Cultural Diversity in China 2016; 2(1): 29–51

Research Article Open Access

Xiaoxing He* “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” A Case Study of an NGO’s Deaf Education Program in China

DOI 10.1515/cdc-2016-0005 welfare, blindness prevention and treatment, health care, Received June 30, 2015; accepted August 10, 2015 disaster relief, and rural poverty relief and development. Amity and Nanjing University have many collaborations Abstract: This article focuses on a prominent NGO in and much communication in social activity and research, mainland China, the Amity Foundation, and its programs partly because of their geographical proximity but more for deaf education reform in recent years. Through analyz- because of the resonance of their ideas. The author himself ing primary sources, such as round table minutes, it pre- is a participant in the bilingual education program that sents a vivid process in special education reform and the Amity is leading. Seeing some observations, interviews, engagement and influence of this NGO, as a critical social and records of the operation of this program while parti- force, in education and its reform. The idea that the Amity cipating in it provoked some preliminary thoughts on Foundation advocates and propagates – that is, deafness education reform, especially deaf education reform. as a distinct cultural or cross-cultural existence that edu- cation reform should fully acknowledge – is embodied in the “bilingual bicultural” education program for the deaf in many provinces of mainland China. Many of this pro- Language and Culture: Bilingual gram’s materials can help us to deeply understand the social and sociological meanings of education reform. Deaf Education Program

Keywords: disability education reform, round table, NGO, Amity is a proponent and practitioner of deaf education bilingual and dual culture reform. Challenging traditional approaches, it advocates progressive Western deaf education philosophy – bilingual – The Amity Foundation (hereafter “Amity”) is a very active and bicultural education philosophy in order to change NGO, founded in April 1985 and with headquarters on the old appearance of deaf education. Traditional deaf “ ” Hankou Road in central Nanjing, right next to the Gulou education is called compensation education and aims campus of Nanjing University. It was one of the first NGOs at providing deaf children with special, additional educa- formed in China’s early reform era. With the participation tion plans and services to lead them to a normal life, to of people from various social sectors, Amity is mainly expand the opportunities and rights that they have lost engaged in poverty relief, development, and other social because of their disadvantaged position. However, Amity enterprises. The foundation includes a blindness preven- goes one step further. It promotes the social status of deaf tion and special education department, an education people, elevating them from a negative existence of receiv- “ ” department, a medical care and health department, a ing compensation to a more positive position, with more rural development department, and a public welfare agency. Its strategy of promotion gives prominence to sign department, among others. It has run many philanthropic language as a language in deaf education, as well as to programs in more than two hundred counties and cities in concerns in deaf culture. As a corresponding educational thirty-one provinces and autonomous regions of mainland practice, Amity launched a deaf education reform program. China and has made many efforts to propel social devel- This program began in 1996, when Amity initiated the “ opment, especially in education, social services, social collaborative Deaf Children Bilingual Bicultural Education Experiment” (Shen, Wu, and Chu 2005, 10). Bilingual and bicultural were thus coupled together in the early stage of *Corresponding author: Xiaoxing He, Department of Sociology, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nanjing University, 163 the program. However, as the program progressed, lan- Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China, E-mail: [email protected] guage moved further and further ahead of culture. In the

© 2016, Xiaoxing He. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. 30 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” end, language played a solo role in the program. In 2004, agendas and methods for deaf education from preschool with the support of the Norwegian Signo foundation, Amity through the compulsory education grades (through age began to collaborate with the Jiangsu Provincial Special fifteen) and to ensure deaf children’s right to receive Education Special Committee, initiating another round of basic education in their own language. Schools in the deaf education reform. The title of this program was Zhong program taught in sign language and developed bilingual Nuo Shuangyu Longjiaoyu Hezuo Xiangmu (SigAm bilin- and bicultural education agendas to guarantee that the gual deaf education project) – without the three characters first group of students in the program received instruc- that spell shuangwenhua (bicultural). In other words, bicul- tion from the beginning to the end of their compulsory tural, which appeared in the title of the 1996 program, was education according to the plan designed for the missing from the title of the 2004 program. program. Zhang Ningsheng, a well-known special education The word bicultural, however, does not appear in the expert and a consultant for the bilingual deaf education title of the China-Norway collaborative bilingual deaf edu- program, has coedited a book titled Introduction to Deaf cation project. That “deaf culture” does not appear in the Culture. He recalled, when explaining why he wanted to name was probably not the intention solely of Norway. compile this book, that he “had already recognized [the Professor Stein Ohna of the University of Stavanger, also value of] deaf culture after [studying] dual grammar. a consultant on the project, summarized the SigAm experi- Because bilingualism walks side by side with bicultural- mental program (SigAm 2004–9) from the perspective of ism” (Zhang et al. 2010, 1). He also wrote, “The overall Norway in his article “Communication and Participation in environment of opening and reform allowed me to have Chinese Deaf Schools: Experiences from a China-Norway contact with several programs of international collabora- Collaboration Project on Sign Bilingual Education”: tion on ‘bilingual biculturalism for deaf children.’ We clicked almost right away” (2). We can tell from Zhang’s Bilingual biculturalism is a well-known concept in international memory that Amity was not the only organization with a deaf education. But it has to be reinterpreted in the context of Chinese education. The project introduction pamphlet of Amity bilingual cultural program. Related international colla- clearly defines this concept: “Bilingual biculturalism refers to the 1 borations were really flourishing. sign language of deaf people in China and Mandarin Chinese, However, language and culture, which had walked and the corresponding deaf culture and culture of people with together along the way when it came to Jiangsu in 2004, normal hearing [respectively].”… ’ finally parted ways.2 Indeed, rather than saying that they The theoretical foundation of Norway s management of SigAm comes from social culture theory. Social culture theory empha- parted ways, it would be more accurate to say that lan- sizes that human knowledge and institutions are created and guage threw culture far behind or even was afraid of maintained in the dynamics of a specific cultural and historical being associated with it in any way. background. In order to help understand human activity as a It was not Amity’s intention not to put longwenhua process of construction and reconstruction of social structure, it (deaf culture) in the title of the 2004 program. Amity is an is necessary to explain the tools that actors use, in which lan- advocate and promoter of bilingual biculturalism. In the guage plays a crucial role. What do we do with language? What does language mean to us? These are questions that are really introduction to the Sino-Norwegian bilingual deaf educa- worth analysis. (Ohna 2009, 62) tion program on its website, one can still see a clear stance of bilingual biculturalism: advancing recognition “What does language mean to us?” Through this of Chinese Sign Language as the mother tongue of deaf question, what the Norway side wanted to say was that people in China.3 The program aimed to create teaching the concern was the cultural features of language rather than its instrumentality. Ohna recalls in this article (62–63), based on his field notes taken during his parti- 1 “ Zhang also points out that some adventurous and reform-minded cipation in the first year of the project, educators and researchers began several experiments in this regard after the concept of ‘bilingual and bicultural education’ was intro- after a few years’ preparation, SigAm began in May 2001. At the duced into China.” However, a number of these experiments in our early stage, the project carried out two very important activities: country have stayed at the bilingual level and not really realized holding a conference in Nanjing to introduce to the Norway side bicultural education (Zhang 2010, 8). the situation of deaf education development in China; and hold- 2 Nonetheless, the expression “bilingual biculturalism” still often ing a conference in Suzhou to introduce to participants on the appears in the names of deaf education projects of UNICEF, the China side bilingual deaf education thoughts in Norway… United Nations’ children’s rights and emergency relief organization, Cheng Yiji [a member of the SigAm coordination team] also in provinces of mainland China. shared some thoughts on the incoming deaf education curriculum 3 www.amityfoundation.org.cn/project/app/0004/webproject- reform. A basic principle of the new curriculum is to change the 0003lv.aspx. Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 31

situation in the past that focused only on teaching content and goals, requirements, report systems, financial regimes, specific pedagogies. These pedagogies in fact put teachers in a and so on. Each school in the experiment would receive ’ dominant position but ignored students learning capacity. The a certain amount of money from the SigAm bilingual new curriculum, however, stresses students’“self-learning, colla- boration, and exploration.” It actually emphasizes the importance project every year for five years. of students’ communication and participation in education…. This article’s purpose is not to review the entire course In the Suzhou conference of principals from deaf schools in of Amity’s deaf education reform but rather to discuss China, Norwegian specialists introduced core concepts and the- “disabled” education reform and education reform’s “dis- ories of deaf education and sign bilingual education develop- ability” through the phenomenon of language moving ment. At the request of the project coordination team, the along without culture. It aims to demonstrate that educa- lectures of the Norwegian specialists focused on the following “ ” three topics: tion reforms targeting the deaf (in this case definitely (1) History and development of deaf education in Norway, deaf people) have purposefully or accidentally exposed the past, present, and future “disability” of these reforms themselves in the process of (2) Bilingual biculturalism and its significance in deaf implementation: education reform was supposed to walk education on the two legs of language and culture, yet what we have (3) Classroom teaching under the conception of bilingualism and biculturalism seen in the process of deployment has been the separation of language from culture. What is sociologically meaning- ful is that the separation was not the intention of reform In our lectures, we dug into the first two topics directly but could only indirectly touch upon the third topic, classroom teaching. advocates. However, as a result of the complicated inter- Deaf education and bilingual bicultural teaching can be action of all sorts of social factors and forces, the advance approached from these three angles. The first is to understand of bilingual education reform, at least in Jiangsu Province, them via the United Nations’ goal of everyone being able to had to draw attention away from deaf culture as a pre- receive education. The focus of the first lecture was thus deaf condition of moving forward. The diverging force of such a education relevant to Norwegian education policies. Second, separation ultimately led to “crippled” deaf education. bilingual bicultural education is related to functional bilingual- ism, so the second lecture stressed that Norwegian Sign This article concretely presents that force through the Language is just one type of human sign language. It also talked textual analysis of a round table’s minutes, on the basis about the bilingual education of deaf students. The third angle is of which the author also provides a deeper discussion of to discuss bilingual bicultural education from the standpoint of “disability” and education reform. deafness and deaf students. This lecture emphasized that deaf education has to adopt diversified paths and that deaf people’s participation in deaf education is necessary. The Norwegian specialists intentionally did not introduce specific pedagogies in their earlier lectures, because it is not appropriate to discuss a Textual Analysis of a Round Table certain seemingly universal teaching method that is in fact out of touch with local cultural traditions. Amity organized a team of six specialists to conduct research in three deaf schools, including deaf school Z, It is not hard to see several things in this precious on October 11 and 12, 2005. Amity’s bilingual deaf educa- firsthand memory: First, the term culture appears with tion project (SigAm) hired six consultants to participate in high frequency, and biculturalism is in two of the three the research and supervision of the project, two of whom lecture topics. Second, the Norway side intentionally were on the specialist team. The other four team members reminded of us the correlation between culture and peda- were from the special education research section of a gogy and made every effort to avoid talking about peda- professional technology college in city N. SigAm schools gogy just for the sake of talking about it. Furthermore, the were using textbooks designed for regular schools. This China side focused on teaching methods and students’ research aimed at collecting feedback on new textbooks learning methods, seemingly wanting to understand the from teachers at the forefront of the project, with their meaning of language only at the instrumental level of content to be adjusted based on the regular-school text- classroom teaching. books and their use in these schools. The specialists In the beginning, the SigAm project carried out its mainly audited a first-grade Chinese class. As for the experiments in Jiangsu Province, in five special schools in round table, its purpose was for the vanguard teachers to Nanjing, Suzhou, Changzhou, Zhenjiang, and Yangzhou. express their opinions and get answers to their questions. On September 1, 2004, Amity signed project collaboration What is presented here are excerpts from a transcription of agreements with five deaf schools, including the Nanjing the audio record of the round table with the relevant School for the Deaf, ensuring basic consensus on project teachers of school Z, held after the specialists had audited 32 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” two sessions of a Chinese class (the full transcript appears Teacher C: Today’s class is eight characters in the [textbook] as an appendix to this article). section “Please Read” [ren yi ren]. It requires students to read Deaf school Z, the focus of this research, was pre- those eight basic characters. When preparing the lesson, our purpose was to ask whether students recognize and know their viously a private deaf school, established in 1937. It was meaning, and therefore are able to connect the illustrations, made a public school and renamed Z Deaf School in 1952. characters, and gestures together. [We] designed the class In 1995, the government invested six million yuan (about along these lines. Then in order to correspond with bilingualism, one million U.S. dollars) to relocate the school and con- not to correspond… [Laughs.] struct new buildings for it, nearly 5,000 square meters on Director Z: [Laughs.] [Now you] don’t know how to teach. 13,700 square meters of grounds, creating a “Z special ” Teacher C: We used to teach this class alone. No deaf teacher to education center. In September 2012, it became a com- assist. What are we going to do in response to bilingual educa- prehensive medium-size special education school, with tion? We figured we need the assistance of a deaf teacher to do education for both the deaf and the hearing impaired, this, then. in which deaf education consists of preschool education, Director Z: To distribute one teacher’s work to two teachers, compulsory education, and advanced midlevel education, [you] don’t know what to do? with a length of schooling of fifteen years. At the time of Teacher C: We never had two teachers in the same class before; the research, the school had 21 classes, 185 students, and today we just gave it a try. Also, we had to deal with new class 59 staff. It had joined the SigAm project in 2004. materials. We were not quite successful in grasping some impor- Representatives of school Z in the round table included tant and difficult points, though.

