DISABILITY STUDIESCONFERENCE: ,THE ART OF BELONGING'

Contactdetails Mg. MgA. MarianaKoutski mariana,[email protected] + 420 724 808 046

Na Cikorcel8 Prague4, 14300 CzechRepublic

The nameof institution Faculty of Education MasarykUniversity Poiióí 7 Bmo,602 00 CzechRepublic Co-authors None Preferredpresentation Woe Oral presentation Abstracttopic Culturalinstitutions, accessibility, education, deaf pupils Absîracttitle

Culture for Everybody?Museums and GalleriesAccessible for Deaf Pupils in the CzechRepublic, France and Sweden

Aim Cultureis crucialfor our identity,the feelingofbelonging. It is the keystoneofeducation. There is a group ofchildrenthough, who arefrom the educationperspective considered as having special needs. At the same time thesechildren representmembers of a cultural and linguistic minority. Who arethey? They are Deaf. Thequestion remains are cultural institutions accessible for deafchildren. Methods 80 deaf primary schoolpupifs and 40 teacherswere surveyedon issuesrelated to cultural institutions (terminology,experience, implementation into schooleducation programs). 75 Czech,French and Swedish museumsand galleries were questioned about the accessibility for deafvisitors on the levelof human resourcesand techlical measures,about programs offered to deaf children and the level of cooperationwith the outsidenetwork. Results The resultsshow that deaf children haveproblems with understandingthe basicterminology despite of experiencingmultiple visits. Teachersand institutionssee the lack of information aboutdeafness as a key factor for bettermutual cooperation.French institutions are the only onesoffering a variety of programsfor deafpupilsby cooperatingwith deafstaff and using new technologies. Conclusion I conclude that unlike nafional legislation and policies, cultural institutions are not enough preparedto welcomedeaf visitors. On the otherhand, growing number of institutionshave employees responsible for accessibility,the numberof programsoffered for deafchildren is increasingand institutionsclaim they are willing to changetheh approach toward deafvisitors. Mgr. MgA. MarianaKoutskà Facultyof Education,Masaryk University, Czech Republic

CULTURE FOR EVERYBODY? MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ACCESSIBLEFOR DEAF PUPIS IN THE CZE.CIJREPUBLIC, FRANCE AND SWEDEN

Cultureis crucialfor our identity,the feelingofbelonging. It is thekeystone of education.There is a group ofchildrenthough, who arefrom the educationperspective considered as having special needs. At the same timethese children represent members ofa culturaland linguistic minority. Who arethey? They are Deaf. The questionremains are cultural institutionsaccessible for deaf children. I will try to respondto this questionsas well aspresent my researchfocused on the accessibilityof cultural institutionsfor deaf pupils in the Czechrepublic, France and Sweden.First, I will compareeducation systemsin thosecountries with closerattention to specialneeds education and schoolsfor deaf. Secondly,I will focus on the issueof culture and cultural institutions in deaf pupils educationtogether with different measuresof accessibility practicable by public institutions. The aim of the last paú of my paper is to introduceresults ofmy researchtargeted on how arethe Czech,French and Swedishmuseums accessible for deafpupils.

INTRODUCTION

Culture is a generalpattem that defìneswho we are and which norms and valueswe hold to. It is strongly connectedto the educationwe receivedand to the surroundingwe live in. Deaf childrenare in a specific positionrelative to educationand culture.From the disabilityangle, they are entitledto gain accessto educationand culture with respectto their specialneeds. From the point of view of languageminority, they shouldbe given informationthrough sign language- their mothertongue. And finally, from the porspective of cultural minority, they have a right to leam not only about generalculture, but to know Deaf culture as well. On next pages,I want to presentîhe issue of culture in deaf educationand the issue of accessibility of cultural institutions for deaf child visitors in relation to three different Europeancounkies: France,Swoden and the Czechrepublic. First, I will compareeducation systems on the basisof legalcontext and curricula reformwith closerattention to childrenwith spe.cialneeds. Second, I will presentthe issueof deafeducation with the emphasison the statusof sign languagefollowed by Accessibilityand DiscriminationActs. Regardingto culture, the third part of my paper will focus on the issue of culture in educationfor deaf concemingcultural policesof eachstate. The last sectionis dedicatedto the issueof museumsand galleries andtheir relation to deafvisitors.The levelofaccessibility for deafchildren explored in this partis grounded in informationfrom the ongoingresearch targeting Czech, French and Swedishmuseums. Concemingterminolory, when I am referring to "deaf pupils" I mean children of compulsoryschool with profound hearing impairment (severely hard-of-hearingor deaf) or children with cochlear implant if they choosesign languageas their primary communicationsystem. A term "Deaf' relatesto linguistic minority or its culture.In othorcases, I respectthe originalname ofpolicies, laws and school subjects.

