2011, May 19). Deaf politics: Why are we not politically active? Deaf Politics Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.deafpolitics.org/2011/05/why-are-we-not-politically-active.html

Miller, M., & Majeri, K. (2011, May 31). May 31, 2011 update on pro-ASL deaf on board now! YouTube.com. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OspjA_pmDVY&list=UU5jBvc-A5880xiOlyH7l2rQ&index=10&feature=plcp

Miller, M. (2011, July 12). Summertime update on ISD school board. YouTube.com. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0NN1IRPmeo&list=UU5jBvc-A5880xiOlyH7l2rQ&index=3&feature=plcp

Miller, M. (2011, September 2). ISD board update and other IAD news. YouTube.com. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxo5Ney6X_Q&list=UU5jBvc-A5880xiOlyH7l2rQ&index=2&feature=plcp

Moore, M.S. (2011, May 26). Board crisis at Indiana school for the deaf. Indy Deaf News. Retrieved from http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff32b7be3a4ff40ca028202fb&id=1bab329b0c

Office of Management and Budget. (2012, January 5). Key findings of OMB review. Retrieved from http://deafhoosiers.com/Superintendent/OMB%20FIndings%20Jan%202012.pdf

Vasquez, A. (2011, June 6). Sign the online petition for pro-ASL deaf on board now! Indy Deaf News. Retrieved from http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ff32b7be3a4ff40ca028202fb&id=81951490db

Yizuman. (2011, June 7). Indiana deaf rally June 2011. YouTube.com. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt3fP7AVcYM

[During orgasm, parts of the brain show heightened activity as other regions… (Janniko R. Georgiadis / University Medical Center Groningen).]

To unlock the secrets of the climax researchers are looking behind the scenes and into the nervous system, where the true magic happens.

AS they seek to document and demystify one of life’s great thrills, scientists have run across some real head-scratchers.

How, for example, can they explain the fact that some men and women who are paralyzed and numb below the waist are able to have orgasms?

How to explain the “orgasmic auras” that can descend at the onset of epileptic seizures — sensations so pleasurable they prompt some patients to refuse antiseizure medication?

And how on Earth to explain the case of the amputee who felt his orgasms centered in that missing foot?

No one — no sexologist, no neuroscientist — really knows. For a subject with so many armchair experts, the human orgasm is remarkably mysterious.

But today, a few scientists are making real progress — in part because they’re changing their focus. To uncover the orgasm’s secrets, researchers are looking beyond the clitoris, vagina, penis and prostate, to the place behind the scenes where the true magic happens. They’re examining the central nervous system: the network of electrical impulses that zip to and fro through the brain and spinal cord.

In an orgasm orchestra, the genitalia may be the instruments, but the central nervous system is the conductor.

Armed with new lab tools and fearless volunteers, scientists are getting first-ever glimpses of how the brain lights up (and, in places, shuts down) when the orgasmic fireworks go off. They’re tracing nerves and finding new pathways for pleasure that help explain how people with shattered spinal cords can defy sexual expectations.

A few labs are even tinkering with devices that could put patients directly in touch with their orgasmic abilities by letting them observe their sexual brain patterns and “train” themselves to find the elusive frisson, or (in something akin to the Orgasmatron in Woody Allen’s 1973 movie “Sleeper”) letting them zap a sweet spot in their spinal cord with toe-curling electrical pulses.

“There’s a tremendous amount we don’t know about orgasms,” says Barry R. Komisaruk, psychology professor at Rutgers University and coauthor of the 2006 book “The Science of Orgasm.” “But we’re on the verge of getting a lot of very important information and really understanding what to do with it.”

It’s not just the pleasure principle driving this research, says Julia R. Heiman, director of the Kinsey Institute, a nonprofit organization at Indiana University. Sex is an important part of human relationships, she says, which in turn can affect psychological health. “An awful lot of illness, or treatments for illnesses, interfere with people’s orgasms,” she says, including multiple sclerosis, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, depression and diabetes.

Indeed, if surveys are to be believed, this most delightful of experiences is elusive for many. About 43% of women and 31% of men in the U.S. between ages 18 and 60 meet criteria for sexual dysfunctions, according to a 1999 report on the sexual behavior of more than 3,000 U.S. adults.

Orgasm researchers hope their efforts will help some of these people — eventually. For now, reports are more likely to include the words “parasympathetic nervous system” than “try this at home tonight.”

A difficult subject

It has never been easy to study any aspect of sexuality, let alone one so erotically center-stage as an orgasm. “Almost everybody is interested in orgasms, but it is also very difficult to start this kind of work,” especially in the U.S., says Dr. Gert Holstege, a neurologist at University of Groningen in the Netherlands. “The Victorian time is still not over.”

