Survey of Residential and Day Schools for Deaf Students in the United States That Identify Themselves as Bilingual-Bicultural Programs

Transcription

1 Survey of Residential and Day Schools for Deaf Students in the United States That Identify Themselves as Bilingual-Bicultural Programs Carol LaSasso Department of Education, Gallaudet University Jana Lollis North Carolina School for the Deaf The purpose of this survey was to determine how many residential and day schools for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the United States described themselves as bilingualbicultural (BiBi) programs and to describe characteristics of those programs related to initial implementation, whether a single language (e.g., English or ASL) is promoted as the first language (L1) and the language of instruction for all deaf students, how English is conveyed conversationally to deaf students, the quality of ASL abilities of BiBi instructional and support staff; general characteristics of the curriculum and the specific reading and bicultural components of the curriculum; and characteristics of research being conducted to establish the efficacy of BiBi methods. Ninety-one percent (n = 71) of the 78 day and residential schools listed in the 1998 Directory of the American Annals of the Deaf participated in the survey, with 19 schools identifying themselves as BiBi. These included 16 residential schools and 3 day schools. Depending on the source for numbers of students in residential and day schools at the time of the survey, between 36% and 40% of students were in programs that identified themselves as BiBi. Sixteen of the programs reported becoming a BiBi program between 1989 and 1994 and only three after Of the 19 programs, 37% reported use of manually coded English (MCE) for conveying English to the students. Fluency in ASL of instructional and support staff varied, with 47% of the programs reporting that no more than half of the instructional staff were fluent in ASL and 68% of the programs reporting that no more than half of the support staff were fluent. Only 21% of the 19 programs reported having a formal BiBi curriculum with annual goals and suggested materials and procedures for teachers. Research implications of these data are discussed. Correspondence should be sent to Carol LaSasso, Department of Education, Fowler Hall, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Avenue, Washington, DC ( carol.lasasso@gallaudet.edu) Oxford University Press Historically, large-scale shifts in language and communication policies and educational practices with deaf 1 children have occurred, in large part, because of dissatisfaction with low reading achievement scores of deaf students. For example, in the early 1970s, a number of different manually coded English (MCE) systems 2 were created primarily to address the low average reading levels of deaf students. At that time, the average measured reading level of 18-year-old deaf students was 3rd to 4th grade or comparable to that of 8- to 9-year-old hearing children (DiFrancesca, 1972). MCE systems combine signs borrowed from American Sign Language (ASL) with English word order; however, the systems differ in the amount of fingerspelling used and in their formation and use of invented signs to convey morphemes, including derivational and inflectional morphemes (see Wilbur, 1987). MCE systems have been in widespread use by parents, teachers, administrators, and teacher educators for decades (Moores, 2001). By the late 1980s, reading levels of deaf students were essentially the same as they had been prior to the creation of MCE systems. Dissatisfaction with continued low reading achievement levels prompted Johnson, Liddell, and Erting (1989) to develop their widely disseminated position paper Unlocking the Curriculum: Principles for Achieving Access in the Curriculum, in which they stated that educators of deaf students and English-based signing systems (i.e., MCE systems) were responsible for the failure of deaf children to develop curriculum content knowledge and reading

2 80 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 abilities comparable to those of hearing peers. They advocated radical changes in current educational policy and proposed that ASL be the first language of deaf children and the language of instruction throughout the educational years to unlock the curriculum. In addition, they stated that sign language and spoken language should be kept separate both in use and in the curriculum. Specifically, systematic English signing (e.g., MCE systems) should not be used. Instead, according to Johnson et al., discussions of English should occur in ASL. In their view, the learning of English would be enhanced by establishing ASL as the first language. Further, the authors stated that the learning of English should be accomplished via written text instead of through speech or English-based signing; that is, speech should not be the primary vehicle for learning the spoken language. In addition, they proposed that all classrooms at every grade level should be staffed by both a deaf teacher and a fluently signing hearing teacher. Finally, Johnson et al. suggested that day care services should be provided by the educational system so that ASL models could be available to deaf children as early as possible. The major ideas presented in Unlocking the Curriculum evolved into different conceptualizations of bilingual-bicultural (BiBi) education. In the most prevalent conceptualization of BiBi education (Kuntze, 1998; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996; Liedel & Paul, 1991; Livingston, 1997; Paul, 1990, 1992, 1993; Prinz & Strong, 1998; Quigley & Paul, 1984; Singleton, Supalla, Litchfield, & Schley, 1998; Strong, 1988; Vernon & Andrews, 1990), ASL is promoted as the first language (L1) for deaf children and the instructional language of BiBi programs, and written English would be developed via written text. For this concept of BiBi education, four types of support are typically offered for ASL as L1 and the instructional language for all deaf children in BiBi programs: (1) the perceived naturalness of ASL and unnaturalness of English (Lane et al., 1996); 3 (2) apparent superiority of deaf children of (presumably) ASL signing Deaf parents on standardized reading achievement tests compared to that of deaf peers of hearing parents (Kemp, 1998; Nover, Christensen, & Cheng, 1998; Strong, 1988; Vernon & Daigle, 1994); 4 (3) research findings such as those of Belmont, Karchmer, and Bourg (1983), Belmont, Karchmer, and Pilkonis (1976), Blair (1957), O Connor and Hermelin (1972, 1973a, 1973b), Stuckless and Pollard (1977), and Withrow (1968) that support the view that deaf students have superior spatial memory abilities needed to process ASL compared to their sequential memory abilities needed to process English; 5 and (4) Cummins (1989) linguistic interdependence theory (Hoffmeister, 1990; Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1992). According to that theory, competence in a first language (L1) can lead to competence in a second language (L2) (cf. Mayer & Wells, 1996). Despite widespread distribution and discussion of Unlocking the Curriculum among educators and other professionals working with deaf children during the past 13 years, little is known about how extensive BiBi education is in the United States and characteristics of the different programs that identify themselves as BiBi programs (Prinz & Strong, 1998). The lack of research related to BiBi education prompted the Joint Council of Executives of American Instructors of the Deaf (CEASD) and the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID) Annals Committee to invite researcher and advocate for BiBi programs, Dr. Michael Strong, to review current BiBi programs in the United States for an issue of American Annals of the Deaf (AAD). Strong (1995) profiled seven residential programs in the United States that identified themselves as BiBi programs: the Arizona School for the Deaf, California School for the Deaf (Fremont), Cleary School for the Deaf (New York), Indiana School for the Deaf, the Learning Center for Deaf Children (Framingham, Massachusetts), Maryland School for the Deaf, and the Texas School for the Deaf. Strong described aspects of the different programs, including their mission statement or program philosophy, program goals, language of instruction, staffing for instruction, personnel training, parent programs, and research conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. Strong concluded that none of the BiBi programs reviewed was as well developed as those in Sweden and Denmark (p. 94). He further concluded that for the most part, curricula and well-defined teaching methods had yet to be formulated, programs indicated that they were experiencing difficulty finding qualified personnel who were fluent in ASL, and most programs had no formal research plans nor planned such research.

3 Bilingual-Bicultural Programs 81 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine how many residential and day schools serving deaf and hard-ofhearing children and youth in the United States describe themselves as being a BiBi program, the numbers of deaf children and youth in those programs, and characteristics of those programs related to initial implementation, language and communication, ASL language models, curriculum, and program evaluation. Method A four-page questionnaire was developed by doctoral students and the authors in a 1999 doctoral seminar on trends and issues in deaf education after reviewing the literature related to BiBi instruction in the United States. Most of the questions were yes/no or multiple choice questions; however, a few questions required respondents to construct a response. The questionnaire was piloted with 20 master s degree students, including 8 deaf students, in a reading methods course. The piloting resulted in several questions being reworded for clarity and response options being modified. During March 1999, the survey was faxed with a cover letter to superintendents or program directors of the 78 residential and day schools for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the United States listed in the 1998 Directory of the AAD. 6 Programs that did not consider themselves to be BiBi programs were asked (1) whether they were currently considering becoming a BiBi program or (2) whether they had previously considered becoming a BiBi program but had decided against it. Programs that identified themselves as BiBi programs were asked to address questions related to initial implementation, language and communication, curriculum, and program evaluation. Results Numbers and Percentages of Residential and Day Schools That Identify Themselves as BiBi Ninety-one percent (n = 71) of the 78 programs surveyed returned completed questionnaires. This included 97% (61/63) of residential schools and 67% (10/15) of day schools listed in the 1998 reference issue of the AAD. Survey respondents included seven school superintendents, five program directors, four principals, two deputy superintendents, and one supervisor. Of the 78 programs, 24% (n = 19) checked yes to a yes/no question asking if they considered their program to be a BiBi program. This included 25% (n = 16) of the 63 residential schools and 20% (n = 3) of the 15 day schools listed in the 1998 AAD reference issue. Six (32%) of the programs that identified themselves as BiBi programs reported having deaf superintendents. In terms of program size, of the 19 BiBi programs, 68% (n = 13) had more than 100 students, and 32% (n = 6) had between 30 and 99 students. The mean number of deaf students in the programs describing themselves as BiBi programs was 213. Numbers and Percentages of Children in Residential and Day Schools That Identify Themselves as BiBi Programs The 19 programs that identified themselves as BiBi during 1999 served 4,041 deaf and hard-of-hearing students, according to numbers reported in the 1998 reference issue of the AAD. It is less than straightforward to calculate the percentage of students in BiBi programs compared to students in all combined day and residential schools as well as students in all education programs, including day class programs that were not day schools. There are two primary sources of numbers of students in programs serving deaf and hard-ofhearing students: (1) the Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children & Youth (Annual Survey) conducted by the Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI) and (2) the Annual Report to Congress from the U.S. Department of Education. The GRI Annual Survey has been conducted since The GRI sends individual student survey forms requesting demographic, audiological, educational, and communication information to programs across the United States that have been identified as serving deaf or hard-of-hearing students. In there were 46,093 students reported to the Annual Survey. According to the GRI, for the Annual Survey, programs were not asked to identify themselves as a day or