Principal R, Director of Education and Administration Z, Director Z: In this class today she was different from how she Director of Discipline W, normal-hearing teacher C and one usually teaches. She seems to be lost. Even not to dare to use deaf teacher, both from the Chinese course for the first- traditional, common pedagogical methods for the first grade, like grade bilingual class, one normal-hearing teacher and one the usual gestures and pronunciation. This is bilingual class, so deaf teacher from the preschool bilingual classes, and she did not know how to run it. No matter [whether] bilingual or monolingual or other classes, I think language development is the normal-hearing mathematics teacher X. The specialists key. It is the goal. But it is hard to strike a balance in class, audited mainly one Chinese course of the first-grade bilin- because the textbook is for regular schools. Plus, [you have to] gual class that normal-hearing teacher C taught. keep up with the schedule. It is really difficult. Those five courses Of the four members of the specialist team, Division are all new. [You do] not have a class [for students] to review. No Chief C and Principal Z were the two key figures. C is the time to review and reinforce [knowledge]. There is still much vice–director general of the special education committee confusion. of the Chinese Education Association, the head of the National Deaf Education Curriculum Reform Research C first introduced the teaching goals of this class, Team, and formerly a major leader of the Basic as well as his/her great confusion in preparing and Education Department of J province’sBoardof teaching it. We can tell from the first paragraph that Education, as well as the director general of J’sProvincial recognizing Chinese characters and using hand signs to Association of Special Education Studies. At this time, he present their meaning had long been the goal of teach- was appearing as the director of J’s Provincial Committee ing. However, this bilingual teaching experiment of Special Education. Principal Z was the principal of messed up the teaching designs passed down from another school, deaf school N, and the director of the past. C used “correspond” to express his/her con- Amity’s Rehabilitation Center for Deaf Children in fusion. In reaction to C’s “to correspond with bilingu- Nanjing, and served as a member of the Hearing and alism” and expressions of confusion over how to do so, Language Rehabilitation Committee of the Rehabilitation Director Z used three consecutive “don’tknow”s – Association of Chinese Disabled Persons, a member of the “don’t know how to teach,”“don’tknowwhattodo,” Special Education Committee of the Chinese Education and “[don’t] know how to run [bilingual class]”–as Association, the vice-director of J’s Provincial Committee notes on C’s statements, giving the whole conversation for Hearing and Language Rehabilitation, and the vice– an extremely strong negative color. Readers can tell director general of N’s Municipal Association of Special from this conversation, especially the consecutive nega- Education Studies. He was at the round table as an expert tion of “not,” what kind of negative and passive feeling member of J’s Provincial Committee of Special Education. the correspond that C used reveals. The reform of bilin- At the beginning of the round table, three “don’t gual education, maybe because it was just in the begin- know”s of Director of Education and Administration Z of ning stage, had not received the wide acceptance of school Z were very impressive: front-line teachers and was not something to which Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 33 they had positively and willingly devoted themselves. Regarding issues with the new textbook, W pointed To some extent, the reform was an intrusion of outside out that “we used to use a textbook for deaf schools. We influence, precisely because of which, just as we see in were quite accustomed to it, whether in the teacher’s C’scase,“to correspond” seemstoreflectwhatwasan teaching or the student’s acceptance. The current text- awkward position. To summarize, using Director Z’s book is less targeted. It does not target us. We have to words, the teachers “[didn’t] know what to do.” The start from scratch. We have to take care of language and awkwardness of “corresponding,” one can tell from the Chinese characters simultaneously.” However, the round table, was due more specifically to the change expression “accustomed to” in “We used to use a text- from one teacher to two teachers, one of whom was book for deaf schools. We were quite accustomed to it, deaf, in order to cope with the class’sauditbythe whether in the teacher’s teaching or the student’s accep- specialist team. Indeed, having two teachers for one tance” still met with correction and criticism. As an class was not the convention but an ad hoc “let’stry important member of the specialist team, Division Chief it today.” Csaid,“Whatarewegoingtodo…?We C made a guiding remark: figured we need the assistance of a deaf teacher to do this, then.”“This” in “to do this” refers to coping with In 1982, western and northern European countries identified their the audit. And what was audited was not an ordinary failures in deaf education: compromising too much with regards to the requirements for deaf students and stressing compensation class but a bilingual class. Therefore, here comes a deaf for defects too much while not placing potential developments in teacher. However, in the modal particle here translated an important position. I think these two conclusions fully apply to as “then” in “the assistance of a deaf teacher to do this, us. Previous textbooks replaced some vivid material and instead then,” onecansenseastrongfeeling of helplessness. It taught deaf students with dry material. We would need six, is safe to say that even in an experimental bilingual seven, eight, or nine classes to finish with even a short essay. school, the appearance of deaf teachers clearly We expected students to understand integrated knowledge only by repeatedly reading “out loud” and made integrated knowl- prompted confusion and helplessness in the conscious- edge fragmented, considering the defects of deaf students too ness and language expression of an education partici- much and lowering our expectations [for them]. So our deaf pant in the round table. What was behind this students did not learn very well. helplessness, however, was the reality of deaf teachers’ almost nonexistent position in the education sector. Division Chief C aptly caught the core issue of Deaf teachers are at the margins of deaf education, “accustomed to”: “accustomed to” was accomplished at and their difficulty in reaching the stage of the classroom the price of progress and quality. Traditional deaf educa- is a widespread phenomenon. This was also one of the tion excessively lowered the requirements for deaf stu- “three major questions” listed by W, the director of dis- dents, overemphasized compensation for defects, cipline of school Z. The other two concerned textbooks stressed the training of reading “aloud,” and cost too and pedagogy. However, those three are closely much class time. The knowledge level of traditional interconnected. deaf education textbooks is several years lower than that of textbooks for normal-hearing students. The deaf Director W: Three major questions are: first, the new textbook; Chinese course lost its highlights and became “dry.” second, how deaf teachers should participate; third, how to Division Chief C therefore said determinedly, handle the textbook. Without a textbook, how do we use a deaf teacher, then? We used to use a textbook for deaf schools. We “It is fair to say that past teaching was not successful in either were quite accustomed to it, whether in the teacher’s teaching or progress or method. With either eight or nine years of deaf school the student’s acceptance. The current textbook is less targeted. It education, it is a frustrating result….. Our fourth-grade students does not target us. We have to start from scratch. We have to are far behind students of the same grade in regular schools. take care of language and Chinese characters simultaneously. They completely failed the exam designed for fourth-grade stu- School education also can’t keep up with the schedule. The dents of regular schools.” first-grade class of regular school is designed to connect regular kindergarten classes to not only the language issue but also the The new textbook, however, aimed to rectify this, entire knowledge system. There is simply no way to teach mathe- matics. If you can’t keep up with the schedule, then it surely can’t targeting the compensation education of the past. It had be effective. more content and a higher difficulty level and approached closer to a normal school’sstandards.It Director Z: Preschool is disconnected from the first-grade classes. Chinese and mathematics classes are taught as if they were sign can be said that this is a new direction in deaf education language classes. [We] have to teach each [sign language] one by reform. However, questions also followed. Using the new one, as students do not know the characters. textbook raised issues in teaching. As the round table 34 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” shows, being asked to use normal-school textbooks con- in the zone of deaf education after the government estab- fused teachers so that they could not keep up with the lished “oral language as the center” as a principle of deaf schedule and finish all the content that ought to be education in 1956. Oral language pedagogy has thus kept finished. absolute dominance all along. (He 2006, 93). Only in recent years has bilingual deaf education become a Director Z: “But it is hard to strike a balance in class, because focus of attention and an educational reform experiment the textbook is for regular schools. Plus, [you have to] keep up with the schedule. It is really difficult.” and practice in certain schools in certain regions, result- ing from reflection on compensation education and the Director W: “The current textbook is less targeted. It does not influence of European and American deaf education con- target us.” cepts and thoughts. Principal Z: “Regular-school students learn the first-grade text- ” “ book with six years of language background. But our Chinese The concept of bilingual deaf education recognizes social lan- and mathematics classes are taught as if they were sign language guage and cultural diversity, fully acknowledges the deaf group ” “ classes (Director Z). Director W: Not just the language is an and deaf language, sign language and deaf culture. It insists that – issue so is the entire knowledge system. There is simply no way deaf sign language is the first language that deaf children must to teach mathematics. If you can’t keep up with the schedule, master; on using deaf sign language as a tool in teaching, ’ ” then it surely can t be effective. including in teaching deaf children the languages of their own countries (oral and written language), using this approach to Division Chief C also thought new the curriculum teach a second language; on the importance of deaf people’s really “posed a big challenge for the teaching, textbook, equal participation in deaf education; and on having high expec- and pedagogy in our deaf schools.” But, he insisted, tations of deaf students with the hopes of raising them to be people who can do anything except have normal hearing. (Shen, we should not excessively lower the requirements for [deaf] Wu, and Chu 2005, 159) children. The problem in the past lies in that we lowered our expectations too much. In the past we could spend a couple of However, even with the consensus that bilingual deaf days teaching the Pinyin of one character or the character itself. “ So we should reflect in this regard. Because we are doing an education is a very good choice to better, fully develop experiment, at each stage we should consistently remind our- body, mind, virtue, intelligence” while “not excessively selves to reflect on pedagogical concepts, teaching methods, lower[ing] the requirements for [students],” the under- and teaching tools. Also to reflect and find strategies for the standing of its meanings is not without fractures. development of students in every respect. Here I hope you will At the round table, one person, though not present, still follow the schedule, and always reflect. Differences do exist existed in the consciousness of every participant. This for deaf students, but we don’t have to use traditional ways to think about today’s teaching. person A is an Amity sector manager and the manager of the SigAm bilingual deaf education experiment. A is a key figure in Chinese bilingual deaf education reform. “Should not excessively lower the requirements for Not only has he translated and introduced Western bilin- [deaf] children” means that deaf education should not gual deaf education thoughts and concepts into China, walk the traditional path of compensation education. but he has also implemented these thoughts and con- Division Chief C stressed, “We don’t have to use tradi- cepts, as in preparing and carrying out this bilingual deaf tional ways to think about today’s teaching.” Then how education program. There was an interesting conversa- can one “not excessively lower the requirements for tion regarding A at the round table. [deaf] children” while “better, fully develop[ing] [their] body, mind, virtue, intelligence”? Bilingual deaf educa- Division Chief C: We still have to use Chinese Sign Language tion here became an experimental choice. when teaching sign language, though we may use natural sign Bilingual deaf education, rather than a pedagogy of language to explain it. We must stick to standards in the teaching taking care of language and character simultaneously, of sign language. Yours [ours] is Chinese teaching. Natural sign refers to a bilingual education of oral expression and language has to be auxiliary, functioning as a tool. sign language. Director Z: A said we must teach entirely in the natural sign There have been intense debates surrounding what language of deaf people and abandon oral language. roles sign language teaching should have and whether sign language, especially deaf sign language, which is One can surmise from what Director Z said that A is considered “natural sign language,” should be used as not only an advocate of sign language education but also teaching languages or not. The situation in mainland a determined advocate of natural sign language. He is not China is that sign language was long taken as forbidden just promoting bilingual deaf education but also paying Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 35 special attention to the roles and functions of deaf people thinking, to better master Mandarin Chinese, to better in deaf education. attain knowledge.” Though they all participated in and promoted the It is safe to say, even though these education officers experiment and practice of bilingual deaf education, and practitioners and Amity are all engaged in bilingual those who were in the round table were clearly different deaf education reform, they apparently have different from A in their attitude toward natural sign language. attitudes toward sign language, especially natural sign Division Chief C maintained that “we must stick to stan- language. It is worth further thinking about whether to dards in the teaching of sign language. Yours [ours] is take sign language teaching only as a method or as Chinese teaching. Natural sign language has to be aux- concept, the difference between these two approaches, iliary, functioning as tool.” Because of this, Division Chief and what that difference implies. C said, “[we] have to break through the authority of deaf The bottom line of “we should keep what deserves teachers in sign language. Does knowing sign language keeping, and do things how they should be done” was alone mean that one can be a teacher? Similarly, can one drawn at “Our bilingual teaching is not done to teach be a teacher as long as one can talk? Many farmers are sign language for the sake of learning it. It is a tool but illiterate but very good at speaking. They are still farmers. not the purpose of teaching itself.” Language is just a tool. It does not reflect one’s level of Those who would not yield an inch with regard to knowledge…. To learn [Chinese] characters before learn- this bottom line were participants in the round table, ing Pinyin does not fit the rule of education…. Focusing mainly officials of educational sectors and normal- on natural sign language is equal to focusing on deaf hearing teachers. They emphasized the integration of people.” deaf people into mainstream culture and took sign lan- Principal Z, another major member of the specialist guage teaching only as a method, stressing that the team, to show his attitude, followed with: “We should purpose of deaf education is for deaf students to better keep what deserves keeping, and do things how they develop their thinking and better master Mandarin should be done.” Chinese. Amity expects to have a breakthrough, but with- Director Z spoke in a roundabout way and raised out abandoning its bottom line, and has conducted var- doubts about bilingual deaf education: “The guiding ious reforms. Although acknowledging the importance of principle of the experiment is quite vague. Should we deaf people’s integration into mainstream culture, it has concentrate on sign language or on the development of not given up the conviction that the first language of deaf deaf people? We overthrew all previous paradigms and people should be their natural sign language. The orga- we got cold feet, all for emphasizing bilingualism.” nization emphasizes the equal participation of deaf peo- Therefore, under the principle of “we should keep ple in deaf education and insists that deaf sign language what deserves keeping, and do things how they should in education should not stay at the level of approach but be done,” a dividing line was drawn between education should be the purpose of the education itself. officers and practitioners on one side and Amity on the It is still very difficult for many who are education other, although they are all in the same camp of bilingual officers or practitioners to accept the view of deafness as deaf education. Let us see where this line was drawn. a subcultural or transcultural existence, at least for now. One can tell from the record of the round table that The content of the round table shows that whether they on the side of education officers and practitioners, even are administrators or teachers, everyone focuses on how those advocating bilingual deaf education, sign language to better use sign language to help deaf people learn teaching is only a method and tool. The full development Chinese and develop their thinking. Here the word think- of students’ body, morality, and intelligence is the con- ing means not “thinking as deaf people” but rather cept and the purpose. Of course there is nothing to fault “thinking as normal-hearing people,” allowing deaf peo- in this. However, such an abstract concept has to be ple to think and understand questions just as normal- realized at a concrete level. When it is implemented at hearing people do. For instance, Principal Z, as a major such a level, Chinese is no longer just a sign language – it member of the specialist team, mentioned, “Our deaf becomes concept and purpose. Division Chief C said, students’ thinking is often stiff. What is the natural sign “Our bilingual teaching is not done to teach sign lan- language of deaf people? Should we call it ‘natural sign guage for the sake of learning it. It is a tool but not the language’ as long as it is different from finger language?” purpose of teaching itself. The purpose