LPREN Brief Language Policy Research Network Brief March 2014 Applications of Language Policy and Planning to Deaf Education By Sarah E. Compton, University of Jyväskylä, and Francis M. Hult, Lund University Introduction spaces in curricula as subjects, and which language(s) Language policy and planning center on how multi­ are used in texts and teaching materials, among others lingualism is managed in society. Language­in­education (Reagan, 2010, pp. 50-52). planning is a specific type of language policy and plan­ ning that focuses on how decisions are made with re­ Acquisition Planning spect to which language(s) and modalities are used for Decisions are also made in relation to language users teaching and learning within education. Special atten­ and how they develop language skills. In education, this tion is paid to understanding how decisions are made would include how students are supported (or not) in about the language abilities students need (in various enhancing their current linguistic abilities for academic languages) in order to participate in society and, in turn, purposes as well as what opportunities they have for how they can achieve those abilities (Kaplan & Baldauf, learning additional languages (Reagan, 2010, p. 53). 1997). Corpus Planning All planning in deaf education is, in essence, related to Moreover, decisions are made with respect to the linguis­ language planning since issues of modality in instruc­ tic form of a language. In education, this would include tion are of central concern (Reagan, 2010). In this way, decisions about the development and standardization of principles of language planning and policy can inform specific linguistic forms such as orthography and lexical the work of all professionals involved in various aspects expansion, among others (Reagan, 2010, pp. 52-53). of deaf education. Key Questions to Consider Core Concepts Principles of language policy and planning bring to light It is useful to begin by considering three major types several useful questions that educators can ask with of language planning and how they relate to decisions respect to planning teaching and learning for students made about educational issues. who are deaf or hard of hearing (and hearing individu­ als with family members who are deaf). Status Planning Decisions are made by individuals within institutions of Status Planning government in relation to the functions of language(s) • What language(s) and modalities (signed, video­ in specific contexts. In education, this would include recorded, oral, written) are used for content instruc­ decisions made by individuals (e.g., policy makers, ad­ tion? ministrators, teachers) about which language(s) are • What language(s) and modalities are used for assess­ used for teaching, which language(s) are allocated ment purposes? Center for Applied Linguistics l 4646 40th St NW l Washington DC 20016-1859 l 202-362-0700 l www.cal.org • What language(s) and modalities are used for other in countries like the United States function as de facto communication purposes (e.g., classroom manage­ language policy for deaf and hard of hearing students ment, administration, communication with parents)? because of the ways in which the policy frames educa­ • What roles, if any, do minority language(s) and mo­ tional placement options. Students’ access to sign and dalities used at home by deaf and hard of hearing spoken languages at school is strongly influenced by the students and their families play at school? educational contexts in which they are placed. Acquisition Planning Implementational Space • What opportunities for students’ language devel­ Because policies are interpreted by various actors in opment in sign language(s) and spoken/written different contexts, there is room in education policies language(s) are presented in policy documents and for educators to develop programs and lessons to sup­ curricula? port the learning needs of multilingual students (Horn­ berger, 2005, p.606). Compton (2010) illuminates the • How much time, if any, is allocated to learning ad­ implementational spaces in U.S. national law governing ditional languages? deaf education for supporting multimodal–multilingual • Which modalities are included in teaching and learn­ development. Further, Compton’s study demonstrates ing additional languages? how policy makers at the state, school district, and cam­ pus levels open up or close down these spaces in the • What professional development opportunities are policy texts. Moreover, the study demonstrates how ed­ available for teachers to build language skills and ucators at the campus level, along with parents, are the pedagogical techniques for multimodal–multilingual individuals with the most influence in determining the instruction? educational contexts into which students are placed. Corpus Planning Medium of Instruction • How is a given sign language developed to be used Students gain access to content knowledge through the as a medium of instruction? language(s) and modalities used during teaching and • Which linguistic forms of a particular language are learning (Svartholm, 2010, pp. 164-166); this can be selected for use in teaching and learning? contrasted with learning about a language in a foreign language class, for example (UNESCO, 2003, pp. 14- • What language standardization efforts are taken up 18). Hult and Compton (2012) found that educational (e.g., creation of dictionaries or expanding vocabu­ policies provide for sign languages as mediums of in­ lary in a particular language)? struction with varying degrees of explicitness. Ramsey • What efforts are being made to develop orthograph­ (1997) and Siegel (2008) raise questions about the de­ ic systems for representing sign languages? gree to which deaf and hard of hearing children gain ac­ cess to instruction when delivered in a spoken language Major Findings or through a sign language interpreter. Questions about Research on language policy and planning, including a the languages in which assessments are conducted are growing body of work focused on sign languages, offers also important to consider (Wright, 2010, pp. 263-264). insight about practical points to consider when creating or implementing policies and curricula for students who Family–School–Community Connections are deaf or hard of hearing. Sign languages are present not only at school but also in the homes and communities of students who are deaf, De Jure vs. De Facto Policies hard of hearing, and hearing. Baynton (1996) provides De jure policies are written in legal codes and official a historical overview of how families and deaf commu­ curricular documents while de facto policies develop over nities have maintained American Sign Language despite time through practices that become normalized and ac­ language planning efforts to ban sign language in edu­ cepted, even though they may not be written in a text cation. Compton (2014) draws attention to the frequent (Schiffman, 1996, pp. 13-15). Hult and Compton (2012) conflation of sign languages and deafness. In planning and Ramsey (1997) found that de jure education policy for sign languages, opportunities for hearing siblings and parents of deaf and hard of hearing children to learn 2 www.cal.org/lpren sign languages should also be considered. Likewise, the References spoken and sign languages used at home and in students’ Baynton, D. C. (1996). Forbidden signs: American culture and communities should be addressed in education plans. the campaign against sign language. Chicago, IL: Uni­ versity of Chicago. Manual Sign Codes Compton, S. E. (2010). Implementing language policy for deaf Artificial systems have been created by educators to rep­ students from Spanish-speaking homes: The case of agents resent dominant spoken languages in visual modalities in a Texas school district (Master’s thesis). Available (i.e., a signed system). Corpus and acquisition planning become intertwined since these coded systems borrow from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. signs from natural sign languages in an attempt to teach (UMI No. 1475894) deaf and hard of hearing children literacy skills in the Compton, S. E. (2014). American Sign Language as a target spoken language. The development and use of heritage language. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. these systems has been highly controversial because of Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Hand- their artificial nature as well as the difficulty of teaching book of heritage, community, and Native American lan- writing through a (signed) modality that is used in face- guages in the United States (pp. 272-283). New York: to-face interactions (Ramsey, 1989, pp. 131-137; Reagan, Routledge and Center for Applied Linguistics. 2010, pp. 130-135). Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up im­ plementational and ideological spaces in heritage Where Do Policies Stand? language education. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), The grid below (adapted from Hult & Compton, 2012, 605–609. p. 614) provides a tool for reflecting on language poli­ Hult, F. M., & Compton, S. E. (2012). Deaf education cies within deaf education. Consider the guiding docu­ policy as language policy: A comparative analysis ments (national policies, curricula, school action plans, of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language and any other documents that influence practice) in your Studies, 12(4), 602-620. educational context. Where would you plot each one in Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning the quadrants? from practice to theory.