4 82 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 residential school but, rather, were asked whether they would categorize themselves as a Special School or Center Program. It is assumed that the programs that checked the Special School or Center Program category are mostly residential or day schools for the deaf (Sue Hotto, personal communication, GRI). Of the 46,093 students reported to the Annual Survey for the school year, the number of students in programs that identified themselves as a special school or center program was 11,281. According to the Annual Survey s number of 11,281 students in combined special school or center programs, the number of students in self-described BiBi programs (4,041) represents 36% of those students at the time of the survey. The second source of numbers of students in programs serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the United States is the Annual Report to Congress from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes the number of children between the ages of 6 and 21 years with hearing impairments served under IDEA. Numbers of students are supplied by the individual states. For the school year, the number of students reported by the U.S. Office of Education to Congress was 70,813 (U.S. Dept of Education, 2000). For that year, the number of students identified by the GRI Annual Survey represented approximately 65% of the number of students identified by the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education uses four categories of facilities, which, when combined, possibly correspond to the special school or center categories used by the Annual Survey (Sue Hotto, personal communication, GRI). These categories of facilities are public separate, private separate, public residential, and private residential. For , the combined numbers of students in these four categories of facilities (n = 10,170) was close (i.e., 1,111 students fewer) to the number (n = 11,281) identified by the Annual Survey. According to the U.S. Office of Education s estimate of 10,170 students in combined day and residential schools, the number of students (4,041) in programs describing themselves as BiBi programs represents 40% of students in day and residential schools at the time of the survey. In sum, based on numbers supplied by the Annual Survey and the 2000 Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Education, the percentage of residential and day school children in day and residential schools describing themselves as BiBi in 1999 was between 36% and 40%. The 4,041 children in residential and day schools that described themselves as BiBi programs represented 6% of the 70,813 students with hearing impairments reported to Congress by the U.S. Office of Education during Intentions of Residential and Day Schools Not Identified as BiBi to Become BiBi Programs reporting that they were not BiBi programs were asked to answer two questions related to whether they had previously considered becoming a BiBi program but decided against it, and if they were currently considering becoming a BiBi program. Of the 59 residential and day school programs participating in the survey indicating that they did not consider themselves to be BiBi programs, 25% (n = 15) indicated that they were currently considering becoming a BiBi program and 10% (n = 6) indicated that after previously considering switching to a BiBi approach, they had decided against it. Characteristics of BiBi Programs 7 A series of questions addressed the initial implementation of the program, language and communication, curriculum, and program evaluation. Most of the questions were forced-choice (i.e., yes/no questions or multiplechoice) questions. Initial implementation. Eighteen of the 19 programs responded to a question asking them to write in the year that their BiBi program was implemented. All reported implementation between 1989 and 1998 (two in 1989; three in 1990; one in 1991; three in 1992; three in 1993; three in 1994; two in 1996; and one in 1998). 8 In response to a multiple-choice question asking whether the BiBi approach was initially implemented with the entire program or only with the lower or upper grades, 89% (n = 17) of the 19 programs indicated that it was implemented with the entire program and two programs indicated it was implemented with the prekindergarten classes initially. Programs were asked to rank the relative influence

5 Bilingual-Bicultural Programs 83 of the following factors on the switch to a BiBi approach: linguistic theory, research findings, parents, students, teachers, school administrators, or the Deaf Community. Table 1 indicates the numbers of programs assigning a rank of 1 or 2 to the different options, thereby reflecting the two most influential factors for programs becoming BiBi. Table 1 Major influences cited by program directors for switching to a BiBi philosophy (top two ranks combined) Reason for switching n (%) Administrators wanted it 12 (63) Linguistic theory (e.g., Cummins linguistic 8 (42) interdependence theory) Teachers wanted it 8 (42) Deaf community wanted it 6 (32) Research findings 6 (32) Students wanted it 5 (26) Parents wanted it 4 (21) Five programs gave a rank of 1 or 2 to more than one option. Language and communication. Two questions addressed the relative roles of ASL and English in BiBi programs. First, programs were asked whether ASL is promoted as the first language (L1) for all students in their school. Of the 19 programs, 63% (n = 12) checked yes. Four of the 7 programs that checked no added qualifying statements indicating that ASL is promoted as L1 for most students. Those comments included ASL is promoted as L1 for most students (two responses), ASL is L1 for students who begin at our school, or ASL is L1 for all except those students who come to school with English. In sum, 84% (n = 16) of the 19 programs describing themselves as BiBi programs promote ASL as L1 for most, if not all, of their students. Second, programs were asked to indicate which best characterized the instructional language in the program: (1) English for all children, (2) ASL for all children, (3) the instructional language is variable within classes (i.e., ASL for some students in a class and English for other children in the same class), (4) the instructional language is variable between classes (i.e., some classes use ASL; other classes use English), or (5) other. Of the 19 programs, 63% (n = 12) reported that ASL is the instructional language used for all children; three programs reported that the instructional language is variable within classes (i.e., ASL for some students in the class and English for others); two