is to better, fully “Our deaf students’ thinking is often stiff.” This develop body, mind, virtue, intelligence. From the per- “stiff” thinking is without question the problem that has spective of teaching, it is to develop [the students’] to be overcome. Only education that transforms deaf 36 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” people into being like normal-hearing people deserves to accomplish something. Its efforts, because of their com- be called education. plication and hardship, provide an excellent case for the Of course, it should be noted that following tradi- sociological analysis of deaf education reform. tional pedagogical thought, such as the idea that only In a careful reading of the transcript of the round changing “stiff[ness]” can be called education, was not table (please refer to the appendix), at least three points, Amity’s original intention. As an NGO, what Amity insists in content and style, are worth attention. on is the principle of social work, which here departs First of all, the participants were all powerful figures from traditional pedagogical thought. The latter pre- in the forefront of education, including former officers of sumes subjects of education (students), sets value stan- the Basic Education Department of Jiangsu Province4 and dards and goals for them from the position of educator, principals and heads of the deaf schools in the experi- and then helps them break away from so-called uncivi- ment. These midlevel cadres, who are at the level of lized status via a whole set of procedures. In contrast, policy implementation, directly determine whether top- social work stresses thinking about issues from the posi- down education reforms are carried out correctly or not. tion of the subject. First of all, it requests the under- The folk wisdom of “Whenever there is a policy from standing of the subject and his or her situation and above, there will be a countertactic from below” implies needs, and helps him or her from the bottom up rather that however good the macro policies are, there will than indoctrinating him or her from the top down. Here always be realistic revisions at the micro level when it the object is not an “uncivilized” existence. Deaf people comes to the grass roots. It is those chiefs and principals became a disadvantaged social group because many who determine whether to revise or not. Education reform social, historical, cultural, and other factors trapped is not an exception. However perfect the design of educa- them in an inferior position. Taking the subject as “unciv- tion reform is at the top, it will always be revised, dis- ilized” or as part of a disadvantaged social group are two torted, or even rewritten when it is implemented at the distinct types of attitude that lead directly to the debate very forefront of the micro level. about whether deaf education should be reformed as Second, bilingual deaf education in this case was not bilingual education or as bilingual bicultural education. designed at the top before implementation. Amity is an NGO. The reform concept that Amity advocates cannot have the effect on education officers, principals, heads, “Disability” and Education Reform and vanguard teachers of instructions and restraints from the government’s top level. Civil education reform is not The point of this article is not just to show readers via the an exception, as even its official policies meet the issue of analysis of the record of a round table the internal splits “Whenever there is a policy from above, there will be a and differences of opinion within the camp of bilingual countertactic from below.” The last sentence of the round deaf education. It is not just to question and to criticize as table, “We’ll be smarter next time – we will decide what to “uncivilized” traditional pedagogical thought that takes teach based on who is coming,” is from the mouth of the its subjects (students) as “uncivilized” either. Any efforts principal of a school that was part of the experiment, to participate in bilingual deaf education reform and which, amid laughs, indeed reveals the “flexibility” of reveal that previous compensation education and oral the reform participants. The concepts of education reform expression teaching have limitations and that bilingual never entirely determine whether it will be successful or education and sign language are beneficial to deaf peo- not. Even with advanced concepts, reforms needs to reso- ple, at least those whose hearing is impaired or congeni- nate with and inspire the voluntary and positive devotion tally lost, deserve attention and praise. The goal of this of education officers and teachers at the forefront to suc- article is to present the transcript of a round table as fully ceed. As this round table shows, although they were part as possible and to analyze via this text the spirited pro- of an expert investigation organized by Amity, major mem- cess of deaf education reform and the influence and bers of the specialist team and teachers at the participating participation of an NGO as an important social organiza- schools did not entirely understand or fully agree with tion in education reform. The term spirited implies com- Amity’s concepts. Especially when the concept was plication and hardship. As the history of education in expressed as “bilingual biculturalism,” bilingualism drew China repeatedly shows, influential educational reform often appears as top-down directives and is very difficult to achieve from the bottom up. This time, however, in the 4 Jijiaochu (the Basic Education Department) was previously in realm of special education, the NGO Amity wants to charge of special education. Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 37 attention from the round table participants, yet bicultural- education reform. Complication and hardship may be the ism remained highly controversial. Even though the word normal state of reform, but returning to the previously culture did not appear anywhere in the entire round table, normal state can also be an extremely long process. the points that participants made regarding natural sign Because of this, there is more positive, practical meaning language and the thinking of deaf people expressed their in thinking about how to live with the senses of suffering recognition of this culture. The complication and hardship and helplessness that accompany complication and hard- that their “flexibility” reveals might well be the status quo ship in this process. of reform. The acceptance and internalization of new con- In the title of this article, I use the expression “educa- cepts cannot be done in a day. The saying “Where you sit tion reform’s ‘disability.’” As I state above, it first refers to determines what you think” is a sarcastic and vivid folk the “crippled” status of deaf education reform in China: wisdom summary of a prominent phenomenon in contem- the separation of culture from language and the lonely porary Chinese society. For all practitioners of education path of language. However, with further thinking, the reform, their previous positions, their current positions, term canji (disability) has a second meaning. What this and the interests associated with those positions will deter- layer expresses is that the suffering and helplessness of mine how deeply they will understand the reform concept “disability” will always accompany deaf education reform. and how far the reform practices will go. We say that deaf education reform is inevitably “disabled,” Finally, a remarkable feature of the round table is in the sense that reform will always “be altered, twisted, or that members of the specialist team, especially Division even reversed,” in the sense that where you sit determines Chief C, predominantly occupied the discussion. In sharp how you think, and in the sense that one “has to express contrast, although deaf teachers were present, they did and present oneself via others.” However, it is better to say not voice their opinions. The silence of the deaf teachers, that pointing out inevitability in the second layer, rather of course, does not mean that even if they had wanted to than spreading an air of desperation, helps to find a speak they would not have gotten the chance. It is more certain positivity in the desperation that “being inevitably likely that they were not consciously eager to have a ‘disabled’” appears to represent, as well as the suffering chance to voice their opinions. The normal-hearing spe- and helplessness that grow from desperation. cialists and teachers took this for granted and would not It was Kiyotsugu Takeda, who has a distinct reading raise it as an issue to the level of their consciousness. of the “disability” issue, and Hakyeong Kim, a writer What this phenomenon suggests is that many partici- whom Takeda highly esteemed, who taught me to think pants in deaf education reform subconsciously think about the positive meaning of the suffering and helpless- that it is a matter for normal-hearing people. Marx has ness of “disability.” afamouslineinThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis The name of Kiyotsugu Takeda is almost unknown in Bonaparte, “They cannot represent themselves; they China. In Japan, however, especially in the circle of literary must be represented,” which Said uses as an epigraph critics, he has quite a reputation. In the 1980s and 1990s, for his Orientalism (Said 1999, no page number). The when postmodern discourses became popular, he directly transcript of the round table precisely expresses such a countered the trend and criticized postmodern thinkers message: deaf people cannot represent themselves; they famous at the time, such as Shiguéhiko Hasumi, Kōjin must be represented by normal-hearing people, who Karatani, and Akira Asada. His writing always gives a sense must speak for them. of his speaking to his heart’s content. Of course, his fame has To call attention to the above three points is not to another reason – he is “Korean in Japan,” in addition to criticize incompleteness in reform practices or the under- having the courage to challenge people like Shiguéhiko standing of concepts but to make people understand the Hasumi and his indeed thought-provoking critics. complication and hardship of reform in a situation in Most literary critics have writers whom they love. which reform will always “be altered, twisted, or even Takeda is no exception. Hakyeong Kim, whom Tekada reversed,” in which where you sit determines how you admired, was yet another Korean in Japan. When Kim think, and in which one “has to express and present committed suicide on January 4, 1985, Takeda wrote an oneself via others.” Bilingual deaf education reform is essay to eulogize him, titled “The Source of Suffering – in not something to be done all at once. If society has not Memory of Hakyeong Kim,” which is worth reading and reached a certain stage, its people will not have experi- provoked discussions of the suffering and helplessness of enced a leap in their consciousness and value system. “disability.” Hence it is very difficult to have a fundamental break- Kim was “Korean in Japan.” In other words, although through or a complete change in the appearance of deaf he was born, grew up, and lived in Japan, he was 38 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” relegated to the margins of Japanese society because his the nature of suffering… only to describe the nature of suffering father or even his grandfather was Korean; suffered var- and the concreteness of suffering. This depiction allows the ious forms of discrimination; could not integrate into depicter to gain a whole new understanding of self, and therefore enables them to live” (3–4). Japan; could not become Japanese. To a certain extent, Kim described his hardship with stuttering in his first publica- “in Japan” means humiliation in social identity and can tion, Frozen Mouth. However, his writing is best construed as be directly replaced by the word “disability.” Being born, narrating, using an extremely subtle style, how people with a stutter growing up, and living in Japan but not being able to actually feel rather than describing the suffering of having a stut- … become Japanese forms a salient self-identity – which is ter . Stuttering does solely mean inconvenience in expression. It is best related as a strange experience: creating “the cage of self- an outstanding social and historical issue concerning consciousness” deep inside one’smindafterwitnessing“rejection – discrimination and anti-discrimination in Japan and is in the eyes” of others. The difficulty in dealing with such a cage is a “source of suffering.” For Kim it was even worse, that even having understood the causation of disability, one can because he had a disability of body: frozen mouth. never overcome [the suffering of disability] as long as one has had Regarding the issue of Zainichi5 (in Japan), most to carry the disability of frozen mouth in reality. The suffering of “ ” “Koreans in Japan” basically have two options escape frozen mouth is a special experience that is impossible to share with others and whose brunt one can only bear oneself. In other the quandary of being socially disadvantaged. The first words, stuttering in essence has an unproductive pain without is to fight against their reality and more or less chase the “exchange value” between others and you. (17) slim hope of standing out in Japanese society through extraordinary efforts. Takeda, for instance, grew up to be Kim’s writing style is unique in that he did not inten- a professor in a reputable private university and a pro- tionally romanticize the suffering of “disability” (either minent and young (back then) cultural critic. He still had social or physical) or its social meanings. Instead he considerable reservations that he could psychologically calmly described self-feeling –“discard[ing] very care- solve his issues of integration and identity, even though fully, one by one, those social meanings attached to his he was several levels higher in social status than his own suffering,”“using an extremely subtle style,”“only father or grandfather had been. The second option is to to describe the nature of suffering and the concreteness create a reference group and turn it into a group of of suffering”–in order “to gain a whole new under- affiliation via action, not only psychologically but also standing of self.” This “whole new understanding of psychically returning to one’s homeland – South Korea or self,” in other words, is also a whole new understanding North Korea in this case – and devoting oneself to a of disability –“Even having understood the causation of community of shared destiny that can accommodate disability, one can never overcome [the suffering of dis- and embrace one. However, as Kim was doomed to simul- ability] as long as one has had to carry the disability of taneously face two “disabilities,”“in Japan” and “frozen frozen mouth in reality. The suffering of frozen mouth is a mouth,” he had whole new understanding of “disability” special ‘experience’ that is impossible to share with (in both physical and social senses), the suffering that others and whose brunt one can only bear oneself.” disability brings about, and the overcoming of suffering, The pain of “impossible to share with others and which is distinct from the two aforementioned options to whose brunt one can only bear oneself” is not limited escape social suffering. Kim thus had a unique style of to frozen mouth. The helplessness of “can never over- writing. And it was exactly this style of writing and the come” is also not unique to people with frozen mouth extremely deep thoughts it contains that touched Takeda. and applies to all incurable disabilities (in a medical He said that Kim “broughtsuchanamazingliterary sense), including hearing disabilities. In other words, experience to me for the first time” (Takeda 1998, 4) making extraordinary efforts and returning to the collec- and was “an author who motivated me to write” (3). tive may well be colorful delusions that others enable out What kind of style is it? Takeda wrote, of compassion. Delusion in fact represents one’s help- lessness. And helplessness is indeed a major source of ’ There is suffering from one s existence, which is often discussed suffering. However, the delusion that views overcoming as ‘the issue of staying in Japan’ or ‘the issue of discrimination.’ helplessness as a necessary means of passing through But these terms have nothing to do with one’s ‘suffering.’ Here [Kim] discards very cautiously, one by one, those social meanings suffering is just a fundamental cause of suffering. The attached to his own suffering and attempts only to deeply depict profundity of Kim’s and Takeda’s thoughts is to tell us that helplessness is not something that can be overcome. We should instead learn to have awe inside and think 5 Literally “residing in Japan” (with an implication of temporari- of living and coexisting with helplessness as destiny. At ness), used to refer to ethnic Koreans inhabitants of Japan. – Tr. first glance, to live and coexist with helplessness is Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 39 seemingly fully of negativity, but it actually has a thor- Director Z:[Laughs.] [Now you] don’t know how to teach. oughly positive side. It might be put this way: Expecting Teacher C: We used to teach this class alone. No deaf education reform to provoke a fundamental change in teacher to assist. What are we going to do in response to overcoming the suffering of disabilities such as frozen bilingual education? We figured we need the assistance mouth or impaired hearing is essentially too optimistic of a deaf teacher to do this, then. and too naïve. Ultimately, one can only describe what the ’ experience and feeling of “disability” are to the people Director Z: To distribute one teacher s work to two tea- ’ involved, “using an extremely subtle style.” As a matter chers, [you] don t know what to do? of fact, to speak in a forward-looking way, we should Teacher C: We never had two teachers in the same class approach deaf education reform from this perspective before; today we just gave it a try. Also, we had to deal and think more deeply about it. Anyone who dreams of with new class materials. We were not quite successful in overcoming and entirely solving the complication and grasping some important and difficult points, though. hardship of reform is too optimistic and naïve. This com- Director Z: In this class today she was different from how plication and hardship seem to be deeply rooted in “the she usually teaches. She seems to be lost. Even not to national soul,” which has invoked numerous slogans of dare to use traditional, common pedagogical methods for reform and renovation for a century but essentially not the first grade, like the usual gestures and pronunciation. changed even for a bit. They are beyond the efforts of a This is bilingual class, so she did not know how to run it. single field or the good intentions of social work, sociol- No matter [whether] bilingual or monolingual or other ogy, anthropology, and perhaps education studies as classes, I think language development is the key. It is well. It therefore appears more important to strive to the goal. But it is hard to strike a balance in class, describe, “in an extremely subtle style,” the “disability” because the textbook is for regular schools. Plus, [you of deaf education reform and especially to describe the have to] keep up with the schedule. It is really difficult. experience of deafness to the people involved – that is, to Those five courses are all new. [You do] not have a class every participant in deaf education reform. In this reform, [for students] to review. No time to review and reinforce of course, deaf people are very important. [knowledge]. There is still much confusion.

