Posts Tagged ‘deaf education’
Since I can remember, the Philippines’ Department of Education had always been implementing “Total Communication System”/”Signing Exact English” in educating the Filipino Deaf. But now, all I can say that the Filipino Deaf community truly live in exciting times. 🙂
Here is the official letter of DepEd Secretary Armin Luistro addressed to Congressman Arturo Robes, Chairperson of Committee on Social Services of the House of Representatives with regards to their support in proposed Filipino Sign Language Bill (HB 6079). I took time to encode the letter and post it here because I am an advocate of accessible formats. PDFs are mostly not. Here is goes. 🙂
October 11, 2012
HON. ARTURO B. ROBES
Committee on Social Services
House of Representatives
Dear Chairperson Robes:
This refers to House Bill No. 6079 entitled, “An Act Declaring Filipino Sign Language As The National Language Of The Filipino Deaf And The Official Language Of Government in All Transactions Involving The Deaf, and Mandating Its Use in Schools, Broadcast Media, And Workplaces.”
We commend the Honorable Antonio Tinio for proposing a statutory measure on declaring Filipino Sign Language (FSL) as the National Language of the Filipino Deaf. We agree that the State shall promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities.
We share the same view that national and local state agencies shall uphold respect for their inherent dignity. Individual autonomy, and independence by guaranteeing accessibility and eliminating all forms of discrimination in all public interactions and transactions thereby ensuring their full and effective participation and inclusion in the society.
We also recognize that the State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Filipino Deaf can exercise the right to expression and opinion. Thus, we must promote the use of sign languages embodying the specific cultural and linguistic identity of the Filipino Deaf.
On this note, we resepectfully recommend two simple but relatively substantial provisions in the bill. First, the bill should clearly define the meaning of the term “Filipino Sign Language” for the readers’ convenience in understanding the meaning of FSL.
Second, the bill must include a provision or set of provisions that shall indicate or refer to the period of initial and full implementation of the use of the FSL as medium of instruction in Deaf Education. This is in due recognition of the fact that most of the DepED teachers teaching children/youth with hearing impairment were trained using American Sign Language in schools. Thus, the shift from American Sign Language and Filipino Sign Language or the period of transition would allow flexibility on the part of the DepED to retrain and retool its teachers, revisit and reproduce its instructional materials, and develop FSL curriculum appropriate to each region/community.
We also take this opportunity to inform this Honorable Committee that FSL and its underlying principles have been incorporated in the substitute bill of the proposed K to 12 Enhanced Basic Education Program approved by the House Committee on Basic Education last October 10, 2012. We hope that the members of the Committee on Social Services will render the same support to this proposed measure in pursuit of achieving our goal of providing quality and relevant education for all.
With the aforementioned, the DepEd would like to thank the Honorable Chairperson for giving us the chance to express our position with regard to the proposed declaration of the Filipino Sign Language as the national language for the Filipino Deaf. We are very much willing to sit down with Your Honor for a dialogue with the and in view of amplifying and clarifying the contents of this letter.
BR. ARMIN A. LUISTRO FSC
You may view the original file in PDF Format here for purposes of comparison. 🙂
- What Filipino Sign Language is NOT… a short video explanation (deafphilippines.wordpress.com)
- Filipino Sign Language Bill, a must for the Filipino Deaf (deafphilippines.wordpress.com)
- Nat’l sign language bill debates delaying FOI bill deliberations – lawmaker (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
- [Resources] FAQs for the DEAF RALLY for FSL -Philippine Deaf Resource Center (hronlineph.com)
- [Resources] Myths and misconceptions about Filipino Sign Language (FSL) -Philippine Deaf Resource Center (hronlineph.com)
With the recent fuzz about Filipino Sign Language and the debate whether to support House Bill 6079 (Filipino Sign Language Act of 2012) or not, let us first have an open mind, understand what this language is and how it will empower the Filipino Deaf. We hearing people have been dominating deaf education since 1907. It’s high time that we let the Filipino Deaf people decide for themselves on what language to use in teaching them.
Here is a short video explaining what FSL is NOT. Peace! 🙂
- Pushing the Filipino Sign Language (deafphilippines.wordpress.com)
- Filipino Sign Language Bill, a must for the Filipino Deaf (deafphilippines.wordpress.com)
- Sign Bilingualism is a Human Right (d-travelblog.com)
This is a repost from the article written by Sam L. Marcelo of Business World Online. Here is the original link.