programs reported that English and ASL are used in all classes; one program reported that the instructional language is variable between classes (ASL is the instructional language in some classes while English is the instructional language in other classes). One program reported that English may happen in a few classes. Programs were asked to check which of the following characterized the language or communication policy prior to implementing the BiBi approach: oral-aural, ASL, signs with speech, other, or no policy. Programs could check more than one response. Of the 19 programs responding, 89% (n = 17) reported that the previous language-communication policy included signs with speech and two programs indicated there was no formal language or communication policy. Three of the 17 programs checking that the previous policy included signs with speech also checked ASL. Programs were asked to indicate which of the following methods were used to convey English to deaf students in BiBi programs: (1) MCE systems (such as SEE1 or SEE2), (2) signs with speech, (3) pidgin sign English (PSE), (4) fingerspelling; (5) cued speech, or (6) print. Programs could check more than one response. As reflected in Table 2, of the 19 programs describing themselves as BiBi, the two methods reported most often to convey English to students in BiBi programs were print (84%, n = 16) and fingerspelling (53%, n = 10). Of the 19 programs, 53% (n = 10) indicated that English was conveyed via print combined with some manual method to convey English (i.e., MCE system, signs with speech, PSE, or fingerspelling); 37% (n = 7) indicated that English was conveyed via some form of MCE, PSE, or signs with speech; 32% (n = 6) reported that English was conveyed solely by print; 32% (n = 6) reported that English was conveyed via print and fingerspelling; and 16% (n = 3) did not check print as a method for conveying English. Program directors were asked to report the percentages of instructional staff and support staff whom they judged to have fluent, moderate, or weak ASL abilities. They were asked to have their percentages sum to 100% (Table 3). In response to a question asking whether programs provided training in ASL to instructional and support staff, all programs responded yes. Programs were asked whether they assessed ASL abilities of instructional and

6 84 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 Table 2 Methods reported by directors of BiBi programs as used to convey English to deaf students (programs were asked to check all that apply) MCE systems Signs w/ speech PSE Fingerspelling Cued Speech Print 1 X X 2 X X 3 X X 4 X X 5 X X X 6 X 7 X 8 X X 9 X X X 10 X 11 X X 12 X X 13 X 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X X X X 18 X X X X 19 X X X AQ1 support staff, and if so, whether the assessment methods were formal, informal, or both formal and informal. Of the 19 programs, 89% (n = 17) reported that that they do assess the ASL abilities of their instructional and support staff; 42% (n = 8) reported that they only use formal procedures, 37% (n = 7) reported that they use only informal procedures, and two programs reported use of both formal and informal procedures. Of the 10 BiBi programs reporting use of formal assessment procedures, 80% (n = 8) reported use of the Sign Communication Proficiency Interview (SCPI) as the method of assessment; one program reported use of the Texas Assessment of Sign Communication, and another program reported use of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI). Informal procedures that programs reported being used included interviews, protocols such as those developed by Lamar University, class observations, or informal assessments by ASL specialists. Programs were asked to rank the relative effectiveness of the following as ASL models for deaf students: parents, other deaf students, deaf adults, or others. Of the 17 programs responding to the question, 59% (n = 10) ranked deaf adults as the most effective ASL models while 29% (n = 5) ranked other deaf students as most effective ASL models. Interestingly, however, 47% (n = 8) of the 17 programs indicated that other students were the least effective ASL models. Also interesting was that 2 of the 17 programs responding to the question cited parents as the most effective ASL models for deaf children, while 10 programs (59%) cited parents as being the least effective ASL models. Four programs checked the response option other and ranked that selection #1. Their responses were (1) deaf teachers, (2) hearing staff fluent in ASL, (3) deaf parents, and (4) deaf professionals. Curriculum. Several questions in the survey addressed aspects of the overall curriculum of BiBi programs, including the bicultural and reading components of the curriculum. Programs were asked whether the program has a formal BiBi curriculum with annual goals and suggested instructional strategies and materials. Of the 19 programs, 79% (n = 15) reported that they do not, while 21% (n = 4) reported that they do. In response to a question about whether their program has a formal bicultural component in the curriculum, 67% (n = 12) of the 18 programs responding to the question indicated that they do not, while 33% (n = 6) reported that they do. Programs were asked to indicate whether they would characterize their curricular framework for reading in-

7 Bilingual-Bicultural Programs 85 Table 3 Program directors judgments about ASL abilities of BiBi instructional and support staff Instructional staff (%) Support staff (%) BiBi program Fluent Moderate Weak Fluent Moderate Weak a a No data supplied. struction as whole language, basal reader, language experience approach (LEA), or other. Programs could check more than one response. Of the 19 programs, 37% (n = 7) checked a single response: three programs checked only whole language, two programs checked only LEA, one program checked only basal reader, and one program checked other (i.e., literature-based ). Thirty-seven percent (n = 7) of the19 programs checked both whole language and basal reader; three programs checked whole language and LEA; and three programs indicated that different frameworks for reading instruction occurred at different grade levels (i.e., whole language or LEA characterized the curriculum framework for lower grades, whereas basal readers characterized the curriculum framework for the upper grades). Three of the programs wrote in literature-based for other as one of their multiple frameworks for reading instruction. Programs were asked to indicate when formal reading instruction was