Acknowledgments: Part of this article was previously Director W: Three major questions are: first, the new text- published in Jiaoyu Xuebao (Journal of Educational book; second, how deaf teachers should participate; third, Studies) 4 (2008), under the title “Longjiaoyu de she- how to handle the textbook. Without a textbook, how do we huixue sikao: feizhengfu zuzhi de ‘shuangyu shuangwen- use a deaf teacher, then? We used to use a textbook for deaf hua’ nuli” (Sociological view on education for the deaf: schools. We were quite accustomed to it, whether in the An NGO’sendeavorsin“bilingual biculturalism”); He teacher’s teaching or the student’s acceptance. The current Xiaoxing was the first author and Zhang Yuan the coau- textbook is less targeted. It does not target us. We have to thor. The author has done major revisions to that early start from scratch. We have to take care of language and version. Chinese characters simultaneously. School education also can’t keep up with the schedule. The first-grade class of Appendix: Transcript of Amity’s regular school is designed to connect to regular kindergar- ten classes, so not just the language is an issue – so is the October 12, 2005, Round Table entire knowledge system. There is simply no way to teach mathematics. If you can’t keep up with the schedule, then it Transcribed by Zhang, Yuan. surely can’t be effective.

Director Z: Preschool is disconnected from the first-grade Teacher C: Today’s class is eight characters in the [text- classes. Chinese and mathematics classes are taught as if book] section “Please Read” [ren yi ren]. It requires stu- they were sign language classes. [We] have to teach each dents to read those eight basic characters. When [sign language] one by one, as students do not know the preparing the lesson, our purpose was to ask whether characters. students recognize and know their meaning, and there- fore are able to connect the illustrations, characters, and Principal Z: Regular-school students learn the first-grade gestures together. [We] designed the class along these textbook with six years of language background. Our lines. Then in order to correspond with bilingualism, students start from zero or, at the best, [at the level of] not to correspond… [Laughs.] half-year-old regular children. You saw some students 40 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” were nodding, but they did not really understand. They language into the textbook. [We] need more review just made the gesture with a hint from the teacher. classes. Because none of them are top students. Many [Learning] meaning is not just what is in the picture; poems in the new textbook serve to teach Pinyin. [they] need to expand. Our deaf students’ thinking is Students know nothing about them. It is okay that they often stiff. What is the natural sign language of deaf basically know the meaning. Preschool is three years. If people? Should we call it “natural sign language” as in the second and third years of preschool we teach the long as it is different from finger language? About the textbooks for the first and second years of deaf school, it sign for the character wo [to lie, to crouch]: we follow the will make it much easier [for students] to learn the reg- deaf teacher, but they sometimes can’t make it right. ular-school textbooks.

Division Chief C: We still have to use Chinese Sign Director Z: Why should we decide to use such textbooks? Language when teaching sign language, though we may Is it enough [to make students] basically understand [the use natural sign language to explain it. We must stick to textbooks]? How to control it? What is the goal of standards in the teaching of sign language. Yours [ours] teaching? is Chinese teaching. Natural sign language has to be Division Chief C: Textbooks of regular schools today are auxiliary, functioning as a tool. much simpler than before. The requirements are about Director Z: A said we must teach entirely in the natural two-thirds [those of previous ones]. Though the textbook sign language of deaf people and abandon oral language. is thicker, the font size and paper type are different and there are more colored illustrations and poems. We Principal Z: [We] did not ask for pronunciation to be should walk out of two shadows: First, to walk out of accurate. But mouth shape has to be right. The two the shadow of traditional pedagogy. It is fair to say that teachers did not teach at the same time. Because [if past teaching was not successful in either progress or they did,] students would not know who to look at and method. With either eight or nine years of deaf school therefore couldn’t concentrate. So the deaf teacher comes education, it is a frustrating result. In 1982, western and in during the review section for homework. northern European countries identified their failures in Division Chief C: [We] have to break through the authority deaf education: compromising too much with regards to of deaf teachers in sign language. Does knowing sign the requirements for deaf students and stressing compen- language alone mean that one can be a teacher? sation for defects too much while not placing potential Similarly, can one be a teacher as long as one can talk? developments in an important position. I think these two Many farmers are illiterate but very good at speaking. conclusions fully apply to us. Previous textbooks They are still farmers. Language is just a tool. It does replaced some vivid material and instead taught deaf not reflect one’s level of knowledge…. To learn [Chinese] students with dry material. We would need six, seven, characters before learning Pinyin does not fit the rule of eight, or nine classes to finish with even a short essay. education…. Focusing on natural sign language is equal We expected students to understand integrated knowl- to focusing on deaf people. edge only by repeatedly reading “out loud” and made integrated knowledge fragmented, considering the Principal Z: We should keep what deserves keeping, and defects of deaf students too much and lowering our do things how they should be done. expectations [for them]. So our deaf students did not Teacher X: [Students] vary in mathematics – [some] have learn very well. When I was in charge of the [Basic utterly no sense regarding mathematics. [They] can Education Department] office, I was about to make a mechanically count from one to ten without the concept big move. I feel very regretful that it did not finish. As [of these numbers]. The new textbook is difficult to some an experiment, we let deaf students study in regular extent. classes in Yancheng from 1980 to 1990. There were Teacher C: [Students] have no time to review. Plus, [they] more than twenty deaf students in about a dozen regular have to keep up with the schedule. The practice book has classes. Deaf students used the same curriculum as reg- too much developmental content and less content just for ular elementary school students. We also recorded and review. analyzed the progress of those deaf students. In the beginning it was hard to tell if deaf students in the Principal Z: We rather slow down, trying all means to see experiment did better than those in deaf schools. which one fits the students best. The new textbook has no However, when it came to grades four and five, they far finger language. In our school, we stick cards with finger outperformed students in deaf school in the same grades, Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 41 including in language expression, mathematic calcula- not use Pinyin in the course of teaching. Students did not tion, physical and mental development, etc. get a basic understanding of character shape. We basically We thought of letting deaf students study in regular stay at the sign language stage of teaching, stay at the classes at that time. I also suggested ways of innovating pedagogical thinking of preschool. teaching in deaf schools. Our fourth-grade students are Our discipline [deaf education] should use the Pinyin far behind students of the same grade in regular schools. system to teach Chinese characters and teach basic pro- They completely failed the exam designed for fourth- nunciation using Chinese characters. Of course, we grade students of regular schools. There was a huge should have different requirements, such as memorizing gap, which posed a big challenge for the teaching, text- the shape of characters and learning the meaning of book, and pedagogy in our deaf schools. In the past, characters. [We should] try our best to enrich their voca- teachers needed eight or nine classes to finish one lesson. bulary by teaching characters and words. Enriching their With this schedule we wouldn’t accomplish anything. vocabulary is very important. Characters alone are not Therefore, our bilingual experiment must leave the sha- very meaningful to students. They must accumulate a dow of the past of deaf schools, using new curriculum, large amount of vocabulary. Then they can form short new concepts, and innovative thinking. Second, we must sentences, which is crucial for children to master lan- leave the shadow of bilingual programs in preschools. A guage. In the preschool class, for instance, we show bilingual program in preschool mainly aims to develop several pictures about water – tear, sweat, fountain, tap thinking capacity, cognitive ability, etc. But when it water, watermelon juice, etc. – with the corresponding comes to the first grade, we are moving into subject sign language and Chinese characters below each. These teaching. So we can’t just stop at the level of preschool are all water. So there is an old saying in our teaching: or stop at sign languages in building a foundation [for “Character cannot be taken apart from word; word cannot future learning]. be taken apart from sentence.” This, I think, is the best So I think we must walk out of two big shadows. How do pedagogical method. We should try our best to find ways we do this? I audited two classes, one of the first grade, the that, in terms of pedagogical thoughts and teaching tools, other preschool. It is a big leap to move into the first grade. fit the needs of students the best. When you talk about It is a big leap over two ladders. This is also a problem that bilingualism or speech class, allowing students to bring we ran into in teaching. Chinese characters closely asso- language into full play will help them to develop best. So ciated with daily life begin to appear in the first grade, students are not learning characters for the sake of learn- which also serve the teaching of the Pinyin system. ing them. We teach to enrich their vocabulary and for Students learn syllables of all eight characters, to reinforce their future development. We must be clear about this [their mastery of] Pinyin. But our children are very different guiding principle. The guiding principle determines one’s from other children. There is a big difference. Our bilingual teaching. Deaf students in Yancheng studied together teaching is not done to teach sign language for the sake of with a regular class, using the same schedule. They learning it. It is a tool but not the purpose of teaching itself. entirely kept pace. We first have to acknowledge that The purpose is to better, fully develop body, mind, virtue, deaf children have defects and issues, for which we intelligence. From the perspective of teaching, it is to need to slow textbook progress. Meanwhile, [we also develop their thinking, to better master Mandarin Chinese, have to] ask if our pedagogical approach is appropriate to better attain knowledge. or problematic. This is a bilateral issue. We should not So after this class, we can’t tell what class it is. It looks excessively lower the requirements for [these] children. like knowledge education class, but not really. You say it The problem in the past lies in that we lowered our is Pinyin class, but it is not. It also looks like sign language expectations too much. In the past we could spend a class – the one that is still at the stage of preschool sign couple of days teaching the Pinyin of one character or language teaching. Why? Because the gestures for all eight the character itself. So we should reflect in this regard. characters are very closely associated with characters and Because we are doing an experiment, at each stage we pictures. It is also a very important part [of learning]. should consistently remind ourselves to reflect on peda- Learning characters includes sound, shape, and meaning. gogical concepts, teaching methods, and teaching tools. In terms of sound, I have different requirements. I have to Also to reflect and find strategies for the development of lower the standards [for deaf students]. Mouth shapes students in every respect. Here I hope you will still follow must be correct. Most students cannot use correct finger the schedule, and always reflect. Differences do exist for language. If you separate consonants from vowels, you deaf students, but we don’t have to use traditional ways can’t get the mouth shape right. Second, we basically did to think about today’s teaching. 42 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability”

Second, use multimedia projectors as much as possi- References ble:, this is so helpful for students to understand voca- bulary. When multimedia content is displayed, children He, Xiaoxing. 2006. “Shuilaijiao/ruhejiao longren zui heshi: jiaoshi understand instantly, with no need for many words. After guandian de shehuixue kaocha” [Who Should Teach or How To the round table I will talk to A to see if it is possible to Best Teach the Deaf: Sociological Observations of Teacher’s upgrade our equipment. [Many things] cannot depend Opinions). Taiwan Jiaoyu Shehuixue Yanjiu [Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education] 6(no. 2):85–124. solely on sign language. Even keeping up with the pace He, Xiaoxing. and Zhang, Y. 2008. “Longjiaoyu de shehuixue sikao: of regular kids is very difficult. Feizhengfu zuzhi de ‘shuangyu shuangwenhua’ nuli” The third issue is that we must do individualized [Sociological View on Education for the Deaf: An NGO’s teaching, targeting students’ specific needs. It is impos- Endeavors in “Bilingual Biculturalism]. Jiaoyu Xuebao [Journal sible to ask for the same progress [from everyone]. Only of Educational Studies] 4:51–57. “ with individualized teaching can children realize the Ohna, S. E. 2009. Yu Zhongguo longxiao de goutong yu hezuo: Zhong Nuo shuangyu jiaoyu de hezuo jingyan” [Communication best of their potential. A uniform evaluation standard and Participation in Chinese Deaf Schools: Experience From a is unscientific. [We need] individualization and China-Norway Collaboration Project on Sign Bilingual computerization. Education]. Zhongguo Tesu Jiaoyu/Chinese Journal of Special Education 4:59–69. Director Z: The guiding principle of the experiment is Said, E. 1999. Orientalism. Translated by Wang Yugen as Dong Fang quite vague. Should we concentrate on sign language or Xue. Beijing: Sanlian shudian. on the development of deaf people? We overthrew all Shen, Y., Wu, A., and Chu, C. (eds.). 2005. Shuangyu Longjiaoyu De previous paradigms and we got cold feet, all for empha- Lilun Yu Shijian [Theory and Practices of Bilingual Deaf Education]. Beijing: Huaxia Press. sizing bilingualism. Takeda, K. 1998. Gendai hihyō no enkinhō [Perspectives of Modern Principal R:We’ll be smarter next time – we will decide Critics]. Tokyo: Kōdansha gakujutsu bunko. what to teach based on who is coming. [Laughs.] Zhang, N. (ed.). 2010. Longren Wenhua Gailun [Introduction to Deaf Culture]. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University Press. Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 43