COMPARISONOF EDUCATIONSYSTEM IN TIIE CZECIJREPI]BLIC, SWEDDNANDFRANCE

In 90's there was a huge drive on reforming educationsystem in Europeancountries. One ofthe trippers was a releaseof White Paperon Educationaiming key compet€ncesand learning society. Among fundamental goalswas a fight againstsocial inequality and exclusion(White Paper,1995). On the basisof this policy, European countries have started heading towards inclusive education with a great emphasison equal opportunities(Zeman, 2006), Despite of the fact that the CzechRepublic, Franceand Swedenhave a very different historical background,tradition of educationapproach and demogra.phicsituation, ln the light of this transformation,education systems of tlte Czechrepublic, Franceand Swedenbegan new millennium by reformingtheir educationsystem on the groundof new educationacts and profoundchanges in curicula.

Czech,French and Swedisheducation system in the contextof national legislation

After releasingnew educationactsl, educationsysterns in discussedcountries have numerouscommon features.Education on the primary and secondarylevel is free, focusedon the equality of chances,respect for democratic values, lifelong learning and proclaimed resistancetoviard any form of discrimination (compare561/20041,2010-121 and 2010:800). For onething, there is a new complexphenomenon of strong supportfor pupils with specialneeds, conceming special counselling, modification of educationconreng integrationand individual approach.For anotler thing vúecan seea strongmovement toward unification of educationas a consequenceof firmly structuredcurricula and the attemptto usetrlanket assessment testing. On tJreother hand,there are obviously somedifferences, especially in the structureof authority, respectto minorities and the degreeof integration. First of all, France and the Czech Republic sharescentralized educationsystem, in which govemmentsrun someofschools and provide finances to employees,while other expensesare on local authorities(region or communities).On the contrary, Swedenis a representativeof a decentralizededucation system, where running and funding of the educationis mostly delegatedto the centraladministrative agencies independent ofthe ministries(compare Zeman,2006; European Commission, 2011).Secondly, in relationto othercountries Sweden shows much higherrespect to minoritiesand their languagein education.Despite the fact, that there is big minority of Roma, Vietnameseand Ukrainians in Czechsociety and peoplefrom Africa, Middle Eastand Asia in France2,ìn both casesthere is only one official language of education in public schools. On the contrary, Swedenwith five official national minoritiespromotes the opportunityto leam,develop and usethe minority language3(2009:600). Swedish languagepoliry is in minority-pro oriented:.,,Every pupil who has a naîive languageother than Swedishhas îhe right to receiveextra tuition in that langwge. Pupíls with d foreign backgroundcan studySwedish as a secondlanguage ìnstead of Swedishbut they must study one of thesetwo opîíons." (Skolverket 2011a"p. 2l). Furthermore,the secularizationof education,deep-rooted in the Czech Republic, is in France demonstratedby the official prohibition of symbolsof religion at school,while in Swedenwearing hijab is naturally respected.And the third import nt distinction lays in the different attitude toward integration of children with specialneeds in the mainstreamin comparisonto segegation in specialschools. France and Swedenshare a high rate of pupils in public compulsoryschools representing around 88 percent(compare Z,eman,20061' Ministère de I'Educationnation ale, 201,2),which meansa strongpermeability of the education system.ln theCzech Republic, the totalnumber ofpupils with specialneeds integrated in ordinaryschools is only ninepercent (Tidenft Skolství,2010). To sum up thís psrt, there are nol many differences in education system on the basis of legislaÍion. Education is provided for free regarding pupils with special needs. The dffirence leans basically on strîrctule of authority, the accessibilityof educatìonfor foreigners and the amountof special supportgiving to pupils with disabiliîies.More variancesore to befound on îhe curriculum level.