initiated with students: before the age of 4 years, at 5 6 years, or at 7 8 years. Of the 19 programs, 37% ( n =7) reported that formal reading instruction begins before 4 years of age; 47% (n = 9) reported 5 6 years, and 16% (n = 3) reported 7 8 years of age. Program evaluation. A series of questions addressed program evaluation. First, programs were asked whether research was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the BiBi program. Of the 19 programs participating in the survey, 74% (n = 14) indicated that they were collecting program evaluation data. Programs that indicated that they were collecting data were then asked to indicate whether the data collection was formal, informal, or both formal and informal. Of the 19 programs, 58% (n = 11) reported use of both formal and informal methods; three programs reported using only formal methods; 68% (n = 13) reported that they were using academic achievement tests (i.e., either the Stanford Achievement Test or state-mandated achievement tests) as indicators of program effectiveness; and 37% (n = 7) indicated that they were also using measures of communication as indicators of program effectiveness. Discussion In response to a question asking programs to cite the year when the program began to describe itself as a BiBi program, the programs cited years between 1989 and 1998, with only three BiBi programs reportedly devel-

8 86 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 AQ2 oped between 1994 and This finding raises a question about whether the trend toward BiBi education is abating. Reasons Cited for Becoming BiBi Programs Two interesting results of this survey relate to reasons cited for becoming BiBi programs. First, 42% (n = 8) of the 19 programs ranked linguistic theory (e.g., Cummins s linguistic interdependence theory) as either 1 or 2, indicating that it was one of the top two major influences for becoming a BiBi program (see Table 1). This finding is interesting, given the compelling discussion by Mayer and Wells (1996) related to why Cummins s theory cannot be used to support ASL as L1 leading to written English as L2. Specifically, Mayer and Wells argue that five critical conditions are needed before the theory can be applied to languages considered to be interdependent (e.g., ASL and English literacy). First, each language needs a written form that corresponds to its spoken form. Second, the external mode of each language can serve as a bridge between the mode of inner speech and that of written speech. Third, the reader already has some level of mastery of the written mode of L1 before attempting to master the written form of L2. Fourth, there are adequate opportunities for the reader to be a fluent speaker of L2. Fifth, in both languages, the written form is used for a wide variety of functions, some of which are relevant to the reader s purposes. According to Mayer and Wells, when these five conditions are satisfied, the two languages can become interdependent; however, Mayer and Wells conclude that for purposes of supporting ASL as L1 to support English literacy, none of these assumptions can be assumed; thus, the linguistic interdependence theory cannot be appropriately applied as support for the model of ASL as L1 leading to English literacy for deaf students. 9 Although there have been attempts to develop a written form of ASL, a standardized, written system is not currently in widespread use (Paul & Jackson, 1993). Second, of the 19 programs, 32% (n = 6) ranked research findings as either the first or second influence for implementing their BiBi program. It is unclear to which research the programs are referring. Prinz and Strong (1998, p. 47), in their discussion of research related to bilingual programs for deaf students in the U.S., noted that there were no published accounts of bilingual programs by educators and researchers working in those programs. Although the polemic literature related to BiBi education was fairly substantial in 1999 when the survey was conducted, the only research explicitly related to characteristics of BiBi programs in the United States was that reported by Strong (1995). In that report, Strong s conclusions about the different BiBi programs reviewed were less than enthusiastic. It could be that programs were referring to research that was beginning to be disseminated about the relationship between ASL and English literacy acquisition (Hoffmeister, de Villiers, Engen, & Topol, 1998; Padden & Ramsey, 1998; Singleton, Supalla, Fraychineaud, Litchfield, & Schley, 1997; Strong & Prinz, 1998). It could also be that programs were referring to research summarized by Mahshie (1995, pp ) related to reading achievement of deaf children educated bilingually in Sweden and Denmark. In sum, more research is needed to determine what specific research findings are influencing programs decisions to become a BiBi program. Language and communication in BiBi programs. Some important insights were obtained in this study about the instructional language (i.e., ASL or English) and methods for conveying English in BiBi programs. First, 63% (n = 12) of the 19 programs indicated that ASL is the instructional language for all children in their program. This finding reflects the most prevalent construct of BiBi education (Johnson et al., 1989; Kuntze, 1998; Lane et al., 1996; Liedel & Paul, 1991; Livingston, 1997; Paul, 1990, 1992, 1993; Quigley & Paul, 1984; Strong, 1988; Vernon & Andrews, 1990). However, other data obtained in the survey suggest two possible forms of BiBi education. The fact that 37% (n = 7) of the 19 programs report use of MCE systems or signs with speech as a method to convey English to students suggests that some BiBi programs appear to be following Roy Holcomb s concept of Total Communication, which includes all types of communication, including speech, MCE, and ASL (Holcomb, 1971). This finding is surprising, given that a major thrust for the creation of BiBi programs has been the perceived failure of MCE or sign-supported speech systems to develop English in deaf students (Johnson et al., 1989). (See Drasgow and Paul [1995] and LaSasso and Metzger [1998] for a dis-