学术论文

贺晓星* “残疾” 的教育改革与教育改革的 “残疾”——非政 府组织聋教育项目的个案研究

DOI 10.1515/cdc-2016-0005 活，扩大其因处于不利地位而丧失接受良好教育的机会 和权利。但爱德却在理念上更往前走一步，它试图提升 聋人的社会地位，把聋人从受 “补偿” 的消极性存在提升 摘要: 本文聚焦大陆著名非政府组织——爱德基金会近年在 到更具积极意义、更具能动性的位置，而提升的具体策 聋教育改革中的项目个案，通过对座谈会记录等原始文本 略则是试图在聋教育中突出强调手语作为语言的重要地 的分析解读，尝试展现特殊教育领域改革的鲜活过程以及 位以及对于聋文化的关注。作为相应的改革实践，爱德 非政府组织作为一支重要社会力量对教育改革的参与和对 启动了聋教育改革项目。 改革走向的影响。爱德基金会所积极倡导、宣传的理念 爱德聋教育改革项目最早始于 年。是年，爱德与 ——聋人是一种异文化或跨文化的存在而教育改革应该充 1996 南京聋校开展了实验项目的合作，项目名称是 “聋儿双语 分认识到这一点——以 “双语双文化” 聋教育项目的形式 双文化教育实验”。（沈玉林、吴安安、褚朝禹， ， 在大陆多个省份得以具体的展开，其间很多素材可以为我 2005: 10 序三）项目初期是 “双语”“双文化” 形影相伴，但随着项 们深度理解教育改革的社会意义和社会学意义带来启发。 目的展开，语言却与文化拉开越来越大的距离，最后变成 关键词: 残疾, 教育改革, 座谈会, 非政府组织, 双语双文化 了语言的孑孓独行。2004 年在挪威聋人福利基金会支持 下，爱德又与江苏省特殊教育专业委员会合作，开始了新 一轮聋教育改革实验，从项目正式名称看，已表述为 “中 爱德基金会（Amity Foundation，以下简称 “爱德”）是一 挪双语聋教育合作项目”1，没有了 96 年项目名称中出现 个非常活跃的 组织，成立于 年 月，总部设在 NGO 1985 4 的 “双文化” 三个字。 南京，地处市中心的汉口路，与南京大学鼓楼校区仅一墙 爱德双语聋教育项目的顾问、知名特殊教育学家张宁 之隔。爱德也是改革开放之初最早成立的非政府组织之 生编写过《聋人文化概论》一书，他在说明为何编写此书 一，由社会各界人士参与，主要从事扶贫发展等社会事 时回忆道，自己在 “双语法之后就认定聋文化了，因为双 业，下设防盲特教部、教育部、医疗卫生部、农村发展 语是牵着双文化一同走来的”。（张宁生，2010：1，前 部、社会福利部等部门，在大陆 个省市自治区的 多 31 200 言）张宁生还写道：“改革开放的大环境，使我接触到了 个县市开展各类公益项目，在促进社会发展，特别是在教 ‘聋儿双语双文化’ 的几个国际合作项目，几乎是一拍即 育、社会服务社会福利、防盲治盲和特殊教育、医疗卫 合”。（张宁生，2010：2，前言）从张的回忆中可以知道， 生、救灾、农村扶贫与发展等方面，作出了诸多努力。 当时展开双语双文化项目的并非爱德一家，相关国际合作 由于地理位置靠近，更由于理念上的共鸣，爱德与南 也大有开展得红红火火之感。2 然而，这 “一同走来” 的语 京大学之间有许多社会活动及科研上的合作交流。笔者 言和文化，走进江苏走到 2004 年，终于是分道扬镳了。3 是爱德主导开展的双语聋教育项目的一个 “态度”上的积 当然，与其说是分道扬镳，更确切地讲，是语言把文化远 极参与者，在参与过程中，对项目的具体展开有过一些 远地甩在了后面，甚至有唯恐避之不及之感。 观察、访谈和记录，引发了一些有关教育改革，尤其是 2004 年的项目名称上没有出现 “聋文化” 三字，这并 聋教育改革的粗浅思考。 非爱德的本意。爱德是双语双文化的积极倡导者和推动 者，在爱德网站有关中挪双语聋教育项目的宣传文字中， 语言与文化：双语聋教育项目 依然还是可以见到鲜明的 “双语双文化” 姿态——推动中国

爱德是聋教育改革的积极倡导者和实践者。它一反传统 1 英文为 SigAm Bilingual Deaf Education Projects，其中 SigAm，取 的聋教育理念，大力提倡引进西方先进的聋教育思想—— Signo Foundation（挪威聋人福利基金会）前三个字母和 Amity （爱德基金会）前两个字母，表 “中挪” 之意。 双语双文化聋教育思想，以改变聋教育的旧有面貌。传 Foundation 2 当然，张宁生同时也指出，“‘双语双文化教育’ 理论引入中国以后， 统的聋教育被称为 “补偿教育”，主张教育应该为残疾儿 一些有探索意识和改革意识的聋教育者和研究者开始在这一方面进行 童提供特殊、附加的教育计划和服务，使其恢复正常生 了若干尝试。我国目前的几个双语教学实验基地，还只停留在 ‘双 语’的层面上，没有真正实现 ‘双文化’ 教育”。（张宁生，2010：8） *联系作者: 贺晓星, 南京大学社会学院社会学系教授, 3 2004 年之后，联合国儿童基金会（UNICEF）在大陆各省市展开 电子邮件: [email protected] 的聋教育项目，名称上大多还是可以见到 “双语双文化” 的表述。 44 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability”

聋人手语作为聋人母语被人们所认识。为聋教育学前到义 语是人类语言的一种，以及对聋生的双语教育。第三，从聋和 务教育建立双语教学计划和方法，保证聋儿通过自己的语 聋生的角度来讨论双语双文化教育。演讲强调聋教育需要采取 言接受基础教育的权力权利。项目学校以手语授课，建立 多元的途径和聋人参与聋教育的必要性。 挪威专家在早期的演讲中有意地不直接介绍特定的教学方 双语双文化教育计划，保证至少第一批项目学生从开始到 法，是因为如果脱离了当地的文化传统去谈论某一种好像可以 4 完成义务教育自始至终按照本计划接受教育。 普遍适用的教育方法，是不合适的。 但是 “双文化” 的表述没有出现在中挪双语聋教育合 作项目的名称中。没有出现 “聋文化” 三字，恐怕也并非 在以上这段颇为珍贵的第一手回忆材料中不难看出以 挪威一方的本意。挪威斯塔万格大学教授、也是此项目 下几点：首先，文化一词是高频度出现的，而且三个演 顾问的斯坦因·欧纳在 “与中国聋校的沟通和合作：中挪 讲主题中两个出现了 “双文化” 的表述；其次，挪威一方 手语双语教育的合作经验” 一文中，从挪威一方的角度， 有意在提请注意文化与教学方法的关联，极力回避就教 对双语聋教育实验项目（SigAm 2004–09）进行了总结。 学方法谈教学方法；再次，中方关注的重点则落脚在教 欧纳（2009: 62）写道： 师的教学方法和学生的学习方法上，似乎是想仅仅在课 堂教学的工具性层面去理解语言的意义。 尽管双语双文化在国际聋教育界是一个普遍知晓的概念，但这 中挪双语聋教育合作项目一开始主要在江苏省展开实 个概念在中国的教育背景下需要重新解释。爱德基金会的项目 验，推展至南京、苏州、常州、镇江和扬州 所特殊学 介绍手册给双语双文化概念做了清晰的界定：“双语双文化是 5 指中国聋人手语和汉语这两种语言，以及其相对应的聋人文化 校。2004 年 9 月 1 日，爱德分别与江苏省南京聋校等五 和健听人文化”。 所项目聋校签订项目合作协议，以保证项目学校对项目 …… 目标、要求、报告制度、财务制度等有一个基本共识，每 挪威对 SigAm 项目的管理其理论基础源于社会文化论。社会 所实验学校每年可获得中挪 SigAm 双语实验学校实验项 文化论强调人类知识和体制是通过在特定的文化和历史背景下 目一定数额的项目经费，为期五年。5 项目从 04 年至今， 的互动而创造和维持的。为了将人类活动理解为社会结构的创 恰好有 年的历史。 造和再创造的进程，有必要说明和分析一下行为者所使用的工 10 具。语言在其中起了至关重要的作用。我们对语言做了什么，语 本文并非是对爱德聋教育改革做全程的回溯，而是通 言对我们意味着什么，是非常值得分析的问题。 过关注语言甩掉文化踽踽独行这一现象，讨论 “残疾的” 教育改革与教育改革的 “残疾” 问题。本文想要表明，以 “语言对我们意味着什么”？通过这个问题的追问，挪 所谓的 “残疾人”（此案例中当然指的是聋人）为对象的 威一方想表达的，乃是对于语言的文化性的关注，而不是 教育改革，在实际展开过程中，自觉或不自觉地表现出 在强调语言的工具性。欧纳（2009: 62–63）在此文中根据自 了改革本身的 “残疾”一面：原为以 “语言”“文化” 两条腿 己在项目开展第一年参与时所记下的田野笔记，回忆道： 走路的教育改革，在展开过程中我们看到的现象是，语 言与文化被剥离了开来。颇具社会学意义的是，这一剥 经过几年的准备， SigAm 项目于 2004 年 5 月开始。早期阶段 开展了两项非常重要的活动：在南京开办研讨会，向挪威方介 离并非改革倡导者的本意，但在种种复杂的社会因素、 绍中国聋教育发展现状；在苏州开办研讨会，向中方的项目参 社会力量交互作用之下，双语教育改革的推进，至少在 与者介绍挪威双语聋教育理念。 江苏省，却不得不以抽空对聋文化的关注为进展的条 ……程益基也介绍了即将开始的聋教育新课程改革的一些想 件。这一剥离的张力，最终导致了聋教育改革 “跛足” 而 法。新的课程大纲的一个基本原则就是要改变过去只注重教学 行。本文尝试通过一个座谈会记录的文本解读，来具体 内容和教师使用的某种特定的教学方法。这些教学方法其实是 将教师置于主导地位，而忽略了学生的学习能力。而新的聋教 呈现这一张力，在此基础上，尝试对 “残疾” 以及教育改 学大纲则强调了学生 “自主学习、合作和探索” 三个概念。这实 革的问题展开一些更为深入的讨论。 际上是强调了学生交流和参与教育的重要性。 …… 在苏州的中国聋校校长研讨会上，挪威专家就聋教育和手语 双语教育发展的核心概念和理论作了介绍。应项目协调小组的 座谈会的文本分析 要求，挪威专家的演讲主要侧重以下三个主题： 2005 年 10 月 11 至 12 日，爱德组织专家组赴 Z 聋校等三 (1) 挪威聋教育的历史和发展：过去，现在和将来。 所 双 语 实 验 聋 校 进 行 调 研 。 爱 德 的 双 语 聋 教 育 项 (2) 双语双文化的概念及其在聋教育中的重要性。 (3) 双语双文化理念下的课堂教学。 目（SigAm 项目）聘请了六位专家顾问参与项目的研究 和指导，此行的专家组共四人，包括上述六位专家顾问 在我们的演讲中，前两个主题直接切入，而第三个主题 “课 中的两位，以及 N 市特殊职业技术教育学院特殊教育教 堂教学” 只是间接地谈及。聋教育和双语双文化教学是通过三 研室的两位。此次调研目的是针对新教材问题听取一线 个方面来理解的。第一，通过联合国人人享有教育的目标框架 来理解。演讲的重点是介绍与挪威教育政策相关的聋教育。第 教师的看法。 SigAm 项目实验校率先试行普校教材，新 二，双语双文化教育与功能性双语有关。演讲着重介绍挪威手 教材计划根据实验学校使用普校教材的实际情况，在普

4 http://www.amityfoundation.org.cn。 5 http://www.amityfoundation.org.cn Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 45