I CzechEducation Act 56112004Sb. amended for the lasttime by 47212011Sb.; Frenoh Education Act 2010-l2l and SwedishEducation Act 2010:800. 2 Thosethree minorities representiogether 13 % ofpopulation (The Economist,2009). ' In the case of Sami minority it meansalso educationin Sami school in Sami languagein compliancd with Sami curriculum. ì Statusof sign languagein the Europe and the Czechrepublic, Franceand Sweden

In agreementwith the EuropeanCharter for Regionalor Minority Languages(ECRML, 1992)European sign languagesbelongs among non-territorial languagesa,have to be protectedand promotedas a part ofEurope's cultural heritage.Furthermore, fhe Conventionof the Rights of the Personswith Disabilities (CRPD, Article 2l) declaresthat peoplewith disabilitieshave a right to educationwithout discriminationand statesdirectly: ,,People wiîh disabilities have the right to expressthemselves, including thefreedom to give and receive information qnd ideqs through all forms of commtmicaîion,including through accessibleformats and technologies,sign languages..."On the other hand, logic of the EuropeanCharter protects and promotes only languages,not linguistic minorities. Due to this lack of support,Deaf sign languageusers as members of languageand cultural minority are put in position of being totally dependenton national states,which haveto decidehow they will include this specific group into their legal and educationsystem. Sign languageshave been part of the linguistic environmentfor many centuries.Howeveq their official recognition is quite recent.The Swedishsign languagewas recognisedas the first even though it doesnot belong among official minority languages(Heikkilii 2010). Swedishsign languagebecame the first languageof Swedishdeaf people in 19El: ,,Deaf haveto be bilingualto funcîion amongst themselves and in society.Bilingualism on îheir part meansthdt îhey have to befluent in their visual/gesturallanguage and in the languagethat surroundsthem, Swedish." (CD-P'RR 2005, p.77). According to the SwedishLanguage Act (2009:600)public sector is responsiblefor promotingand protecting Swedish sign language. Moreover it also guaranteesindividual accessto language:,,Persons who are deaf or hord of hearing, and personswho, for other reasons,require sign language,are to be given opportunityto learn, developcmd use Swedish sign " Q009:600,section 14). Czechsign languagewas partially5acknowledged in 1998 by the first anti-discriminatorylaw fiom the Velvet Revolution.A fully recognitionwas madeby the amendment423/2008 Sb. ten yearslater6. People with hearingimpairment or with a combinehandicap have a right to choosethe oommr.micationsystemT that suits them bestfor the everydaylife and for oducationbut without any notion of the mother-tongueaspoot of the languageor featureof cultural identity. Despite of the fact tltat French sign languagewas used in deaf educationsince 80's, Francerecognized it officially many years after signing The EuropeanChafer for Regional or Minority Languages.Five years after the national"silent" march for the recognitionof FrenchSign Languagein 1999French Senate adopted a law on equal rights and equality of opportuníty,participation and citizenship of people with disabilities recognizedamong other things French sign languageas a fully-fledged language,eligible for educationof deaf(2005-l 02, Article).

Stans of sign languagevaries across the countries enjoying a massivesupport os a mean of educationin French low mtd as a languageof minority in Swedishlegal system.In general, it is acceptedand promoted as the languageof educatíonand everydaylife of deafpeople.