9 Bilingual-Bicultural Programs 87 cussion of research related to limitations of MCE systems for conveying English.) Second, a surprisingly large number of BiBi programs reported high percentages of their instructional and support staff as being less than fluent in ASL. Specifically, as reflected in Table 3, two BiBi programs indicated that 100% of their instructional staff were fluent ASL users and a third program judged that 80% of its instructional staff were fluent in ASL. However, nearly half (n = 9) of the 19 programs rated at least half of their instructional staff as being less than fluent ASL users; 32% (n = 6) of the programs rated at least a fourth of the instructional staff as having weak ASL abilities; 42% (n = 8) rated at least a fifth of their instructional staff as having weak ASL abilities. In terms of support staff, only 26% (n = 5) of the programs rated more than half of their support staff as being fluent ASL users; 58% (n = 11) of the programs rated at least a fourth of their support staff as having weak ASL abilities; 79% (n = 15) of the programs rated at least at least a fifth of their support staff as having weak ASL abilities. Two programs judged, respectively, that 75% and 70% of their support staff had weak ASL abilities. These data support Strong s (1995) finding that BiBi programs reported that they were having difficulty finding qualified personnel fluent in ASL. The data also raise a number of questions about the efficacy of some BiBi programs to reach their goals of bilingualism and biculturalism. First, how are BiBi programs with high percentages of instructional and support staff lacking fluency in ASL providing language models for students to acquire ASL naturally as a first language? As Prinz and Strong (1998, p. 64) note, in order to acquire first language fluency in a natural manner, a child must have consistent and complete access to the linguistic model. Second, how effectively are programs with high percentages of instructional and support staff lacking in ASL fluency reaching the presumed goal of unlocking the curriculum for their students? More research is needed to answer these questions. Curriculum The major finding related to curriculum in this survey is that 79% (n = 15) of BiBi programs reported that they did not have a formal BiBi curriculum with annual goals and suggested strategies and materials. This finding corroborates Strong s (1995) finding that curricula and well-defined teaching methods had yet to be formulated in the BiBi programs he profiled. It also raises a serious question about how BiBi programs are providing for continuity and comprehensive coverage of academic content for deaf students. Are curricula in BiBi programs textbook-driven? If not, do program coordinators or supervisors responsible for the curriculum in BiBi programs assume the important functions of assuring program continuity and comprehensiveness? What are the qualifications of curriculum coordinators in BiBi programs? This is a fruitful area for inquiry. BiBi programs are probably not unique among instructional programs for deaf students in having a formal curriculum. Recent conversations with teachers in non-bibi programs revealed that their programs, too, lack formal curricula with annual goals and suggested instructional strategies and materials. A second finding related to curriculum in BiBi programs, more specifically to the reading curriculum, is that a whole language orientation and basal readers are not viewed by many BiBi programs as being discrete curriculum frameworks for reading instruction for deaf students. In response to a question asking whether whole language, basal readers, LEA, or other characterized their reading program (programs could select more than one response), only three programs reported whole language solely, while 42% (n = 8) reported both whole language and basal readers. This finding corroborates the finding of LaSasso and Mobley (1997) that programs serving deaf students are tending less and less to view whole language and basal readers as being incompatible for instructional reading programs. A third interesting finding pertaining to curriculum relates to the three BiBi programs that indicated exclusive use of ASL as the instructional language and also checked LEA as the organizational framework for reading instruction for deaf students in their program. This finding is interesting because the LEA approach for hearing children typically involves the teacher and students sharing an experience, the teacher supplying the vocabulary related to the experience, the students dictating a summary of the experience while the teacher records the child s summary on chart paper, and using that chart as the print source from which to develop stu-

10 88 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 AQ3 dents reading abilities. In theory, viewing reading in terms of readers questions (LaSasso, 1994; Smith, 1997), the LEA approach simplifies the reading task for emerging readers because the reader has fewer questions about the language and content of the text since the reader has supplied it to the teacher. Readers with fewer questions about the language and content can focus more on the reader s questions about the written code, reading for different purposes, and demonstrating comprehension by answering questions and other means of assessing comprehension. A historical dilemma for teachers of deaf children who use the LEA approach is how to record the child s summary if it is not conveyed in standard English (LaSasso & Heidinger, 1983; Schirmer, 1994). Potential questions for the three programs participating in this survey that cited both exclusive use of ASL as the instructional language and use of LEA for reading instruction include the following. First, do teachers and students use ASL or a conversational form of English during the shared experience? Second, do deaf children convey their summary of the shared experience to the teacher in ASL or English? Third, If the shared experience is summarized by the child in ASL, do teachers write verbatim what the child conveys or does the teacher modify it to conform to standard English for the chart used as the source of print material for reading instruction? This would be another fruitful area of inquiry. Suggestions for modifying LEA for deaf children are described elsewhere (LaSasso & Heidinger, 1983; Schirmer, 1994). Program Evaluation Of the 19 programs, 74% (n = 14) reported that they are conducting research related to their BiBi program to support program efficacy. This is an improvement over Strong s (1995) finding that most of the BiBi programs that he reviewed had no formal research plans nor planned such research. It is surprising, however, that there are not more research findings published by BiBi programs themselves, given that more than a third of the programs participating in this survey have referred to themselves as BiBi programs for at least 10 years. It would be helpful for programs that