Oralism

The Spanish friar Pedro Ponce created a pure oral method to teach to deaf people how to read, talk and count.

Fray Pedro Ponce de León (1520-1584) is often credited as the inventor of deaf people education. Later, Juan Pablo Bonet (c. 1579–1633) will publish Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos, which circulated widely as a foundation method for teaching. Bonet was an oralist that defended the use of words to communicate but he also favoured the use of certain hand sign language.[6]

Since the beginning of formal deaf education in the 18th century in the United States, manualism and oralism have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day.[2] Oralism as the systematic education of deaf people began in Spain in the mid-1500s and was the byproduct of socioeconomic motives. The church barred deaf people from Holy Communion because they could not confess aloud. Deaf people were also prohibited from inheriting their family's wealth; therefore, to preserve the family wealth, deaf heirs in Spain were sent to Pedro Ponce de Leon after hearing that he taught a deaf man to talk in San Salvador Monastery in Oña.[3] Oralism provided members of the privileged classes with deaf children a way to channel their children's education and an opportunity to keep them away from the deaf community. Speaking has been associated with the higher classes and higher intellect, and the perception of signing has been the opposite.[3]

Before the Clarke School for the Deaf (now the Clarke School for Hearing and Speech) made its mark in deaf American education in the 1860s, there was a popular support of manualism.[7] Manual language soon became a less popular choice for deaf education due to the new Darwinist perspective.[7] Clarke School for the Deaf in 1867 became a "mainstream service" for deaf students through creating a "learn to listen" mentality.[8] This was done through the proper training of educators in auditory/oral education.[8] Since its start, Clarke School has expanded and provided support for oral communication within deaf education and policy.[8]

It has been remarked that, in the United States, the better-funded northern schools switched to oralism while their poorer southern counterparts kept signing because it was difficult to hire new oralist teachers.[9]

In relation to the early 16th-century oralism in Spain, 19th-century oralists viewed oral language as a superior form of communication.[2] Gardiner Green Hubbard,[8] Horace Mann,[2] Samuel Gridley Howe[2] and Alexander Graham Bell[10] were popular supporters of oralism and its impact on deaf education and services. Until the end of the 19th century, many educators of deaf America were deaf themselves.[11] However, oralists like Alexander Graham Bell began to wield increasing influence.[2][10] Bell and others believed in deaf assimilation with the mainstream hearing world.[10] Bell also believed that sign language was an instrument of imprisonment and that its use prevented the "gesturer" from being a "true American".[12] Bell had no opinion regarding whether or whom deaf people should marry.[13] By contrast, negative eugenicists sought to stop the spread of "bad genes" through invasive measures such as mandatory placement in institutions or sterilization. Bell believed oralism was "an attractive option to sterilization".[14] To Bell, implementation of oralism meant the possibility of a mainstream and "normal" life for deaf individuals.[14]

In 1878, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) met in Paris to discuss the use of sign language and other issues within deaf education.[11] During the congregation, no Deaf members were allowed to testify. In 1880, the ICED met again in Milan with 164 educators attending with one of them being deaf.[11] This meeting created the solely oralist classroom preventing any form of sign language from being used.[11] After the Milan conference, the Deaf community referred to this time in history as "the dark ages for deaf education in America".[1][2]

Hearing educators who could not sign replaced deaf teachers and, by the mid-20th century, eighty percent of American secondary schools for the deaf used the oral method exclusively.[4] Some strategies, such as Total Communication or SimCom, saw classes conducted in a mixture of spoken and signed English with the teacher signing along, in English word order as they delivered their lecture. For example, is, was and the, which are not used in sign, were spelled out by the teachers using the manual alphabet.[4] Students were taught using the articulation method, which taught them how to speak and lip read.[3] Oralists believed that signs were no more than gross holistic gestures, which stood for English words in a one-to-one correspondence. Sentences in sign were thought to have no grammar. The facial expressions, such as exaggerated movements of the mouth, tongue, eyes, and lips, suggesting grimacing or excessive emotional display, triggered horror in hearing people. Students were asked to stop moving their faces when they signed, which would later be described as equivalent to asking hearing people to speak in declarative sentences uttered in monotone.[3]