" Thoseare defined as:,,Languages used Iry nationals of the state which dffer from the langrage or languagesused by the rest ol the stafe'spopulaîion buî vthich, akhough traditionally used within the teftìtory of the state, cqnnot be - idenîifiedvith a partiatlar eres therefor." (ECRML 1992,Article l). " Czech sign language,the natual visual-motoric languagewith its own grammar and specific features,was put togetherin the samegroup as SignedCzech. Sigrred Czech is an artíficial systemusing signs and the grammarand stucture of Czechspoken language. Both were called Sign speech. o The Act 155/1998Sb. amendedby the Act 38412008Sb. fully in the Act 42312008Sb. aboutCommunication Systems of Deaf and Deaf and Blind. ? Communicationsystems are newly divided into t\ryo groups: 1) Czech sign language;2) Communicationsystem derivedfiom theCzech language. CI]LTURE AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS IN DEAF PUPILS' EDUCATION lnternational conventionsclaim everybody to have fiee accessto culture and cultural heritage.National conventionsguarante€ cultural rights to every single soul regardlessof gender,rao€, state of health, age or disability. The Convention of the Rights of the Personswith Disabilities recognizes:,,The right of the persons with disabilities to îake part on an equal basis wíth others in cultural life." (CRPD, article 30). People with disabilities should have accessto cultural materials in accessibleformats, cultural seúices, theatres,museuÍs and libraries.In line with this part ofthe Convention,deaf peopleshall havethe accessto generalculture. Furthemore, the Conventionpays extra attentionto deaf people'sown specific culture by saying:,, Persons with dísabilitiesshall be entitled,on an equal basiswith others,to recognitionand supparî of their specific cultural attd linguistic identity, including sign languagesand deaf cultwe." (CRPD, article 30). The consequenceof this point ofview are many deaf peopleusing different sign languagesaround the whole Europe sharingtheir national oulturesand in the sametime being acknowledgedas having specific cultural identity (CD-P-RR, 2005). On plus, membersof the EU should developand maintain measuresto protecîand promotelinguistic and cultural diversity: ,,Sign langaagesshould be recognizedas an expression of culîural weakh. They constitute an important element of Europe's linguistic and cultural heritage." (Councif of Europe, 2002, p. 182). With regard 1o policy mentionedabove, do deaf people in the Czech republic, Franceand Swedenhave accessto Deaf culture during education?And are they given accessto generalculture in frame of public cultural institutions?Those are questionsI want to answeron next few pagesreferring to the issueof culture ín specialcunicula with closerattention to nationalcultural policies.

Culture in specialcurricula ln agrcemontwith Europeanconventions and educationpolicy, there aretwo necessaryways how to provide accessto culture in deaf pupils' education- aboveall by offering information aboutDoaf cultural wealth and Deaf identity togetherwith the opportunityto meet generalculture. Thosetwo goals are achievableonly if sign languagehas to becomethe languageofschooling and alsothe primary languageto be leamt". From this point of vievr, only the Swedish special curriculum for deaf is defined with rcspect to those requirements(see Table n'6). Specialsubject Sigr languagefor the Deaf and l{ard of hearingwas built up as a mother tongue subjectwith regardto deaf identity and different culture. Culture, traditions and habits of Deaf community as well as history of Deaf are provided mostly through this subjectand partially in Social sciences.The last importantfactor in Deafculture educationis uniquesubject Movement and Dramafocused not only on Deaf art and artists but also on storytelling, sign languagepoetry and ability to expressthrough visual motoric fanguagein artistic way. Frenchand Czecheducation system for deaf don't take Deaf culture and information aboutDeafhistory so much into consideration. From the second perspective,education is originally entitled to provide accessto general culture in cooperation with cultural institutions like theatres, libraries and museums.Conforming to the general outlines of education acts, the importance of culture is mentioned only in the Czech and French laws refening to educationabout world's cultural valuesand traditions (56112004Sb.) and acquisitionof general and regional culture lvith respectto equal accessto culture, cultural heritageand cultural institutions (2010- 121). Conceming national curricula, culture is included in many subjects,mostly in Art educationand special subjectsMovement and Drama (Sweden,Czeoh Republic) and Art with Music educationfor Deaf (France).Dospite ofthe fact that culture is on€ ofthe main issueofthe whole educationincluded on different levels in the curriculum, and inseparablepart of prospectiveoutcomes ofcompulsory educationereal visit of cultural institutions is mentionedonly in two subjects:slightly as a visit of theatre in the Swedishsubject

8 [n fnt case special education for deaf shall include sign languageclasses in the same amormt of major spoken languagein ordinary schoolsand then classesofmajor and foreign languagesadjusted for deaf. e According to the Czech curriculum, pupil shall be able to understandterms as library, theatre or museum;to use archives,libraries andrnuseums as information sourcesand to expresshis or her opinion oftheatre performance(RVP zV, 2007). (Ministère de lEducation Nationale.2008). s Sign languagefor the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Skolverket,2011b) and in different ways in the French subjectHistory of Art, which mentionsvisits of museums,galleries, theatres and even circus (Ministère de l'EducationNationale, 2008). However, due to the strongautonomy of schools,the connectionbetween cultural heritage inside cultural institutions and deaf pupils lays on individual teachers,their organization skills, private contactsthey haveand headmaster'support. According to îhe cunieula for deaf education,pupils don't havemuch opportunities to get know Deaf culture that is offered mostly indirectly tbough the subject of sign language.General culîure is promoîed much more, mainly in Art Education- However, the direct contact with culture and art by visit of cultural instiÍutíon is, in îhe nost of the cases,given indirectly as well, wheneverthis experienceis expectedin prospectiveoutcomes.