So it’s not surprising that some of the most impressive discoveries in the field of orgasm science were stumbled upon by accident. For example, Viagra originally was a drug being tested for treatment of high blood pressure and heart disease.

Other touted aids lack formal proof. No doubt most of the nostrums available from pharmacies or the Internet derive their power from the “oh-please-please-make-this-work” power of the placebo effect.

And though sexologists as far back as Alfred Kinsey have tallied people’s orgasmic habits in exquisite detail, only now are researchers beginning to understand how it all works.

Orgasms are difficult to define, let alone reverse-engineer. A few blueprints, however, have already been sketched out. First, stimulating the genitals sends electrical impulses along three main paths — the pelvic, hypogastric and pudendal nerves. Next, these titillating signals enter the spinal cord at the base of the spine and zip up to brain regions that respond to genital sensations.

Then other parts of the brain leap into action. Some send signals back down to the body with certain instructions — lubricate the vagina, stiffen the penis, pump blood harder, breathe faster.

The intensity builds to a crescendo, and just like a long-awaited sneeze, tension is released in an explosive rush. The heart rate doubles. In women, the uterus contracts rhythmically; in men, sperm-carrying semen is propelled out of the body.

And somehow, by mechanisms not yet understood, the brain perceives all this activity as a darn good feeling.

Such a signaling pathway would seem to rule out orgasms for anyone whose spinal cord is completely severed, because people with such injuries cannot feel the brush of a finger across the penis or clitoris.

But about two decades ago, anecdotal evidence started accumulating to the contrary. This was as a bit of a surprise to the medical profession, which for decades had told patients with damaged spinal cords to give up hope of a sex life. Researchers began to investigate.

One, Dr. Marca Sipski-Alexander, published studies in 2001 and 2006 reporting that about 50% of 45 men and 44% of 68 women — all with varying locations and degrees of spinal cord injury — had orgasms in the lab, with the help of adult videos and genital stimulation by hand or vibrator.

The findings show that the normal genitals-to-spine-to-brain route for an orgasm is not the only one. The best explanation may be that a touch unperceived by the brain can still be doing its work, says Alexander, a rehabilitation medicine professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine.

Alexander thinks that an orgasm, like urination, is a reflex. Both functions can be controlled partly by willpower. But just as voiding your bladder doesn’t require the say-so of your higher brain, she says, maybe orgasms don’t either. Maybe all that’s needed is some chit-chat between pelvis and spinal cord.

Some studies, mostly in animals, support this line of thought. In the brain stem and spinal cord, researchers have found hard-wired programs — clusters of cells acting as primitive mini-brains of sorts — that produce rhythmic movement without any higher brain input. These so-called central pattern generators are what let mollusks swim, rats crawl, tadpoles breathe and perhaps human males thrust their pelvises and ejaculate. Rat studies suggest that females, too, have these muscle-contracting proto-brains.

But orgasms are more than just muscular contractions. They feel good. So how do the brains of spinal-cord-injured people sense the pleasure? “I don’t know. No one knows that yet,” Alexander says.

An alternate route

Rutgers University’s Komisaruk and retired Rutgers professor Beverly Whipple, coauthor of “The Science of Orgasm” and “The G Spot and Other Discoveries About Human Sexuality,” believe they do know. But they don’t think an orgasm is a reflex. Through studies of spinal-cord-injured women, they’ve found evidence of what appears to be a new orgasmic pathway, one that bypasses the spine completely.

The proposed detour makes use of a vast highway of nerves called the vagus nerve network. Like the vagabonds for which they were named, vagus nerves wander throughout the body. They start at the base of the brain, slide down the neck (but not the spinal cord) and stretch to all the major organs, and (at least in female rats) to the uterus and cervix. If vagus nerves reach human pelvises, genital signals could hopscotch over the spinal cord and still reach the brain.

Animal experiments support the idea. Female rats with intact vagus nerves but snipped genital nerves (cutting off their signals to the spinal cord) still respond to vaginal stimulation in their normal, albeit rodent-like, fashion: enlarged pupils, rapt attention and a tendency to ignore painful stimuli applied to their paws. But when the vagus nerves in the pelvises are also severed, all these sexual responses stop.

To investigate further, in a 2004 study, Komisaruk and Whipple worked with four women with shattered spinal cords. Each stimulated her cervix with a phallus while the researchers used fMRI scanning to measure brain activity.