Even though students were not allowed to use manual signs within the classroom, many deaf students preferred manual signs and used them frequently in their dorm rooms at residential schools for the deaf.[1] Some deaf children were considered "oral failures" because they could not pick up oral language. Others thought that the techniques of oralism actually limited them on what they were taught because they always had to concentrate on the way the words were formed, not what they meant.[1][2]

Leaders of the manualist movement, including Edward M. Gallaudet, argued against the teaching of oralism because it restricted the ability of deaf students to communicate in what was considered their native language.[2] Moreover, "attempts to eliminate sign language were tantamount to stripping them of their identity, their community, and their culture."[2]

The retraction of laws forbidding the use of sign language in the classroom occurred in 2010 with the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) in Vancouver.[11] Deaf grassroots activists and the planning committee of ICED created a solution to provide proper education to the deaf globally.[11]

Clarke Schools for Hearing and Speech: focus on helping deaf and hard of hearing children develop spoken English and listening skills. The school's goal is to prepare students for the mainstream setting.[8]

Cleary School: focus on ASL and spoken English in its elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. Their Pre-K focuses on spoken English.[17]

Memphis Oral School for the Deaf: teaching children to develop their spoken and written English skills by teaching children in spoken English.[18]

Moog Center for Deaf Education: provides listening and spoken language services to children who are deaf or hard of hearing, ages birth to early elementary years, and their families.[19]

Tucker Maxon School: a spoken-language early intervention and Pre-K through 5th grade educational institution based in Portland, Oregon. Enrollment includes children who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as children with typical hearing in an inclusive, co-enrolled, mutually beneficial classroom environment. The school's mission is to teach "deaf and hearing children to listen, talk, learn, and achieve excellence together".[20]

There have been few quantitative evaluations regarding the long-term outcomes of oral programs for deaf individuals, but those that do exist tend to study this in relation to children with cochlear implants. One study compared the English development of deaf children with a cochlear implant versus what the English development might have been without the implant. English development was greater and more successful for the implanted deaf child than that of the non-implanted child based on the implementation of a predictive model. The predictive model employs age, residual hearing, and communication mode used by the child to predict the language development. Although deaf implanted children are already at a disadvantage for English development when compared to their hearing counterparts, the implant, on average, reduced what could have been an even larger deficit had the child not been implanted (based on the predictive model). The authors recommend implanting the child as early as possible.[21]

The studies did not consider how a non-implanted child exposed to a signed language and a bilingual/bicultural education could develop English skills in relation to a hearing child's English development. Multiple studies find that by ensuring a deaf child has access to American Sign Language, their overall academic performance is better than those who are not.[22]

Communication in oral-deaf students without cochlear implants is typically less frequent and less complex than hearing peers of the same age. These expressed communications are less clear than that of their hearing peers.[23] Linguistically, these communications are typical of the language skills seen much earlier in their hearing counterparts.[23] Despite efforts to encourage the sole reliance on speech and spoken language in oral schools, some oral-deaf individuals developed sign systems among themselves in non-supervised settings.[24] Additionally, oral-deaf children often used manual gestures/signs simultaneously or in addition to vocalizations during expressive communications at home.[23]

Some studies have called into question the role of developing spoken language skills in relation to developing reading skills. One study in particular demonstrated that while individuals who became deaf before developing spoken language did show a decreased ability to differentiate between the phonological properties of a language, they showed equal capability of recognizing and understanding the orthographic properties of what they were reading.[25] In fact, compared to their hearing counterparts, the deaf individuals showed an increased rate of written word processing skills as they increased in age. Altogether, this research provided evidence contrary to the belief that spoken skills are critical to the development of reading skills, and further proposes that educational approaches should include a stronger focus on building awareness of written language forms separate from the related aural aspects.[25]

There is little existing research on the social, professional, and mental health of deaf individuals using oral methods in comparison to those using other methods of education and communication. However, some studies suggest that social-emotional outcomes for deaf children who use cochlear implants and spoken language are statistically significantly higher than those of their signing deaf counterparts in a world made for ableism.[26][27]