EAVESDROPPING is despicable but I do it all the time. When I see deaf people “talking” on the train, I can’t help myself. I’m riveted by their conversation and my eyes follow their hands as they dance in space. Fingers animated by meaning slice, flick, and stab the air. Noses scrunch, eyebrows rise and fall, cheeks puff out, lips purse and wiggle about. Not a word is spoken but a lot is said.
Chances are, they’re communicating in Filipino Sign Language (FSL), a “unique visual language” that has its own grammar and syntax. FSL is not gesture or pantomime. FSL is not American Sign Language (ASL), although it cannot deny that it was influenced by ASL; neither is FSL the sign equivalent of spoken Tagalog or Filipino.
FSL is FSL and it is a defining part of the Filipino Deaf — big “D,” not small “d” — identity, which is why members were shocked when Department of Education (DepEd) undersecretary Yolanda Quijano endorsed Signed Exact English (SEE), a manually coded version of spoken English, for classroom use during a forum attended by public and private school teachers, and NGOs.
“It was like a bomb,” said George Lintag, secretary of the Philippine Federation of the Deaf, Inc. (PFD), who was present when Ms. Quijano made her controversial statement.
Mr. Lintag is a post-lingual Deaf person, which means he lost his hearing after he learned to speak. At the age of nine, his hearing gradually started to weaken and by the time he turned 15, his world was silent. The interview was conducted without the aid of an interpreter. BusinessWorld wrote its questions and comments down; he answered in a quiet voice. In answer to an observation that he spoke well, he shrugged and smiled. “I don’t know. I can’t hear myself.”
There are several degrees of hearing loss. For quick reference, a mildly deaf person cannot hear whispered conversations and has a hearing threshold of 20-40 decibels (dB); a moderately deaf person has difficulty following close-range conversations and has a hearing threshold of 40-60 dB; a person with severe hearing loss can only hear loud noises such as the racket made by a vacuum cleaner or lawn mower at close range, representing a hearing threshold of 60-90 dB; finally, a severely deaf person can hear only extremely loud noises — a chainsaw, for example — and feel the vibrations made by loud sounds.
The people in the final group have a hearing threshold of greater than 90 dB, a level that’s around 10 to 40 decibels lower than a live rock concert (it depends on which band is playing). Normal conversation is 60-70 dB; Col Hatchman of Dirty Skanks holds the Guinness Book of World Records record for “loudest drummer” when he hit a peak reading of 137.2 dB at a 2006 gig.
Filipinos with hearing loss account for 2% of the population, a conservative estimate. However, not all deaf Filipinos are members of the Filipino Deaf community, which defines itself as a cultural and linguistic minority fighting for the right to use FSL, the native sign language that it knows, understands, and identifies with the most.
In response to Ms. Quijano’s endorsement of SEE, PFD, a member of the World Federation of the Deaf and the national Deaf advocacy organization composed of 18 member Deaf organizations in 14 regions, drafted a resolution this August claiming “the fundamental human rights to language, culture, participation and self-determination for all Deaf Filipinos, in accordance with the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability, the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (1994), the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
The PFD called on the DepEd to “halt the violation of the rights to language, culture, participation and self-determination of Deaf Filipinos; and institute, facilitate and promote all appropriate measures to guarantee the full enjoyment of these rights.”
“We are proud of our culture. We want to preserve our culture. And the most important part of our culture is our language, which is FSL,” said Mr. Lintag.
FSL is a true language
According to Dr. Liza B. Martinez, a hearing sign language linguist who is founder and director of Philippine Deaf Resource Center (PDRC), FSL is one of about a hundred natural sign languages recognized to be linguistically distinct from each other at all levels of linguistic structure (phonology, morphology, syntax and discourse).
FSL is not simply a dialect of American Sign Language (ASL), though it does borrow heavily from it. Ms. Martinez cites archival documents dating back to the 16th-17th century as critical evidence that sign language existed in the Philippines before American colonization.
Separate accounts written by Jesuit priests Gregorio Lopez and Pedro Chirino describe mutes who used signs to communicate.
An Introduction to Filipino Sign Language, a multivolume series published in 2004 by PDRC and PFD, answers many of the questions a hearing person might have about a visual language.
Sign languages are as different from each other as spoken ones; and only those who know sign languages from the same branch or family will be able to understand each other right off the bat. It’s easy to “get” FSL if you know ASL, for example, because they’re related though history and development. Taiwanese Sign Language, meanwhile, uses handshapes that are alien to FSL: the raised middle finger in the sign for “brother” and the folded pinky in the sign for “airplane,” among others.