校教材基础上做出适当调整。调研活动内容主要是听课 的，又要保证进度，真的是比较难兼顾，五节课都是新课，连 和座谈。听课主要是听小学一年级语文课；座谈则听取 一节练习课都没有，练习巩固没有时间。现在我们困惑还是满 一线教师的意见，解答一线教师的困惑。这里呈现的记 多的。（下划线笔者所加。下同） 录便是专家组在 Z 聋校听了两节语文课后与实验学校相 关教师进行的座谈的现场录音。 C 教师首先介绍了这堂课的教学目标以及在备课、教 学过程中的巨大困惑。从第一段话中可知，认字以及用手 作为此次调研重点的 Z 聋校，前身为一所私立聋哑学 势来表达字面意思是一贯以来的教学目的所在，但开始双 校，创办于 1937 年。1952 年更名为 Z 市聋哑学校，改为 语教学实验后，以往延续下来的教学设计被打乱了。 教 公办。1995 年，政府投资 600 万元易地建成占地 13700 C 师用了 “对应” 一词来表达自己的困惑，而针对“为了对应 平方米，建筑面积近 5000 平方米的新校舍，成立 “Z 市 双语” 的表述， 主任则接连用上了三个 “不知道”—— 特教中心”。2002 年 9 月，学校发展成为一所聋弱一体的 Z 综合型中等特殊教育学校。其中，聋教育由学前教育、义 “不知道怎么上了”，“不知道怎么办了”，“不知道怎么操 作了”——来为 老师作注解，使得整段对话呈现出极为 务教育、高级中等教育组成，学制 15 年。调查的当时，全 C 强烈的 “否定色彩”。读者在这段对话中，尤其是在 “不” 校共有 21 个教学班，185 名学生，59 名教职工。2004 年 开展中挪双语教学实验班项目。 的连续否定中，可以体会出 C 教师所用 “对应” 一词表达 了怎样的一种 “消极”“被动” 情感。双语教育的改革，或 本次座谈会的 Z 校代表有校长 R、教导主任 Z 、政教 许是在刚开始阶段，并非一件广受一线听人教师欢迎、他 主任 W、一年级双语班听人语文教师 C 和聋人教师各一 人、学前双语班听人教师和聋人教师各一人，听人数学 们能够积极、主体性地投入的事情，某种意义上讲，反而 是外部影响的一种强行闯入。也正因如此，正如在 教师 教师 X 。座谈会之前重点听了一节由听人教师 C 主讲的 C 一年级双语班语文课。 的案例上可以看到的，“对应” 就显得颇为狼狈。借用 Z 主任自己的语言来概括，便是 “无所适从了已经”。这种 专家组成员四人，C 处长和 Z 校长为两名关键人物。C 是中国教育学会特殊教育专业委员会副理事长、全国聋 所谓的 “对应” 的狼狈，从座谈内容中可以得知，更具体 地是起因于为了应付专家组的听课而把平时一人上的课变 教育课程改革研制组组长、J 省教育厅基础教育处原主要 为了两个人来上，而且其中的另一位是聋人教师。而一堂 领导、J 省特殊教育研究会理事长。此行 C 是以 J 省特 课两个老师来上，并非是教学上的惯例，而是一种临时的 殊教育专业委员会主任身份出席。Z 校长是另一双语实验 “今天我们就尝试一下”。 教师表述道：“我们想怎么办 聋校 N 聋校原校长、爱德基金会 N 市聋儿康复中心主 C 任，兼任中国残疾人康复协会听力语言康复专业委员会 呢，我们想，就请聋人老师来协助吧，完成这个”。“完成 这个” 的 “这个” 是指应付听课的事。而听的课，不是一 委员、中国教育学会特殊教育专业委员会学术委员、J 省 般的课，而是双语的课，因此，便有了聋人教师的登场。 听力语言康复委员会副主任、N 市特殊教育研究会副理 但在语气助词“就请聋人老师来协助吧” 的 “吧” 字中，可 事长。此行其身份是 J 省特殊教育专业委员会专家。 以体会出一种强烈的无可奈何。可以说即便在双语实验学 座谈会一开始，Z 校教导主任 Z 的三个 “不知道” 让 人印象深刻。 校，聋人教师的登场所带来的困惑和无奈，也清楚地表现 在座谈会的这些教育实践者的意识中、语言表达中的。而 在这一无可奈何的背后，则是一个聋人教师在聋校教育中 C 老师：今天这节课是 “认一认” 中的八个字，要求能够认识这 八个基本字，我们当初集体备课的时候主要是让学生能够会 几无地位的现实。 认，能够知道是什么意思，然后把图-字-手势这三样能够连到 聋教师在聋教育身处边缘很难登上讲坛是一个比较普 一块去。从这个方向来设计的这节课。然后为了对应双语，不 遍的现象，也被 Z 校政教主任 W 列为 “主要问题三个” 是为了对应，……（笑） 中的一个，另外两个是教材和教法，只是这三个问题， 都是有机地关联在一起。 Z 主任：（笑）不知道怎么上了。

W 主任：主要问题三个：第一新教材，第二聋老师如何参与，第 C 老师： 因为我们这课以前是一个人上的，没有聋人老师配 三教材如何处理。没有教材又要用聋教师怎么用？原来我们都 课，为了对应这个双语教学，我们想怎么办呢，我们想，就请 是采用聋校的教材，无论从老师的授课还是学生的接受来看都 聋人老师来协助吧，完成这个。 是比较适应的，现在教材的针对性不够，教材的针对性就不是 针对我们的了，我们是零开始，我们是文语并进。学校教育也 Z 主任：把一个老师的事分给两个老师做，不知道怎么办了。 没有跟上进度，普校的一年级是跟普通幼儿园衔接的，不光是 语言问题，还有整个知识系统。数学简直没法教。进度跟得上 C 老师：以前从来没有两个老师配课，今天我们就尝试一下，而 效果肯定不行。 且是新教材，对很多重点难点地把握上有很多不成功的地方。

Z 主任： 学前和一年级是脱钩的，很多语文数学课都当手语课 Z 主任： 今天这节课跟她平时上课也是不一样的，无所适从了 上。要一个一个教一个一个过，字都不认识。 已经。把平时的手语啊发音啊惯用的传统的一年级的教学方法 已经不敢用了，这是双语的课，不知道怎么操作了。反正不管 是双语还是单语还是其他，我觉得语言的发展是最关键的，这 作为新教材的问题，W 首先指出，“原来我们都是采 是目标。上课的时间真的是很难兼顾到，因为教材是普通学校 用聋校的教材，无论从老师的授课还是学生的接受来看 46 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability”

都是比较适应的，现在教材的针对性不够，教材的针对 统的过去的思想来思考今天的教学”。 那么如何才能既不 性就不是针对我们的了，我们是零开始，我们是文语并 “过分降低对孩子们的要求” 又能 “更好的让孩子的身心、 进”。不过 “原来我们都是采用聋校的教材，无论从老师 德智体得到全面发展”（C 处长语）呢？双语聋教育在此 的授课还是学生的接受来看都是比较适应的” 的 “适应” 成为了一种尝试性的选择。 两字，还是遭到了修正和批评。作为本次专家组主要成 双语聋教育，并非指 “文语并进” 的教学方法，而是 员的 C 处长，发表了指导性的意见： 指 “口语” 与 “手语” 的双语教育。 围绕着手语教学应该有什么样的地位，手语，尤其是 1982 年北欧和西欧总结他们聋教育的失败一是过低降低对聋生 手语中被称为 “自然手语” 的聋人手语在学校教育中是否 的要求，二是过分的强调缺陷补偿，没有把潜在开发放在重要 能被当作教学语言一直存在着激烈的争论。大陆的情况 位置。我觉得这两条教训完全适应我们。我们过去的教材把课 文有血有肉的部分去掉了交给聋人干巴巴的部分，短短的一篇 是，1956 年确立了 “以口语为主” 的聋教育教学方针后， 课文要 6、7、8、9 课时才能学完，把完整的知识反复朗读就 手语长期被划为聋教育的禁区，口语教学法始终以绝对 以为理解了，把完整的知识打得支离破碎，过分的照顾了聋生 的优势一统天下。（贺晓星，2006：93）只是到了最近几 缺陷，降低了要求。所以我们聋孩子学得非常不好。 年，出于对 “补偿教育” 效果的反思以及欧美现代聋教育 理念和思想的影响，双语聋教育开始成为人们关注的一个 C 处长敏锐地抓住了所谓 “适应” 的问题核心：适应 焦点并且在某些地区某些学校成为了一种教育改革的实 是以进度和质量为代价的。传统的聋教育过分降低对聋 验和实践。 生的要求，过分强调缺陷补偿，强调发声朗读的训练，花 双语聋教育秉持着这样一种理念： 费的教学课时过多，其教材知识层次比同龄的听人学生 教材低好几个年级，课文的教学也失去了精彩而成为了 双语聋教育的理念认同社会语言和文化的多元性，充分肯定聋 一个 “干巴巴” 的东西。C 处长斩钉截铁地说道： 人群体，肯定聋人语言——手语和聋人文化；主张用聋人手语 作为聋童必须掌握的第一语言；在教学进程中用聋人手语为工 包括进度、方法，可以说过去的教学是不成功的，最后通过八 具，并用教第二语言的方法教授聋童的本国语言（口语和书面 年、九年的聋校教育，是令人懊恼的结果。……我们聋校四年 语）；双语聋教育强调聋人平等参与聋教育的重要性；对聋生 级的水平和普通学校四年级水平相差很多，我们聋校的四年级 有高的期待值，希望把他们培养成：除了听，什么有能行的 孩子到普通学校四年级考试简直是一塌糊涂。 人。（沈玉林、吴安安、褚朝禹，2005: 159。“什么有能行” 疑 为 “什么都能行” 之误） 而新教材是针对过去的补偿教育做出的矫正，增加内 容、提高难度，向普校的标准靠拢。可以说，这是聋教 然而，即便具有着一种共识，认为为了既不 “过分降 育改革的一个新的方向。然而，问题也接踵而至。新教 低对孩子们的要求” 又能 “更好的让孩子的身心、德智体 材的使用带来了教学方法上的问题，从座谈会的内容来 得到全面发展”，双语聋教育应该是一种很好的选择，但 看，要求聋校使用普校教材，给一线教师带来了很大的 在实验或实践者阵营中间，对双语聋教育意义的认识和 困惑，进度赶不上，内容完成不了。 理解也存在着裂缝，并非铁板一块。 在这次座谈会上，有一个人物虽然没有到场但却始终 “因为教材是普通学校的，又要保证进度，真的是比较难兼顾”。 存在在每个座谈会参与者的意识之中。这个人物就是爱德 （ 主任） Z 基金会某部门负责人，也是 SigAm 双语聋教育实验项目资 “现在教材的针对性不够，教材的针对性就不是针对我们的 金负责人的 A。A 是中国双语聋教育改革中的一个关键人 了”。（W 主任）。 物，不仅积极译介西方的双语聋教育思想与理念，而且在 “人家是普通学校是六年的语言基础来学一年级的教材”，（Z 校长）而我们 “很多语文数学课都当手语课上”，（Z 主任）“不光 中国积极尝试付诸实践，负责筹备和展开双语聋教育的实 是语言问题，还有整个知识系统。数学简直没法教。进度跟得 验项目。涉及到 A，在座谈会上有这样一段有趣的对话： 上效果肯定不行”。（W 主任） C 处长：教学手语还是要用中国手语，解释的时候可以用自然手 C 处长也认为新教材确确实实 “为我们聋校的教学、 语，手语的教学要用规范的，你是汉语教学。自然手语应该是 教材还有教学方法提出一个非常大的问题”，但他坚持： 教学中的辅助材料，工具性的作用。

不能过分降低对孩子们的要求，我们过去问题就出在过低地降 Z 主任：A 说要完全用聋人的自然手语讲，要把口语扔进垃圾堆。 低了对孩子们的要求，过去一个拼音教几天啊一个字教几天 啊，所以我们这方面还应该考虑。因为我们是试验，每个阶段 从 Z 主任的这句话中可以推测，A 不仅主张手语教 要不断得对自己进行反思，教学理念教学方法教学手段对孩子 学，而且还是自然手语的坚定拥护者；不仅积极推广双语 们的各个方面的发展提出反思和对策。在此我希望你们还是按 聋教育，而且还格外重视聋人在聋教育中的地位和作用。 照进度来搞，不断提出反思，我们的教学方法是不是适当，是 虽然同样参与和推动着双语聋教育的实验或实践，但 不是有问题。聋孩子的差异性是客观存在的，但是我们一定不 要用传统的过去的思想来思考今天的教学。 对于自然手语，对于聋教师的地位和作用，在场的各位 却表现出与 A 明显不同的态度。C 处长主张 “手语的教学 “不能过分降低对孩子们的要求” 意味着聋教育不应 要用规范的，你是汉语教学。自然手语应该是教学中的 再回 “补偿教育” 的老路。C 处长强调，“一定不要用传 辅助材料，工具性的作用”，也因此，C 处长认为： Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 47

要打破聋人在手语上的权威地位。会手语的就能当老师了？就 聋人或许是一种异文化的存在或者是一种跨文化的存 像会讲话的人就能当教师了一样。很多农民是文盲口语都很好 在这样的观点和意识至少在目前还很难为许多从事教育 但他还是农民。语言只是个工具，不能等同于知识水平。…… 行政工作和教育实践工作的人所接受。从座谈会的内容 先学字再学拼音，不符合教育规律。……以自然手语为主不等 于以聋人为主。 来看，无论是行政领导还是一线教师，都关注的是如何 更有效地利用手语来让聋人学好汉语，发展聋人的思 另一位专家组的主要成员 Z 校长也跟着表明了态度： 维。这里的 “思维” 两字，并非意指聋性思维，而是指听 人的思维，要让聋人学会象听人那样地去思考问题领悟 校长：我们该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做。 Z 问题。比如作为专家组主要成员的 Z 校长就谈到：

Z 主任则进一步敲边鼓，对双语聋教育提出了疑虑： 我们聋生思维本身就呆。什么是聋人的自然手语？是不是跟指 语的打法不同就叫自然手语？ Z 主任：现在实验的指导思想比较混乱，是以聋人手语为准还 是聋人发展为准？我们把以前的固定模式都全部推翻了，畏首 “我们聋生思维本身就呆”，这种 “呆” 的思维无疑是要 畏脚，都是为了突出双语。 被克服的对象，把聋人改造得象听人一样才可称作为教育。 于是，在 “我们该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎 当然，需要指出的是，改变这种 “呆” 才叫做教育这样 么做” 的指导思想下，以教育行政部门和教育实践工作者 的传统教育学思维（？）并非爱德的本意。作为非政府组 为一方以爱德为另一方的、同在一个双语聋教育阵营中 织，爱德坚持的是一种社会工作（Social Work）理念。社 但却又截然存在的一条分界线被划了出来。让我们来看 会工作理念与传统教育学思维不同之处在于，相对于传统 看这前一方的 “该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么 教育学思维预先设定一个受教育的对象，并从教育者的立 做” 的低线划在了何处。 场出发为对方设定了价值标准和努力目标然后通过一整套 从座谈会记录中可以看出，在教育行政部门教育实践 的方法程序使对方摆脱所谓的 “蒙昧不化” 之境的做法， 工作者的这一方，即便倡导着双语聋教育，但手语教学 社会工作强调从对方的立场出发思考问题，首先要求理解 始终只能是一种方法一种工具，孩子的身心、德智体得 对方，了解对方的处境和要求，不是去自上而下地教化对 到全面发展才是理念才是目的。当然，将孩子的身心、德 方而是自下而上地去帮助对方。在此，对方并非一种 “蒙 智体全面发展设定为理念设定为目的本身无法去质疑，但 昧不化” 式的存在，而是因了社会、历史、文化等诸种因 这种抽象的东西总要落实到更具体的层面，而当落实到 素的影响陷于不利的困境，成为了一种社会弱势群体。将 更具体的层面，汉语而不是手语，就成为了理念和目 对方看作是 “蒙昧不化” 和看作是 “社会弱势群体” 乃是两 种截然不同的态度，直接导致了改革中的聋教育到底是双 的。C 处长说道： 语教育呢还是双语双文化的教育。 我们的双语教学不是为学手语而学手语，它是一个手段不是教 学目的，它的目的是更好的让孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发 展，从教学角度来讲，是为了发展他的思维，更好的掌握汉 语，更好的学习知识。 “残疾” 与教育改革