Cultural policy in the Czechrepublic, Franceand Sweden:Accessibility act, Discrimination act

With the tum ofthe century,cultural policies havestarted to point out the importanceof the accessibilityof culture for peoplewith handicap.What is interestingis why they startedto do it and what do they proclaim as a goal of this accessibility.On the authorityof discriminationacts, no one shouldbe treatedless favourablythan someoneelse pursuantto his or her sex, ethnicity,religion, disability, age or sexual orientation.Discrimination is prohibitedon the partofeducation activities, public events, social services and support(compare 2008:567; 198/2009 and 2005-102).Owing to the policy of accessibility,elaborated the most by FrenchAccessibility act on Equal Rights and Opportunities,Paficipation and Citizenshipof People with Disabilities(2005-102) public institutionshave to be accessible.Accessibility is not seenanymore only fiom the technical point ofviow (Czechexperience) but regardinghuman aspectsas well. The questionis, how arethose legal regulations implemented into culturalpolicies. Actual Czechcultural policy is quite terse.Among four main objectives,there is one slightly covering future effort to reinforcecultural educationand cultural knowledgeand to supportaccess ofhandioapped citizens to cultural services:,, More aîtentionneeds to be given to eliminating baniers blocking a more active approach of handicappedpersons to cultural goods und sewíces."(Ministry of Culture2009, p. l8). Culture is presentedabove all as an economicadvantage. Secondary, there is mention a non-materialpoint of view referring amongothers to therapeuticbenefit of culture for peoplewith disability. The accessibilityis mostly perceivedas an overcomingof teohnicalbarrier. On the contrary, the Frenchcultural policy provide many different aspectof embodimentof culture to everyday life including a number of measuresroconcerning integrationofculture into the educationand accessibilityfor peoplewith handicap(Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication,2005). Moreover, there is a national umbrella organizatìon"Accès culture" that provide information about accessiblecultural institutions on national level including their program offer. Finally, Swedenpossess action plan for 2011-2016,which has amongits objectivesincrease access to culture for disabled people. Within the main aims is creating the possibility for people with functional disabilityto paficipate in cultural life and creatingof establishmentfor a regularfunding of disability perspective.Public cultural institutions must increase accessibility, eliminate obstacles and create accessible web sites (Kultunàdel 2011). Swedenand France,they both stressout the importanceof the cooperation between cultural institutions, governmentand organizationsfor people with disabilities to meet cultural policies'liabilities. Accordíng Ío natbnsl culnral policies, the accessto culture has to be given to everyonewith special arîentionto people v,ith disabilities.AII three countriespromoîe accessibililyat least on the technical level. The objectiveof the last parî of thepaper is to discoverthe level of accessibilityofered to deaf children in museumstmd sallerìes.

tu Those measuresinclude creation of parherships between schools, local cultural institutions and professionals, developmentof alt educationwith emphasison direct contact with art and cultuml institutions, training for staff in cultural instítutionsand artistsand finally useofnew technologies. ó THE ACCESSIBILITYOF'CZECH, FRENCH AND SWEDISHMUSEUMS AND GALLERIESFOR THE DEAF'PUPILS

In the following lines,I will presentsome ofthe resultsof the ongoingresearch between Czech; French and Swedishcultural institutions focusedon the accessibilityof museumsand galleriesfor deaf primary sohool pupils. The researchhas startedin February2012 in France,continued with Czech institutions in October and November2012 andwill frnish in December2012 with resultsfrom Swedishmuseums and galleries. Hitherto I have responsesfrom 33 Czech,30 Frenchand 13 Swedishinstitutionsrr. The researchuses electronic suryeysconcentrating on the accessibilitypolicy of those institutions regardingto visit rate and t rget group, the accessibility for deaf visitors from the point of view of technical measuresand human resources,communication and cooperationwith extem institutionsand finally to the obstaclesmuseums and galleriesface to in reachingfor accessibility.