Despite their severed spinal cords, all women reported feeling the touch of the stimulator, Whipple says. The sensation at the cervix was reaching the brain. What’s more, in the fMRI scans their brains lighted up in an area where vagus nerve signals are processed. And three of the volunteers experienced an orgasm.

Komisaruk and Whipple have compared these brain images with those of women who are able to have orgasms by thought alone (who thus provide a clean brain image of a person reaching climax).

They found that orgasms elicit strong activity in the nucleus accumbens, the reward center, which also lights up in response to nicotine, chocolate, cocaine and music; in the cerebellum, which helps coordinate muscle tension; and parts of the hypothalamus, which releases oxytocin, the trust and social-bonding hormone.

Intriguingly, areas of the cortex that respond to pain also responded during orgasm. “Perhaps it’s related to the fact that people often have pained expressions at the time of orgasm,” Komisaruk says.

The amygdala, the brain’s emotional center, and the hippocampus, which deals with memory, light up too. This helps explain a medical mystery: When epileptic seizures start in these areas, the electrical frenzy can triggers euphoric feelings called orgasmic auras.

Most patients find the experience displeasing. But in one published case, a 51-year-old woman said her auras were so pleasant she wouldn’t consider antiepileptic drugs or surgery.

Role of inactive regions

Holstege’s group has also studied the sexually stimulated brain, and his findings suggest that orgasms are not just about how the brain lights up but also about where it shuts off.

In the late 1990s, his team recruited volunteers plus their sexual partners, who would stimulate them in the lab.

To measure brain activity, the researchers used PET scanners, which require obsessive attention to timing. The stimulators were asked to induce an orgasm in their receivers within a two-minute window, with an eight-minute advance warning. (Couples were told to practice at home first.)

Results from men and women were fairly similar, says Janniko R. Georgiadis, a neuroscientist at the University of Groningen and a study coauthor. There were several regions of activation, but the most striking result, Georgiadis says, was how certain regions in the front of the brain shut down during orgasm, especially one just behind the left eyeball. Researchers have long noticed that damage to this area — the lateral orbitofrontal cortex — can leave people with wildly antisocial and impulsive tendencies, including hypersexuality.

Shutdowns in the brain’s prefrontal cortex appears crucial, Georgiadis adds. “It’s the seat of reason and behavioral control. But when you have an orgasm, you lose control.”

Regions called the temporal lobes also showed damped activity. In fact, the less activity these regions showed, the more sexually aroused the women felt. These deactivations might explain the appeal of autoerotic asphyxiation, the researchers say. Depriving a brain of blood during sex not only provides a dangerous thrill but also shuts down key brain regions, leading to addictive orgasmic euphorias.

Unsticking the brain

Back in New Jersey, Komisaruk is trying to apply some of this new brain knowledge. He is studying two extremes: women who complain of constant sexual arousal and find no relief in orgasms and those who can never have an orgasm. He hopes to reveal where their brains are “stuck” and help them alter their brain patterns.

The setup is simple: Women lying in an MRI scanner watch a computer display of their brain activity. Scans of women with persistent genital arousal disorder reveal unusually high activation in regions that respond to genital stimulation. It shows, Komisaruk says, that the women’s complaints are real. Their brain thinks the genitals are constantly being stimulated.

Komisaruk is coaching them to use neuro-feedback — mental strategies such as counting or imagery — to alter their brain activity. If they see those genital brain regions cooling seconds after their mental exercises, they can refine their techniques and eventually do it without the scanner, whenever these brain areas again slip into hyperdrive.

Fire rather than ice might be the trick for anorgasmic women, whom Komisaruk plans to study next. For some women, clitoral stimulation might travel along the spinal cord but then is somehow blocked so they don’t travel to the brain regions they need to.

“We want to see if there’s a blockage somewhere and if that blockage is susceptible to a change in mental activity,” he says. Anorgasmic women might practice in a lab with a vibrator, trying to mimic other women’s successful brain patterns.

The brain is surprisingly plastic, Komisaruk says. Witness the curious case — described by UC San Diego neuroscientist Dr. V.S. Ramachandran — of the man who had orgasms in his phantom foot.

When the man’s foot was amputated, cells in the “foot” part of the brain were suddenly deprived of stimulation. They died, leaving prime cerebral real estate vacant.

Then, like an opportunistic roommate, a neighboring region in the man’s brain likely sent sprouts to commandeer the vacated landscape. That region? One that processes input from penis and vulva.

The result: The man felt foot-sized orgasms in a foot he no longer had.

Nothing quite so drastic is expected to occur with a bit of orgasmic neural training in the lab, Komisaruk says. But the anecdote points out that the brain is indeed capable of some very imaginative tricks.