可以说，即便一同致力于双语聋教育的改革，在对待 本文并非要通过对一个座谈会记录的解读告诉读者双语 手语，尤其是对待自然手语的态度上两者还是存在着明 聋教育阵营其实也是内部分化意见不一，本文也并非想 显的区别的。将手语教学仅仅看作是一种方法，和将手 讲将对方看作是 “蒙昧不化” 的传统教育学思维本身是如 语教学看作还是一种理念，这两种观念之间的差距以及 何的 “蒙昧不化” 需要去批判去质疑。即便对双语聋教育 这差距所蕴涵的意义，很值得作一些深入的思考。 的理解有所不同对手语地位的认同有明显的差异，但能 “该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做” 的低线 够参与双语聋教育的改革认识到以前的补偿教育、口语 划在了 “我们的双语教学不是为学手语而学手语，它是一 教学有其局限性而双语教育、手语教学能够有益于聋人 个手段不是教学目的”，在这一底线前寸步不让的是座谈 至少是那些听力受损程度严重或先天丧失听力的聋人的 会的参与者，主要是教育行政部门领导以及第一线的听 任何努力，其实都值得去关注去肯定。本文的目的是尽 人教师。他们强调聋人对主流文化的融入，将手语教学 可能原汁原味地呈现一个座谈会的文本，通过这一文本 看作仅仅是一种方法，强调聋教育的目的是为了更好地 来体会一下聋教育改革的鲜活过程以及非政府组织作为 发展聋生的思维，更好的掌握汉语。而在这一底线前希望 一支重要的社会力量对教育改革的影响与参与。而 “鲜 有新的突破并积极展开种种改革尝试的是爱德基金会。爱 活” 一词，尤其意指着 “复杂” 与 “艰难”。正如中国教育 德虽然认可聋人对主流文化融入的重要性以及这种融入 史反反复复表明的那样，有影响的教育改革始终很难采 在中国所具有的巨大的现实意义，但并不放弃聋人的第 取自下而上的形式而往往大多是一种自上而下的事情，然 一语言应该是他们的自然手语的主张，强调聋人对聋教 而这一次在特殊教育领域，非政府组织的爱德基金会意 育的平等参与，强调手语教学并不应该仅停留在方法的 欲有所作为，他们的努力，也正因为 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，提 层面它本身还应该是一种理念一个目的。 供了对聋教育改革作社会学思考的极好样本。 48 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability”

细读座谈会的文本（参照附录），在内容和文体上， 事情，是听人为聋人来决定聋教育究竟应该怎么改。马克 至少有以下三点值得关注。 思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中曾有一句名言：“他 首先，参加这次座谈会的，大多是一线教育现场的实 们无法表述自己；他们必须被别人表述”，萨义德引来作 力派人物。有江苏省基教处6 的前领导以及相关实验聋校 为自己《东方学》一书的题引。（萨义德，1999：无页 的校长、主任。这些处在政策具体落实、操作层次的中 码）座谈会的文本特点表达的恰好是这样一个信息：聋人 层干部，直接决定了自上而下的教育政策的实施是走样 无法表述自己，他们必须被听人表述，被听人代言。 还是不走样。“上有政策下有对策” 的民间智慧，意指上 指出以上三点，与其说是想要对理念理解的不到位、 面的宏观政策再好，到了下面基层，在微观操作层面，总 改革实践的不彻底展开批判，不如说是要在改革总是 “被 会有更为现实主义版的修正。而决定修正还是不修正以 涂改被扭曲甚至被改写” 中，在 “原生态” 的 “屁股决定脑 及如何修正的，正是处长、校长们。教育改革也不例 袋” 中，在 “必须被他人所表述所代言” 中，去体会一种 外，顶层设计再完美的教育改革，当贯彻到微观的一线 改革的 “复杂” 与 “艰难”。双语聋教育改革并非毕其功于 层面，总是被涂改被扭曲甚至被改写。 一役的事，社会发展不到一定的阶段，人的意识以及价 其次，此次双语聋教育改革，也并非典型的先有顶层 值观念就不会有质的飞跃，聋教育的改革也就很难说能 设计再是贯彻执行。爱德乃为一 NGO 组织，其倡导的改 取得本质性的突破能有彻底的改观。“复杂” 与 “艰难” 或 革理念对于教育行政官员、校长主任、乃至一线教师来 许乃为改革的一种常态，而这一常态的改变，又是一个 讲，并不具有 “顶层” 所具有的指示、约束作用。官方的 极为漫长的过程。也正因为漫长，比之于对于改革立竿 尚且遭遇 “上有政策下有对策” 的问题，民间的就更不例 见影效果的天真乐观的期待，在这过程中学会思考怎样 外。座谈会最后一句 “以后我们就聪明了，看谁来开什么 与 “复杂”、“艰难” 所带来的 “痛苦” 感、“无奈” 感相 课（笑）” 出自实验校校长之口，在呵呵一片笑声中确实 伴，就更具有积极的现实意义。 尽显改革实际参与者的 “机动灵活”。教育改革成功与否 笔者在标题中使用 “教育改革的 ‘残疾’” 这样的表述， 从来就并非是理念决定一切。即便持有先进的教育理 正如前述，首先意指中国聋教育改革的一种 “跛足” 状 念，改革的成功也需要一线层面的教育行政人员、教师 态：语言与文化的剥离以及语言的孑孓独行。但进一步 发自内心的共鸣以及真正自觉的、积极的投入。而从此 思考，“残疾” 一词，还可以有第二个层面的意思。这第 次座谈会看，虽然是爱德组织的专家组调研，但专家组 二个层面，表达的是这样一层含义：聋教育改革必然相 的主要成员以及实验校的一线教师也并非透彻地理解或 伴着 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈，在改革总是 “被涂改被扭曲 完全赞同爱德的理念。尤其当这一理念表达为 “双语双文 甚至被改写” 的意义上，在 “原生态” 的 “屁股决定脑袋” 化” 时，“双语” 从某种角度讲是获得了足够的重视，但 的意义上，在 “必须被他人所表述所代言” 的意义上，我 “双文化” 的观念却充满了争议。虽然整个座谈会文本自 们说聋教育改革必然是 “残疾” 的。然而，指出这第二个 始至终并没有出现 “文化” 一词，但参与者所发表的有关 层面的 “必然”，与其说是想渲染一种绝望的心情，不如 “自然手语” 的观点、有关聋人 “思维” 的观点，无疑表达 说是想在 “必然是 ‘残疾’” 所貌似的绝望、以及因绝望而 着他们对于文化的认识。“机动灵活” 所透露出的 “复杂” 产生的痛苦与无奈中看出一些积极意义。 与 “艰难”，或许正是改革的原生态。理念的接受与内化 让笔者意识到学会思考 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈之积极 并非一朝一夕之事。“屁股决定脑袋” 乃为民间智慧中对 意义的，是对 “残疾” 问题作出了独特解读的日本学者竹 中国当代社会突出现象的一种充满嘲讽但又形象生动的 田青嗣以及他所推崇的作家金鹤泳。 概括，教育改革的每个实践者，在参与改革前的原有位 竹田青嗣的名字还几乎不为国人所知，而在日本，尤 置、现有位置以及来自于这一无论是原有的还是现有的 其是文学评论圈里，他具有较高的知名度。在后现代文 位置的利益诉求，决定着其对改革理念的理解到底有多 学评论话语呈为一种流行时尚的上世纪八、九十年代，他 深，改革实践走的有多远。 迎面而上展开了对于莲实重彦、柄谷行人、浅田彰等当 最后，座谈会发言还有一个非常醒目的文本特点—— 红后现代思想家的批判，文章总是带给读者一种酣畅淋 专家组成员，尤其是 C 处长的发言占了压倒性的篇幅，而 漓的感觉。当然，他的有名，除了敢于挑起与莲实重彦 成鲜明对比的是，虽然有聋人教师在场但却并不发声。聋 等人的论战及其批判确实有深度有底气外，还有另外一 人教师的这一不发声，当然并不即刻意味着即便聋人教师 个重要的原因——他是 “在日朝鲜人”。 想要发言，也得不到任何发言的机会，更可能的情况是， 从事文学评论的大多都有自己喜爱的作家，竹田青嗣 聋人教师本身就没有一种意识去积极争取表达自己观点的 也不例外，他推崇的是金鹤泳，另一位 “在日朝鲜人”。 机会，而座谈会的各位听人专家、一线教师，也对聋人教 1985 年 1 月 4 日，时年 46 岁的金自杀身亡，竹田写了 师的不发声习以为常，不会去把不发声作为一个问题上升 一篇题为 “痛苦的由来——悼金鹤泳” 的文章，颇值得一 到意识的层面。在此看到的现象是，聋教育的改革，在许 读，引来思考此处 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈问题。 多改革参与者的潜意识中被认为其实还是一件听人的 金鹤泳是 “在日朝鲜人”。换言之，他虽然出生在日 本成长在日本生活在日本，但由于父辈甚至是祖辈是朝 鲜人之缘故，却被排挤在日本社会的边缘，饱受种种的 6 前领导在任时的基教处也兼管特教。 歧视，融不进日本，成不了日本人。某种意义上说，“在 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 49

日”两字，意味着一种身份的屈辱，完全可以直接置换为 口吃的残障，就绝不能消解掉。口吃的痛苦是一种 ‘特殊 “残疾” 一词。出生在日本成长在日本生活在日本但却成 的体验’，无法与他人分担，只有自己单独承受”。 不了日本人形成不了鲜明的自我认同，这乃是日本社会 “无法与他人分担，只有自己单独承受” 的痛苦，不仅 中一个突出的歧视-被歧视的历史、社会问题，成为 “痛 仅局限于口吃；“绝不能消解掉” 的无奈，也并非 “口吃” 苦的由来”。而金鹤泳本人雪上加霜，他还兼有身体的残 独有，而是可以推论到其他一切在医学意义上难以康复的 疾——口吃。 残疾，包括听障。换言之，“发奋努力” 也好回归 “共同 在 “在日” 问题上，一般 “在日朝鲜人” 为了走出社会 体” 也罢，或许仅仅是一种别人出于慈善之心提供的一种 弱势的窘境，大致会有两种克服 “痛苦” 的选择：一是与 色彩斑斓的幻想，幻想其实表征的正是一种无奈。而又或 现实抗争，通过自己不断发奋努力多少寻觅到在日本出人 许，无奈也确实是痛苦的一个主要由来，然而将对于无奈 头地之一丝一线的光明。比如竹田青嗣，成年后成为了 的克服视之为超越痛苦之必由之路的幻想，却是痛苦之为 一所知名私立大学的教授又是赫赫有名的年轻气盛（当 痛苦的根本缘由。金与竹田的思想深度在于告诉我们，无 年）的文学评论家。只是虽然社会地位上与父辈、祖辈 奈并非可以去克服去超越的某物，而是应该去学会怀着一 相比上了好几个层次，精神上是否真的解决了 “融入” 与 种敬畏之心，思考如何宿命般地与之共生共存的。这一共 “自我认同” 的问题，依然尚存不小的疑虑；二是构建一 生共存，猛看起来似乎充斥着消极的意义，但实际上却有 个神话般的参照群体再在行动上把参照群体变为所属群 着更为彻底的积极一面。或许可以这样说，对于口吃、听 体，不仅心理上而且肉体上也返回自己的祖国—— “朝鲜” 障等残疾所带来的痛苦的超越，期待教育改革引发本质性 或 “韩国”，投入一个能容纳自己拥抱自己的命运共同 的变化其实本是太过乐观太过天真，“残疾” 根本上只能是 体。然而因为宿命般地必须同时直面 “在日” 与 “口吃” 以一种 “极为精致的笔触讲述”“残疾”“对于当事人来说是 两种 “残疾”，金鹤泳对于 “残疾”（生理与社会两种意义 一种怎样的体验感受” 而已。 上的）以及因残疾而带来的 “痛苦” 及其克服有着自己全 其实进而言之，聋教育的改革，也自可以从这一角度 新的认识，迥异于上述两种克服 “痛苦” 的选择。金鹤泳 出发来进行更深入的思考。改革的 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，幻 由此形成了独特的写作风格，而正是其写作风格及风格 想着有朝一日能够彻底克服和解决，也实在是过于乐观 所内含的极为深刻的思想，感动了竹田。竹田称金 “是第 和天真。这一 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，或许深深扎根于喊了上 一个给了我这样的不可思议的文学体验”（竹田，1998： 百年种种改革、改良口号但直到今天本质上依然没有见 4）、“赋予了我写作动机的作家”（竹田，1998：3）。 到些许改变的 “国民性” 之中，并非仅靠单一领域的努力 这是一种怎样的风格呢？竹田写道： 以及社工、社会学、人类学、或许还有教育学的善意就 能超越的东西。将聋教育改革的 “残疾”，努力去用 “极 存在着自己生存的困苦并常常被谈论为 “在日问题”“歧视问 为精致的笔触讲述” 出来，尤其是将改革的 “残疾” 对于 题”，但这些词与自己的 “痛苦” 没有一丁点的关系。在此，他 当事人，也即每位聋教育改革的参与者——当然其中很重 非常谨慎地将附加在自己痛苦之上的那些社会意义一一舍弃， 要的是聋人——来说 “是一种怎样的体验感受” 描述出 仅仅试图深入描绘痛苦本身的实质。/……仅仅就是在表述痛苦 的实质痛苦的具体性，而这一表述使得表述者获得了一种对自 来，因此才更显珍贵。 己的崭新理解，从而使得其能够活下去。（竹田，1998：3–4。/ 表示换行，下同） 致谢: 本文部分内容曾以 “聋教育改革的社会学思考：非 金在其处女作《冻口》中描述了自己口吃的痛苦。然而作者 政府组织的 ‘双语双文化’ 努力” 为题，发表在《教育学 的写作，与其说是在描述口吃的痛苦，不如说是在以极为精致 报》2008 年第 4 期上（与张媛合著，笔者为第一作者）。 的笔触，讲述 “口吃” 对于当事人来说是一种怎样的体验感 笔者在前文基础上又作了大篇幅改写。 受。/“口吃” 并不单纯意味着表达的不便。更准确地讲乃为一 种很怪异的体验：遭遇他者 “目光的拒绝” 从而在自己内心形 成了 “自我意识的牢笼”。而这一牢笼的不好对付，在于即便明 白了残疾之因果的缘由，但只要在现实中背负着口吃的残障， 附：座谈会的录音记录（张媛转录整 就绝不能消解掉。口吃的痛苦是一种 “特殊的体验”，无法与他 理。下划线笔者所加） 人分担，只有自己单独承受。换言之，所谓的 “口吃”，本质上 讲乃为一种不具与他者之间 “交换价值” 的不毛的痛楚。（竹 田，1998：17。着重号原文所有） C 老师：今天这节课是 “认一认” 中的八个字，要求能够 认识这八个基本字，我们当初集体备课的时候主要是让 金的独特的写作风格，在于他并没有刻意去渲染 “残 学生能够会认，能够知道是什么意思，然后把图-字-手势 疾” 之 “痛苦”（无论是社会性的还是生理性的）及其社会 这三样能够连到一块去。从这个方向来设计的这节课。 意义，而是冷静地在描述一种自我的感觉—— “以极为精 然后为了对应双语，不是为了对应，（笑） 致的笔触”，“非常谨慎地将附加在自己痛苦之上的那些社 主任：（笑）不知道怎么上了。 会意义一一舍弃”，“仅仅就是在表述痛苦的实质痛苦的具 Z 体性”，以达到 “一种对自己的崭新理解”。这一“对自己的 C 老师：因为我们这课以前是一个人上的，没有聋人老师 崭新理解”，换言之，也是对于残疾的一种崭新理解—— 配课，为了对应这个双语教学，我们想怎么办呢，我们 “即便明白了残疾之因果的缘由，但只要在现实中背负着 想，就请聋人老师来协助吧，完成这个。 50 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability”