There also was no accurate predictor of oralism's success in the classroom.[28]

It is reported by some that deaf children in an oral setting may feel depressed, anxious or experience aloneness and embarrassment.[28]

• Argentina
• Brazil
• Italy
• Mexico
• Spain

The history of oralism in Argentina can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, marked by the introduction of European methods of oral education for the deaf within the country. Prior to the widespread acceptance of oralism, deaf education in Argentina was predominantly influenced by manualism, a pedagogical approach centered on the use of sign language as the primary mode of communication. A pivotal moment in this historical narrative occurred with the establishment of the Instituto Nacional de Sordomudos (National Institute for the Deaf) in Buenos Aires in 1882. This institution played a notable role in advocating for oralism as the preferred instructional method. Its stance was strongly influenced by the Milan Conference of 1880, which championed oralism over sign language as the superior approach in the education of the deaf. The Argentine Association for the Deaf (Asociación Argentina de Sordomudos), founded in 1887, also contributed significantly to the promotion of oralism in Argentina's deaf education landscape. Over time, educational institutions dedicated to deaf education in Argentina began adopting oralist methodologies. Oralist schools were established, and educators received training in these methods. This era witnessed a decline in the use of sign language as the primary instructional mode.[31][32][33][34]

This oralist school is situated in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It offers educational services that include both kindergarten and primary school levels. With an enrollment of 172 students, the institution maintains a low student-to-teacher ratio, averaging approximately six students per class. In addition to traditional academic programs, the school provides a range of workshops to enrich students' learning experiences. One feature of this educational institution is its flexibility, allowing students to concurrently attend regular mainstream schools while benefiting from the specialized services offered by the oralist school. This approach enables students to complement their education and develop a diverse skill set. The school operates with both morning and afternoon shifts. The establishment features the Assistance Pedagogy Service, staffed by an interdisciplinary team dedicated to providing comprehensive care to disabled children. This team conducts ongoing evaluations of each student's progress and needs, fostering a holistic and inclusive approach to education. The Escuela de Sordos in Buenos Aires, Argentina, plays a crucial role in offering specialized educational services to deaf and hard of hearing students, promoting inclusive and personalized learning experiences within the region.[35]

One of the primary criticisms of oralism is that it can result in limited language acquisition for deaf individuals. Learning spoken language and lip-reading can be challenging, and some deaf individuals may struggle to develop language skills at the same level as their hearing peers. This can lead to difficulties in academic achievement and overall communication. Some critics argue that an exclusive focus on oralism can lead to social isolation for deaf individuals. Without a strong foundation in sign language, which may be more accessible and natural for many deaf individuals, they might struggle to communicate effectively within the deaf community. This can result in feelings of isolation and exclusion. The use of sign language has been shown to support cognitive development in deaf individuals, just as spoken language does for hearing individuals. Critics of oralism argue that by discouraging the use of sign language, cognitive development might be hindered, potentially affecting learning, problem-solving, and other cognitive abilities. Many within the deaf community view sign language as an integral part of their cultural identity. An exclusive focus on oralism can undermine the preservation and promotion of deaf culture and identity, as sign language is a crucial aspect of this culture. Emphasizing oralism may send the message that deaf individuals should strive to be more like hearing individuals rather than embracing their unique identity. Learning to speak and lip-read can be stressful and exhausting for some deaf individuals. The pressure to conform to oralist methods and expectations can lead to emotional and psychological stress, potentially impacting their overall well-being and mental health. While some individuals may thrive using oralist methods, others may struggle significantly. The effectiveness of oralism can vary widely based on factors such as the degree of hearing loss, individual communication preferences, and the availability of appropriate resources and support. With advancements in technology such as cochlear implants and hearing aids, the landscape of deaf education has evolved. While these technologies can facilitate oral communication for some, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Some deaf individuals may not benefit from or have access to these technologies, and the push for exclusive oralism might overlook their needs. In some cases, the exclusive focus on oralism can lead to a phenomenon known as "language deprivation." This occurs when a deaf individual is not exposed to a full and rich linguistic environment, which can have long-lasting effects on their cognitive and language development.[36][37][38][39]