Deafvisitors as a target group

Museumsand galleriesconoentrate more and more on visitors with specialneeds. However, deaf peopleare not so much representedin their targetgroup. Exceptfor Frenchinstitutions, a little lessthan a half of Czech and SwedishmuserÌms and galleries are interestedin deaf visitors. Those,which claim having deaf people among their taxget group, are slightly more focused on deaf adults than deaf children. One of the consequencescould be a fact that visit rate is not high - the averagenumber of visits in museumsand galleriesis lessthan 20 deafvisitors per year in all of the threecountries. Conceming deaf children, there aretwo Swedishinstitutions welcoming between 20 and50 pupilsa yearand two Czechmuseums claiming be visited among100 and 150 children.Finally, there is one Frenchmuseum with more than 150 deaf childrenvisitors in oneyear. Despite of the fact that some museumsand galleries claim being interestedin deaf visitors, there are not many special eventsorganized for them. With regardto special program for deaf child visitors, there is a specialoffer in tkee Czechinstitutions. Only one Swedishmuseum offers a lecturein signlanguage aiming deafchildren.The situationis little bit betterin Frenchmuseums and galleries when 16 of themhave special visit tailored for deaf children needson their regular program.Most of them organizeregular guidedtour in sign language(both with interpreteror deaf guide) and there is also a high number of additional creative workshopslead by deaf facilitators. On plus two institutions use tablets with special softwareinvented for deaf visitors. Theseinstitutions belong to thosewith the highestvisit rate. In the upshot,only 15 from 76 institutionsclaim to be satisfiedwith the visít rateof deafpupils; and 57 of them statebeing discontent.However, among those institutions,which declarebe happy with their number, are only two Frenohmuseums. The rest of satisfiedones are Czechand Swedishinstitutions whosespeoial pro$am targetingdeaf is noneor a very limited one.

On which levelare museumsand galleriesaccessible for deafvisitors?

On the subjectof accessibility,cultural institutionshave severalpossibilities what to do with objectiveto be moreopen to deafvisitors.First ofall, thereis an issueof humanresources. In a groupof 76 museumsand galleries,half ofthem haveamong their employeesa personresponsible for visitors with specialneeds. Once againthe majority ofthose institutionshas a Frenchoriginr2. In most ofthe cases,institutions cooperate with deaf lectors or sign language interpreters and organize training of sign language or about rules of communicationwith deaf for entrancestaff. Secondimportant thing concerningaccessibility are technical measures.In a traditional way, it meansequipment for overcominga lack of soundsuch as light signalsor loop system.Howevero the current trend is to use technolory and new media with the aim to createa full

rr Therewas a list of60 Czech;98 Frenchand 30 Swedishinstitutions asked for participationin tlte research. 12ln caseof CentrePompidou in Paris,tlere is evenone person responsible only for deaf visitors. Moreovershe is deaf anda signlanguage user. -t accesswith respectto the needsand rights of every individual. According to this perspectivemost of the institutions seethemselves as a place of visual culture in no needof specialmodifications, Despite the fact, they use lot of technologiesonly few of them offer a specialplace on offrcial web sites dedicatedfor people with specialneeds or evenfor deafinoluding video in signlanguage and captioning. Conceming new media, the situation is evenworst. Less than 10 museumsor galleriesoffer to deaf visitors multimedia guide,tablet with a specialsoftware or at leasta possibility to downloadîhe programor visual guide via QR code or use applicationfor smartphones.

Communicafion and cooperation with the outside world

In relation to these52 institutionsclaiming to have deaf amongtheir target group, there is lessthan a half of them cooperatingwith some extem organizationto improve their accessíbilityfor this group of visitors. Those organizations are mostly providers of interpreting services, associationsfor deaf or university departmentsr3.Only eleven institutions cooperatewith special schools for deaf. However, some of them collaborateon a reciprocal level using deaf studentsfor exampleas creatorsof new art vocabularyin sign language. Conceming announc€mentof the program, most of the institutions use mailing list, postersand official websites,which in most of tlre casesare, as we know from information given above,not accessiblefor deaf. Only Èw ofthem try to inform potential deafvisitors in a specific way. Someofthem by contactingteachers in specialschools for deaf, otherscommunicate tlrough the contactwith organizationsfor deaf people(see Table no10),There is an increasingnumber of institutions using social network and specialgroups for deaf on thosesites. With regardto problemsand obstaclesinstitutions are facing to, the most claimed one is a lack of human resourcesdirectly followed by a lack of funds.Curious thing is that someinstitutions stale they are interested in accessibilitydevelopment and deaf audiencebut they are neither cooperatingwith someorganization for deaf nor trying to motivate by any meansdeaf peopleto come. Overall, many of these institutions declare being short of informationabout the whole issue.