Z 主任：把一个老师的事分给两个老师做，不知道怎么办 X 老师：数学差别更大，根本没有数理概念。能机械性的 了。 数 1–10，但没有概念，新教材有一定难度。

C 老师：以前从来没有两个老师配课，今天我们就尝试一 C 老师：没时间做练习，又要赶进度，练习册发展性的 下，而且是新教材，对很多重点难点地把握上有很多不 多，练习性地少。 成功的地方。 Z 校长：我们情愿放慢，都在试，看哪一种更贴近孩 Z 主任：今天这节课跟她平时上课也是不一样的，无所适 子。这个新教材没有手指语，我们学校是用卡片把手指 从了已经。把平时的手语啊发音啊惯用的传统的一年级的 语贴在书上。复习要多一些，因为是面对全体孩子不是 教学方法已经不敢用了，这是双语的课，不知道怎么操作 尖子生。新教材里的诗歌什么的好多都是为拼音服务 了。反正不管是双语还是单语还是其他，我觉得语言的发 的，孩子根本不了解，知道大概意思就行了。 我们现在 展是最关键的，这是目标。上课的时间真的是很难兼顾 学前是三年，我们在学前的两三年把聋校一-二年级的教 到，因为教材是普通学校的，又要保证进度，真的是比较 材教下去了，所以学普校教材就好的多了。 难兼顾，五节课都是新课，连一节练习课都没有，练习巩 Z 主任：为什么决定用这样的教材？说大概懂就行了，怎 固没有时间。现在我们困惑还是满多的。 么把握？教学的目标是什么？ W 主任：主要问题三个：第一新教材，第二聋老师如何 C 处长：现在的普校教材比过去的普校教材简单多了， 参与，第三教材如何处理。没有教材又要用聋教师怎么 要求相当于过去的三分之二，别看书厚了，它的字、纸张 用？原来我们都是采用聋校的教材，无论从老师的授课 跟过去都不同了，彩图、诗歌多了。我们要走出两个阴 还是学生的接受来看都是比较适应的，现在教材的针对 影：第一，走出过去传统的教学思维的阴影，包括进 性不够，教材的针对性就不是针对我们 度、方法，可以说过去的教学是不成功的，最后通过八 的了，我们是零开始，我们是文语并进。学校教育也 年、九年的聋校教育，是令人懊恼的结果。 1982 年北欧 没有跟上进度，普校的一年级是跟普通幼儿园衔接的，不 和西欧总结他们聋教育的失败一是过低降低对聋生的要 光是语言问题，还有整个知识系统。数学简直没法教。进 求，二是过分的强调缺陷补偿，没有把潜在开发放在重 度跟得上效果肯定不行。 要位置。我觉得这两条教训完全适应我们。我们过去的 Z 主任：学前和一年级是脱钩的，很多语文数学课都当手 教材把课文有血有肉的部分去掉了交给聋人干巴巴的部 语课上。要一个一个教一个一个过，字都不认识。 分，短短的一篇课文要 6、7、8、9 课时才能学完，把 完整的知识反复朗读就以为理解了，把完整的知识打得 Z 校长：人家是普通学校是六年的语言基础来学一年级的 支离破碎，过分的照顾了聋生缺陷，降低了要求。所以 教材。我们的孩子是零语言，或这也只能相当于一般孩子 我们聋孩子学得非常不好。 我在位的时候准备搞一个大 的半岁。你看有些小孩点头，他不是真正的理解，他是在 动作，没有搞成我非常遗憾，我们 – 在盐城做了 老师的暗示下完成这个动作。意思不光是图上的意思，还 80 90 个随班就读的实验，十几个班二十几个聋生，聋校跟普 要拓展，我们聋生思维本身就呆。什么是聋人的自然手 通小学班同进度的学习，并且这些聋童开始的状况我们 语？是不是跟指语的打法不同就叫自然手语？“卧” 的打法 都做了记录分析，谁并不比谁好，到四五年级对比时发 是听聋人教师的，但聋人教师也有不对。 现，大大超过了我们聋校同期进校的水平，包括语言表 C 处长：教学手语还是要用中国手语，解释的时候可以用 达、数学计算、身心发展水平等等。我们当时就思考到 自然手语，手语的教学要用规范的，你是汉语教学。自然 随班就读问题。我当时就提出聋校教学怎么改，我们聋 手语应该是教学中的辅助材料，工具性的作用。 校四年级的水平和普通学校四年级水平相差很多，我们 聋校的四年级孩子到普通学校四年级考试简直是一塌糊 Z 主任：A 说要完全用聋人的自然手语讲，要把口语扔进 涂，差异性很大，这就为我们聋校的教学、教材还有教 垃圾堆。 学方法提出一个非常大的问题。过去的一篇课文要八九 Z 校长：发音不要求读准，但口形一定要对。我们两个老 个课时才能讲完，按照这个进度我们肯定完成不了。所 师不是同时上课的，因为学生不知道看谁好，思维不集 以今天我们的双语试验必须走出过去聋校的阴影，用新 中，辅导作业的时候聋人老师就进入了。 课程、新理念、用改革的思维。第二，要走出学前班的 双语的阴影，学前班双语大部分是发展思维能力、生活 C 处长：要打破聋人在手语上的权威地位。会手语的就能 当老师了？就像会讲话的人就能当教师了一样。很多农 认识能力等等，但是现在都一年级了，进入学科教学了， 民是文盲口语都很好但他还是农民。语言只是个工具， 不能仍然停留在学前班停留在通过手语打好基础。所以 不能等同于知识水平。……先学字再学拼音，不符合教育 我提出必须走出两大阴影。怎么走出呢？今天听了两节 规律。……以自然手语为主不等于以聋人为主。 课，一个一年级的一个学前班的，进入一年级以后是一个 飞跃，是两个台阶的飞跃，这个我们教学遇到一个难题。 Z 校长：我们该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做。 到了一年级联系生活非常紧密的汉字出现了，但它也是 Xiaoxing He: “Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” 51

为拼音教学服务的，这八个字的音节都学过了，是为了 第二个，尽可能使用多媒体投影仪，这对孩子们理解 巩固汉语拼音的。但是我们的孩子和其他的孩子有很大 词汇作用太好了。通过多媒体演示孩子马上就理解了，不 不同，差异性非常大，我们的双语教学不是为学手语而 要讲多少。回去同 A 商量一下，尽可能改变一下设施配 学手语，它是一个手段不是教学目的，它的目的是更好 备，不是靠一双手语就能解决的，就和普通孩子同步，这 的让孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发展，从教学角度来 个也非常困难。 讲，是为了发展他的思维，更好的掌握汉语，更好的学 第三个问题，必须要搞个别化教学，根据孩子个别需 习知识。所以我们觉得这堂课下来是什么课啊，是知识 要，不可能同进度。只有个别化教学每一个孩子的潜能 教育课好像不是知识教育课，说是拼音课又不是拼音 才能得到最大发挥。一个标准评价也不科学。个别化和 课，好像还是手语教学课，还停留在学前手语教学阶 计算机信息化。 段。因为这八个字它手势是什么，字和图联系得非常 Z 主任：现在实验的指导思想比较混乱，是以聋人手语为 紧，而非常重要的一块，学字它包括音形意，字音我这 准还是聋人发展为准？我们把以前的固定模式都全部推 里要求不同，我必须要降低要求，口形必须正确，班上 翻了，畏首畏脚，都是为了突出双语。 指语打得基本不正确，声母韵母分离了，声母韵母分离 它口形就不对了。第二个，在教学过程中拼音基本上就 R 校长：以后我们就聪明了，看谁来开什么课。（笑） 没有使用，对字型的了解也没有，基本上还处于教学的 手势语阶段，停留在学前教育的思维上。我们的学科教 学应该把通过拼音来学习汉字，通过汉字基本上读准字 音，当然我们有不同要求，记住字型，了解字意。尽可 参考文献 能通过字词教育丰富他们的词汇，丰富他们的词汇是非 常重要的，字对孩子们的意义不大，必须要有大量积累 爱德基金会编， 中挪双语聋教育合作项目实验文集（No. 1）， 的词汇，这样才能形成短句，这对孩子们学习掌握语言 2005。（未公开出版） 是非常重要的。比如说学前班前面有一个关于水的好几 爱德基金会编，爱德双语聋教育项目简讯第 6 期，2009。（未公开 幅图画：泪水、汗水、喷泉、自来水、西瓜水，等等，下 出版） 爱德基金会编，爱德双语聋教育项目简讯第 7 期，2010。（未公开出 面还有手势语还有汉字，这都属于水，所以过去教学叫 版） “字不离词、词不离句”，我觉得这是很好的教学方法，我 爱德基金会编，爱德双语聋教育项目简讯第 8 期，2011。（未公开出 们的教学尽可能地从教学思想上从教学手段上最大的限 版） 度能根据孩子们的需要能够通过最适合她的教学手段，你 爱德基金会编，爱德双语聋教育项目简讯第 9 期，2011。（未公开出 说双语或者说口语，通过最大的发挥是他们得到他们最 版） 爱德基金会编，爱德双语聋教育项目简讯第 期， 。（未公开 大的发展。所以我们不是为了学习这个字而学习这个 10 2012 出版） 字，为了丰富她的词汇，为了她未来的发展而教学的。这 贺晓星，谁来教/如何教聋人最合适:教师观点的社会学考察 [J]，台 个指导思想必须要明确。教学指导思想将会左右自己的 湾教育社会学研究，2006 (2)。 教学行动。盐城聋孩子就跟着普通班学习，进度一个 贺晓星、张媛，聋教育改革的社会学思考：非政府组织的 ‘双语双文 样，完全跟得上。第一个我们考虑聋孩子的确有缺陷有 化’ 努力 [J]，教育学报，2008（4）。 问题，需要我们教材放慢，同时也要我们的教学方法是 沈玉林、吴安安、褚朝禹主编，双语聋教育的理论与实践 [M]，北 京：华夏出版社，2005。 不是适当，是不是有问题，这是双方的问题，不能过分 吴安安，双语聋教育：聋教育的新思想、新方法、新突破 [J]，现代 降低对孩子们的要求，我们问题就出在过去过低地降低 特殊教育，1998 (4)。 了对孩子们的要求，过去一个拼音教几天啊一个字教几 张宁生主编，聋人文化概论 [M]，郑州：郑州大学出版社，2010。 天啊，所以我们这方面还应该考虑。因为我们是试验，每 竹田清嗣著，現代批評の遠近法 [M]，東京：講談社学術文庫、 个阶段要不断得对自己进行反思，教学理念教学方法教 1998。 朴銀姫，「在日」を生きること——金鶴泳の「凍える口」をめぐっ 学手段对孩子们的各个方面的发展提出反思和对策。在 て [J]， http://www.doc88.com/p-3418029302002.html。 此我希望你们还是按照进度来搞，不断提出反思。聋孩 斯坦因·欧纳，与中国聋校的沟通和合作：中挪手语双语教育的合作 子的差异性是客观存在的，但是我们一定不要用传统的 经验 [J] ，中国特殊教育，2009（4）。 过去的思想来思考今天的教学。 爱德华·萨义德著，王宇根译，东方学 [M]，北京：三联书店，1999。