describe themselves as BiBi to document insights about what is working and what is not working, to share that information with other BiBi programs as well as with teacher preparation programs in a position to prepare future teachers for BiBi programs, and to conduct workshops or other inservice programs for personnel in BiBi programs. Conclusions As with any type of research, survey research has its limitations, including the forced response nature of questions, the inability to determine how respondents interpreted questions, the inability to determine respondents care in filling out the survey, and the degree of correspondence between survey data and information that would be gained from direct observation. In addition, when responses are summarized only as percentages, individual differences between and among programs become obscured. As King and Quigley (1985) note, however, survey research constitutes a base upon which more comprehensive institutional research involving additional research methods can be built (p. 75). Within the limitations of survey methods, some important insights have been gained from the survey reported here about the number of day and residential schools in the United States that describe themselves as BiBi and characteristics of those programs related to what influenced them to become BiBi programs, when they began to describe themselves as BiBi, and how they implemented their program. Other program characteristics related to language and communication, curriculum, and program evaluation were also gleaned. Clearly, more research with different methods, including direct observation, are needed to corroborate the findings of this study. Further, given that between 36% and 40% of deaf students in residential and day schools for deaf students are in programs that identify themselves as BiBi programs, research is needed to determine how teacher preparation programs are preparing future BiBi teachers. Among the questions to be addressed by teacher preparation programs are questions related to (1) knowledge that current teacher educators have about BiBi programs in the United States, including knowledge of the professional literature related to theory and research linked to BiBi programs; (2) differentiation of coursework in current teacher preparation programs for fu-

11 Bilingual-Bicultural Programs 89 ture teachers who plan to work in residential or day schools versus mainstreamed programs; (3) ASL standards for students preparing to work in BiBi programs; and (4) how the following topics are addressed in teacher preparation programs: history of bilingual education in general education, history of BiBi education (including factors promoting the growth of BiBi education), research and theory related to BiBi education, research and theory related to the different systems for communicating English to deaf students (e.g., oral-aural methods, MCE systems, fingerspelling, and Cued Speech), the structure of ASL and English, the role of conversational forms of the written language in the development of reading abilities, curricular modifications in reading and content areas in BiBi programs, multiculturalism, assessment, and evaluation. There is little research related to the questions posed here. Answers to these questions are needed to determine whether teacher preparation programs are preparing personnel needed for current and future BiBi programs for deaf children and youth in the United States. Notes 1. In this article, deaf students refers to both deaf and hardof-hearing students. 2. Among the major MCE systems developed were Seeing Essential English (Anthony, 1971); Signed English (Bornstein, Saulnier, & Hamilton, ); Signing Exact English (Gustason, Pfetzing, & Zawolkow, 1972); and Visual Linguistics of English (Wampler, 1974). 3. See Leybaert and Charlier (1996), however, for research support for the view that deaf children exposed to Cued Speech at home and at school develop English abilities comparable to those of hearing peers. 4. See Marschark (1993, pp ), however, for the view that if academic achievement of deaf children of deaf parents is superior to that of deaf children of hearing parents, the existing research does not establish it. 5. See Marschark (1993, pp ), however, for methodological limitations of studies of existing spatial and temporal memory of deaf students. 6. Surveys were also sent to 213 public day class programs for deaf students that were listed in the 1998 Directory of the AAD that had at least 30 students and had not checked oral-aural as their primary mode of communication. Only 11% (n = 23) of those programs responded to the survey, with 13% (n = 3) of the 23 responding yes to the question asking whether they considered themselves to be a BiBi program. Responses from these three programs, however, suggested that they were not BiBi programs, and follow-up phone calls affirmed that they were not BiBi. For example, one large public school system indicated they had a single teacher who was using BiBi methods, and a second large public school system indicated that they had confused BiBi education with bilingual education used with hearing children. 7. Programs that identified themselves as BiBi programs were randomly assigned numbers between 1 and 19 to preserve confidentiality of responses. Data reported here for individual programs are by program number. 8. It should not be interpreted that 11 BiBi programs have been created since 1994 when Strong reported his findings about BiBi programs. Many of the programs participating in the current survey indicate they were created before See Mason (1997) for a response to Mayer and Wells, Mayer and Wells (1997) for a response to Mason. References Anthony, D. (1971). SEE I (Vols. 1 2). Anaheim, CA. Educational Services Division, Anaheim Union School District. Belmont, J., Karchmer, M., & Bourg, J. (1983). Structural influences on deaf and hearing children s recall of temporal/ spatial incongruent letter strings. Educational Psychology, 3, Belmont, J., Karchmer, M., & Pilkonis, P. (1976). Instructed rehearsal strategies influence on deaf memory processing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, Blair, F. (1957). A study of the visual memory of deaf and hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 102, Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K., & Hamilton, L. ( ). The Signed English series. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework of bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, DiFrancesca, S. (1972). Academic achievement test results of a national testing program for hearing-impaired students U.S., Spring (Series D, No. 9). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College, Office of Demographics Studies. Drasgow, E., & Paul, P. (1995). A critical analysis of the use of MCE systems with deaf students: A review of the literature. Association of Canadian Educators of the Hearing Impaired, 21, Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D., Zawolkow, E. (1972). Signing Exact English. Rossmore, CA: Modern Signs Press. Hoffmeister, R. (1990). ASL and its implications for education. In H. Bornstein (Ed.), Manual communication: Implications for education (pp ). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Hoffmeister, R., de Villiers, P., Engen, E., & Topol, D. (1998). English reading achievement and ASL skills in deaf students. Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Brookline, MA: Cascadilla Press. Holcomb, R. (1971). Three years of the Total Approach: Report of the Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Meeting of the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf (pp ).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

12 90 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 8:1 Winter 2003 AQ4 Israelite, N., Ewoldt, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (1992). Bilingual education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Toronto, Ontario: MGS Publication Services. Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Working Paper Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Research Institute. Kemp, M. (1998). Why is learning American Sign Language a challenge? American Annals of the Deaf, 143, King, C., & Quigley, S. (1985). Reading and deafness. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Kuntze, M. (1998). Literacy and deaf children: The language question. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf world. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press. LaSasso, C. (1994). Reading comprehension of deaf readers: The impact of too few or too many questions. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, LaSasso, C., & Heidinger, V. (1983). Language experience approach with deaf readers: Whose language? Teaching English to the Deaf and Second Language Students, 2, LaSasso, C., & Metzger, M. (1998). An alternate route to preparing deaf children for bilingual-bicultural programs: The home language as L1 and Cued Speech for conveying traditionally spoken languages. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, LaSasso, C., & Mobley, R. (1997). National survey of reading instruction for deaf and hard of hearing students in the U.S. Volta Review, 99, Leybaert, J., & Charlier, B. (1996). Visual speech in the head: The effect of Cued Speech on rhyming, remembering, and spelling. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, Liedel, J., & Paul, P. (1991). An interactive-interaction bilingualbicultural program model. In H. Lovato, S. Polowe- Aldersley, P. Schragle, V. Armour, V., & J. Polowe (Eds.), Profession on parade; Proceedings of the CAID/CEASD Convention (pp ). New Orleans, LA. Livingston, S. (1997). Rethinking the education of deaf students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Mahshie, S. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford University Press. Mason, D. (1997) Response to Mayer and Wells: The answer should be affirmative. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory support a bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf education, 1, pp Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1997). The question remains: A rejoinder to Mason. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, Moores, D. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Nover, S., Christensen, K., & Cheng, L. (1998). Development of ASL and English competence for learners who are deaf. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, O Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. (1972). Seeing and hearing and time and space. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, O Connor, N. & Hermelin, B. (1973a). Short term memory for the order of pictures and syllables by deaf and hearing children. Neuropsychologia, 11, O Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. (1973b). The spatial or temporal organization of short term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, Paul, P. (1990). From ASL to English. In M. Garretson (Ed.), Communication issues among deaf people: A Deaf American monograph (pp ). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. Paul, P. (1992). Use of ASL in teaching reading and writing to deaf students: An interactive theoretical perspective. Bilingual considerations in the education of deaf students: ASL and English (pp ). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Center for Continuing Education. Paul, P. (1993). Deafness and text-based literacy. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, Paul, P., & Jackson, D. (1993). Toward a psychology of deafness: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Prinz, M., & Strong, M. (1998). ASL proficiency and English literacy within a bilingual deaf education model of instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, Quigley, S., & Paul, P. (1984). Language and deafness. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Schirmer, B. (1994). Language and literacy development. New York: Merrill. Singleton, J., Supalla, S., Fraychineaud, K., Litchfield, S., & Schley, S. (1997). From sign to word: Comparing deaf children s literacy related competence in ASL and English. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Singleton, J., Supalla, S., Litchfield, S., & Schley, S. (1998). From sign to word: Considering modality constraints in ASL/ English bilingual education. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, Smith, F. (1997). Reading without nonsense. New York: Teachers College Press. Strong, M. (1988). A bilingual approach to the education of young deaf children: ASL and English. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp ). New York: Cambridge University Press. Strong, M. (1995). A review of bilingual-bicultural programs for deaf children in North America. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, Stuckless, E., & Pollard, G. (1977). Processing of fingerspelling and print by deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 122, U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Jessup, MD: Editorial Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education. AQ5