THE EDUCATIONAL WELLBEING OF DEAF PUPILS AS AN INDICATOR OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY OF MAINSTREAMED EDUCATION Isabelle Smessaert Fevlado (Flemish Deaf AssociaDon) Being deaf in a ‘hearing school’
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THE EDUCATIONAL WELLBEING OF DEAF PUPILS AS AN INDICATOR OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY OF MAINSTREAMED EDUCATION
Isabelle Smessaert Fevlado (Flemish Deaf AssociaDon)
Being deaf in a ‘hearing school’
BELG
IUM?
France
Spain
Germany
U.K. The Netherlands
Denmark
10.5 million inhabitants
40% French-speaking Walloon Sign Language 60% Dutch-speaking Flemish Sign Language 0.5% German-speaking
BELGIUM
Ireland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Italy
Lux.
Switzerland Austria Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep.
Poland Belarus
Russia
EUROPE
Ukraine
Romania
BELGIUM
Flanders
Walloon Region
INTRO
DUCTIO
N
What is good educaDon for deaf children?
In Flanders the quality of this setting had not been investigated until 2009!
Nevertheless: a lot of debating on the pros and cons of inclusive education and mainstreaming
And: a decreasing possibility to really choose between the two settings
Previously: ‘deaf school’
In the past decade: ‘hearing school’ ‘deaf school’
For many people: What = Where
What do we know about the quality of ‘hearing schools’ for deaf youngsters?
school for the deaf
school for the hearing
DEAF PUPILS (AGES 2.5-‐25) IN HEARING AND DEAF SCHOOLS IN FLANDERS © G.F.A. Lichtert (2009) ‘hearing school’
‘deaf school’
Conclusion: more and more deaf pupils go to ‘hearing schools’
But: after 25 years … we still don’t know anything about this educational setting!
EDUCA
TIONAL IN
SPECTORA
TE: QUALITY M
ODEL
EducaDonal inspectorate: guarantee of quality
‘Hearing schools’ with the occasional deaf pupil = …? No information
Deaf pupils in secondary ‘hearing schools’: specific research population West Flanders: N = 20 response: 50% (in West Flanders) sample: N=12 (10 West Flanders + 2 East Flanders)
HOW? Quality model of the educaDonal inspectorate
CIPO model OUTPUT: educational results
COGNITIVE academic
achievement
NON-COGNITIVE educational wellbeing
WHAT D
ETERMINES ED
UCA
TIONAL W
ELLBEING?
What determines educaDonal wellbeing?
What do deaf pupils consider to be essential to feeling (more or less) good at a ‘hearing school’?
WHAT D
ETERMINES ED
UCA
TIONAL W
ELLBEING?
What determines educaDonal wellbeing?
1. Contact with other deaf pupils at school
2. The interpreter
4. To be excluded / bullied
3. Participation and accessibility
communication kinship
indirect influence: accessibility direct influence: social, emotional, statutory regulations
3 situations in class: a) there is an interpreter b) there is no interpreter, but the teacher uses ‘strategies’ c) there is no interpreter, the deaf pupil has to organize his own education
11 of the 12 respondents have been bullied at their hearing school Why? being different
being vulnerable How? fysically handicap-related
exclusion / coldshouldering
WHAT D
ETERMINES ED
UCA
TIONAL W
ELLBEING?
What determines educaDonal wellbeing?
5. Contact with the hearing environment
Smessaert, I.
UNFAMILIARITY
COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
BEING DIFFERENT
superficial profound
deaf youngsters
other deaf youngsters
hearing youngsters
hearing teachers
RECIPROCITY EQUALITY
investment investment
Crucial
BALANCE
Crucial
WHAT D
ETERMINES ED
UCA
TIONAL W
ELLBEING?
What determines educaDonal wellbeing?
6. Interest in the curriculum
7. Help and educational assistance
9. Expertise and adaptability of the school
8. Motivation
choice of subjects level of education
itinerant teacher of the deaf classmates interpreter (regular) teachers
effort + marks + presence of deaf peer group
1 hearing school stands out
WHAT IS TH
E DEG
REE OF W
ELLBEING?
What is the degree of wellbeing?
Together the 9 factors paint a gloomy picture:
(very) low degree of wellbeing, caused by - the loneliness, the lack of social contacts - the inaccessibility of the curriculum - the 3 barriers between the deaf pupils and the hearing surroundings - the vulnerable, dependant, incomplete and defective position
in most cases there is no question of integration in most cases there is no question of ‘education’
Conclusion: mismatch between deaf pupils & ‘hearing school’
Fundamental are COMMUNICATION & KINSHIP
A positive point: 1 ‘hearing school’ scores much better
WHY D
O YOU G
O TO A ‘HEA
RING SCH
OOL’?
Why do you go to a ‘hearing school’?
1. Diploma
2. Educational level
4. Too few pupils at the deaf schools
3. Subjects
‘Deaf schools’ cannot issue diplomas = there is no choice
The level is higher than that of the ‘deaf schools’
There is more choice in subjects than in the ‘deaf schools’
5. ‘Deaf schools’: signing ability and attitude towards being-deaf is not as desired
Classes cannot be formed: no choice: ‘hearing school’
Teachers in ‘deaf schools’ can hardly sign Often their attitude is paternalistic and their expectations are low
There is no real choice between a ‘deaf’ and a ‘hearing school’.
THEIR ID
EAL SCH
OOL?
Your ideal school, what would it look like?
“Imagine, I can work miracles, I have plenty of money and can realize your ideal school. What would it look like?”
They talk about - the pupils
- deaf + hearing (n=7): for practical reasons, mostly - only deaf (n=5) - only hearing (n=0!)
- the teachers They simply cannot imagine deaf teachers! Communication must be good.
They dream about 1 big ‘deaf school’.
They don’t talk about teaching-styles, regulations, curriculum, infrastructure
= COMMUNICATION & KINSHIP
Related Documents