[Editor's Note: This piece was originally published in The Los Angeles Times on February 11th, 2008.]

A different poster about ASL parameters that I made during student teaching in San Diego.

With this lesson, I wanted to use iPads as a recording tool instead of being the main focus. My class is exploring the different parameters of ASL: handshape, location, and movement. There are two others (palm orientation and non-manual markers) but I’m saving those for a later unit.

I have a funny relationship with the ASL parameters. Sometimes I feel this topic acts like a crutch for ASL-as-L1 teaching. You don’t know what to teach? Just teach another handshape lesson! Let the children learn that ASL is all about handshapes and movement! It’s analogues to an English teacher falling back on teaching only spelling when he or she isn’t sure what else to teach.

It’s a symptom of the paucity of ideas about what to teach young ASL users about ASL. I remember last January’s ASLRT in Austin, TX when Dr. Todd Czubek encouraged us to move beyond handshapes. “ASL isn’t only about handshapes,” he said.

But then at last November’s ASLRT in Tucson, another presenter said there was nothing wrong about teaching the parameters. It’s a good starting point, and good K-12 ASL instruction would frequently refer back to the parameters. English teachers in high school refer to spelling, pronunciation, and punctuation–things you learn in the early elementary grades. You never really stop talking about these things as a part of English, and the same goes for parameters and ASL, supposedly.

I was also inspired to return to the parameters by watching my team teacher, Cheritha, teach phonics to our students. First grade is all about phonics–learning the sound-letter correspondences, consonant blends, digraphs, segmenting and blending. A strong background in phonics is linked with better reading ability. So if first-graders are learning about the building blocks of English, perhaps they should also be learning about the building blocks of ASL.

So, this current unit’s about parameters. I use a big book (and I keep it on the ASL/Deaf Culture bookshelves in our classroom library) where each page focuses on a parameter.

The focus on this lesson was to introduce location as a parameter. After reviewing handshapes, I asked them which signs they thought were around the forehead. After some prompting with FATHER, DEER, SUMMER, they quickly chimed in with other signs. We did the same with the chin, then the chest, then the hands, and finally neutral space (overall, five basic locations). I also introduced a quick tap-song where you tap on your forehead, chin, chest, hand, and neutral space, and do it over and over again quickly.

I then had them pair up, assigned each pair a location, and they ran off to list as many signs as they could on a piece of paper.

Now, there’s a philosophical argument in ASL-as-L1 circles for not including one modicum of English in ASL instruction. Or more of a challenge: is it possible to teach ASL without using English? Sure, you could try. But teaching ASL without English ignores the reality of my students’ natural environment which is both ASL and English. If there’s an English label for something they’re learning about ASL, they should know it.  I’m not talking about 50/50 language allocation but, you know, sprinkling in some English here and there isn’t going to hurt. And children do need quick and easy-to-compose memory aids like the lists of signs my students produced.

And produced, they did. Then it was time to introduce the iPad part of the lesson. I want them to get more comfortable with recording themselves on the iPad’s front-facing camera.

But we have a practical problem: no iPad stands. The Smart Covers are expensive ($40-$70 each). I’m not keen on my school spending more than $5 each for a stand for more than 30 iPads. However, there are lots of DIY solutions out there: business card holders, easels, wire book stands, bookends. I’ve been ordering one sample from each solution, testing them out. So far, the easels I ordered were too short. The wire book stand works well but the angle is too far back for young children to use while sitting at tables. I have high hopes about the bookend idea and will work on that this week.

For now, I just had one student hold the iPad while the other student shows example signs from the list of signs they both created. Teamwork! I modeled for them how they should start the video (e.g. “Our location is the chin and these are all the signs with the same location: MOM, WHO, FARM…”).

This lesson was the third or fourth time they’ve had the chance to record themselves and I notice improvements every time. They are understanding the constraints of the video frame; they’re getting better at centering and keeping their signing space within the frame, and also checking for bright lights behind themselves (we have lots of windows!). I want to develop a checklist for students to use when recording themselves–much like an editing checklist for writing papers!

I guess the point of this write-up was to show another way to use iPads in an ASL lesson–for recording student work, and also for moving from English to ASL. Now with the videos of themselves listing different signs with the same location, they don’t necessarily need the English lists anymore.

Another issue with video, though, is how to move them to other iPads or to classroom computers. I have to start teaching them soon how to move their self-created video content into Dropbox so other students and teachers can access these videos.

Next week: movement!

Apps Used:
  Camera

[Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on foundinblank.com on December 18, 2011.]