CONCLUSION

This paper has given an overview of the accessibility of culture to deaf pupils. By comparing education systemsand cultural policies of three different countries- France,Sweden and the CzochRepublic - it has offered outlines for results of enquiry aiming to analysethe accessibilityof museumsand galleriesfor deaf pupils. As the consequencesof the issuesdrafted above,we can see a huge effort at the national level to provide accessto culture for deaf pupils with respectto their specific basedon the membershipof linguistic and cultural minority. However,the researchshows the reality is far from the promotedintention. Unlike national strategies,legislation and policies, cultural institutions are not enough preparedto welcome deaf visitors (regardlessto the fact îhat someofthem don't seedeafpeople as a requiredaudience). Results show a lack of program dedioatedto deaf children using sign languageor playful approach;a shortageof implemented measures- both on the level of humanresources and technologies;but especiallya lack of understanding what are deaf pupils' rights and needs. On the other hand, more and more institutions have people responsiblefor accessibility among their staff and the number of spocial program offered by cultural institutions for deaf children is increasing.At any rate, museumsand galleries claim they are willing to changetheir approach,whenever they dont know how.

t3 There are also some French exceptions when museumsand galleries cooperatewith association focused on accessibilityand technical innovations. 8 To conclude,I proposeto focus on simple changesand than to continuethinking bigger. From my point of view the major problem is not a lack of money or staff but the way in which we - major society, cultural institutions and deaf people as well - think. We have to break the psychologicalbarrier and stop rÀ/aiting when others make a move. The least we can do is to start telling the world what we offer and asking the others what they waút to see.In the moment we changethe way of our thinking, our institutions and our societ5rbecome more accessible.

BIBLIOGRAPIIY

Sweden. Discrimination Act. In: SF,S 2008:567. 2008. Accessible from: http://www.government.se/contenll/c6/ 11 / 8l I 87I f6ela2b8.pdf

EIJ'ROPEANCOMMISSION. Organisationof the educaîionsystem in Sweden:2009/2010. Bruxelles, 201 1. Accessible from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/SE_EN.pdf

Czech Republic. New Education Act. ln: 561/2004 Sú. 2004. Accessible from: http://aplikace.msmt.c/HTlvlSkolskyzakon_5612004Sb.htm

France. Loi "Handicap": pour l'égalité des droits et des chances,la participation et la citoyennetédos personnes handicapées. ln: 2045-102. 2005. Accessible from: http://www.legifrance.gouv.filaffrchTexte.dojsessionid=A663DF3FDBA867FFABF030184EE4C03B.tpdjo 03v_2?cidTexte:JORFTEXTO00000809647&categorielien:id

SKOLVERKET. Ltiroplon f)r specialskolan,jbrskoleda,ssen och fritidshemmet 201I lonlinel. Stockholm: Skolverket, 2011b, 406 s. [cit. 2013-09-23]. ISBN 978-91-38325-42-I. Accessible from: http://www.skolverket. se/om-skolverkeVpubliceralvisa-enski ld- publikation?_xurl_=htfpy'o3AV'ozF%o2FwwwS.skolverket.se%2Fwtp\b%o2Fwso/o2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%o2Ff rycksak%2FRecoú%3Fk%3D2697

MINISTPJ DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION. P/az de relance de l'éducationartistique et culturelle. Paris,2005. Accessiblefrom: h@://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualiteVpolitique/education- artistique/relance/plan-relance.pdf

Zdravotnépostiàení a zneujhodnèníZóci v éeskémÉkolsL'tí. Tideník Skolsrvi [online]. 2010, ò. 19 [cit. 2013- 08-241. Dostupné z: http;//wrrvr.tydenik-skolstvi.czJarchiv-ciseU20l0/l9lzdravotne-postizeni-a- aelyhodneni-zaci-v-ceskem-skolstvi/

EuropeanUnion. White Paper on Education and Training: Teachingand Leaming Towards the Learning Society.In: 1995.Accessible from: http://europa.eu/documents/comr/whitelapers/pdf,/com95_590-en.pdf

SKOLVERKET. Curriculumfor the compulsoryschool, preschool class and îhe leisure-timecentre 2011 [online].Stockholm: Skolverket, 201 la [cit. 2012-11:20J.ISBNISBN 978-91-86529-58-1.Accessible from: http://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publicerat/visa-enskild- publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ft rycksak%2FRecord%3Fk%3D2687

Sweden. Language Act. In: 2009:600. 2009. Accessible from: http://www.oui.eulProjectVlnternationalArtHeritageladDocuments/Nationall€gislation/Sweden/languagea cr.pdf

Expfanatoryrepoît. EuropeanCharter for Regional or Mínority Languages,Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1992.Accessible from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/enlTreaties/IltrnVl48.htm SWEDISH NATIONAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION . Facts and fgures about pre-school acîivítíes, school-agechildcqre, schools and adult educationin Sweden20,11. Stockholm: Skolverket, 2011. ISBN 978-91-86529-29-1.

France. Code de l'éducation. ln: Loi n"2010-121 du 8 féwier 2010. 2010. Accessible fiom: http://www.fegifrance.gouv.filaffichCode.dojsessionid=A97 A329F287 AA2EA3EED I 88D2E7708D0.tpdjo 03v_2?idSectionTA=LBGISCTA000006166561&cidTexte=LEGITEXT00000607119l&dateText e.20121.031

RVP ZV. fuimcoy! vzdél6,acÍ plogram pro zókladní vzdélónóní: (se zménami k 1. 9. 2007). Praha: Vfzkumnj ústav pedagogicLí 2007, 126 s. Accessible from: http://www.vuppraha.czlwp- content/uploadV2009 / 12lRV P Zy ]007-07.pdf

MINISTERSTVO KULTIjRY ÓF.-Stdtní kutnrní politilm Ceskerepubliky 2009-2014:Naîional cultural policy CzechRepublic 2009-2014 [online]. Praha: Ministerstvo kultury, 2009, 105, 108 s. [cit. 20i3-10-23]. ISBN 978-80-86310-83-1.Accessible from: http://www.mkcr.czlassetVkultumi-politika/kultumi-politika- fresh.pdf

KLILTURRADET. Action Plan 201I - 2016. Stockholm, 201,1. Accessible from: http://www.kultunadet.se/Documents/VerksamhelTillganglighelmal-handlingsplan.pdf

France. Loi Fabius. ln: 91-73. 1991. Accessible ftom: http://www.legifrance.gouv.frlaffichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006077122&dateTexte:200904

Sweden. Skollagen. In: 2010:800. 2010. Accessible from: http://www.skolverket.se/lagar-och- regler/skollagen-och-andralagar

L'éducationnationale en chiffre. In: MINISTRE DE L'ÉDUCATION.Education.gouv.fr fonlne). 2012, Séptembre2012 fcit. 2013-10-201.Accessible from: http://www.education.gouv.ù/cid571I 1/l-education- nationale-en-chíffres.html

MINISTRE DE LEDUCATION NATIONALE. Organisation de I'enseignementde I'histoire des arts: Ecole, Collge, Lycée lonlinef.2Oo8 [cit. 2013-10-231.ISBN Bulletin officiel no 32 du 28 aot 2008. Accessiblefrom: http://media.education.gouv.frlfile/32109/0/encart_]3090.pdf

France'setÍnic minorities:To countor not to count.The Econorzlsr [online]. London: Economist Newspaper Ltd., 2009, [cit. 2013-10-241. ISSN 0013-0613. Accessible from: http://www.economist.conl node / 1337 7 32 4

(CD-P-RR),Drawn up by Nina Timmermans;in ao-operationwith the Committeeon the Rehabilitationand Integratio. Thestatus of sign languagein Europe: report for'lineT.Strasbourg; Council of EuropePubl,2005 [cit. 2013-10-20].ISBN 92-871-5720-0.Accessible from: http://www.coe.inlt/e/socialcohesion/soc- spI 57 20 -0 -ID2283-Lan gue%20signe_GB%20assemble.pdf

ZEMAN, V6clav. ÒLovÈK V TiSNI: VARIANTY. Reforma íkolství v Óesw republice. Prah4 2006. Accessiblefrom : http://www.varianty.c/reforma-prirucka.pdf

This paperwas written thanksto the Facultyof Education'sfund.

10