As in ASL, each sign in FSL has five components. Handshape, which was already mentioned, is one of them. The other four are palm orientation, location, movement, and nonmanual signals. Change any one of these five components and the meaning of the sign changes as well.
Nuances such as tone, sarcasm, or irony are conveyed through nonmanual signals such as facial expressions and body movements.
“Shouting” entails taking up a larger area of signing space, an imaginary three-dimensional region in front of the user; whispering, a smaller area. (If the need for privacy is great, you can always sign underneath your shirt so that your conversation is hidden from prying eyes.) Eloquence, just the same as any language, is demonstrated by the wide use of vocabulary and complex sentence structure.
Hands can move rapidly or slowly, gracefully or abruptly. How you sign tells a lot about who you are: your age, educational attainment, even your gender. Just as there is “swardspeak” in spoken language, there is also gay FSL (you’ll know it when you see it; gay signs have more…. pizzazz.)
“As in any language, there is the whole range of human diversity in terms of signing styles. Each individual has his or her own ‘dialect,’” said Ms. Martinez. “Particular vocabularies are distinct for certain age groups and social classes. Like other living languages, new vocabularies emerge, change, and disappear.”
Members of the Filipino Deaf community have repeatedly said that they would rather be taught in FSL. The PFD’s resolution is only the latest and, as mentioned, their request is backed by several local and international declarations. The DepEd, in the 1980s, prescribed that local sign language — “Pilipino Sign Language” — be used as the language of instruction for the hearing impaired.
The Formal Resolution adopted by the World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf in Helsinki, Finland in 1987 said that “the distinct national sign languages of indigenous deaf populations should officially be recognized as their natural language of right for direct communication” and that “teachers of the deaf learn and use the accepted indigenous sign language as the primary language of instruction.”
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, adopted by 92 governments (the Philippines included) and 25 international organizations in 1994 read, in part: “Educational policies should take full account of individual differences and situations.
The importance of sign language as the medium of communication among the deaf, for example, should be recognized and provision to ensure that all deaf persons have access to education in their national sign language.”
In 2007, the Philippines became one 82 signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Article 24 of the Convention states that signatories shall facilitate “the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community.”
Why then, Ms. Quijano’s endorsement of Signed Exact English? Why then, the use of SEE in the Miriam College — Southeast Asian Institute for the Deaf (MC-SAID)? Why then, the use of Signed English (a system that is simpler than SEE) in the Philippine School for the Deaf (PSD)?
Visual codes, reading, and writing
“We are not here to teach signs. We are here to teach concepts,” said Yolanda Capulong, principal of PSD, which offers three levels of schooling (pre-elementary, elementary, and secondary). “Our students are here to learn the parts of the body and the parts of the plant. They are here to learn to read and write.”
The language of instruction in PSD is English, complemented by Signed English, a “system of manual communication” that “translates” spoken English into signs. Signed English is one of several “visual codes” for representing spoken English.
The history of PSD goes back more than a hundred years. It was established in 1907 as the School for the Deaf and the Blind by Delia Delight Rice of Columbus, Ohio. In 1963, the School split into two entities: PSD and the Philippine School for the Blind. Today, it has 603 students, ranging from the mildly deaf to the severely deaf. PSD also accepts children with other disabilities and special needs, such as autism and cerebral palsy.
Since PSD is a national school, the medium of instruction has always been a concern. “We’re trying to serve a very diverse population with different needs,” said Ms. Capulong. “There are three big issues in the education of the deaf: where shall we teach deaf children, how shall we teach deaf children, and what shall we teach deaf children?” FSL relates to the second issue.
PSD’s goal is to “mainstream” its deaf students. In the education setting, this means helping them join regular classes based on their skills and intellectual abilities. In another sense, “mainstreaming” refers to becoming part of the larger, hearing society. To this end, PSD adheres to the Total Communication Philosophy, which means that it uses a combination of communication modes in its classes.
Where other schools are either purely oral (meaning students must lip read and undergo auditory training so that they can speak) or purely manual, PSD believes in Simultaneous Communication — signing and speaking at the same time.
“Concepts cannot be taught without a common language,” said Ms. Capulong. “FSL is gestural like any sign language. How can you convert a gestural language into a written language?,” she asked.
The PSD principal made it clear that she has no problem with FSL. “It’s okay; it’s fine,” she said. “However, inside a classroom, you have to use a system. You have to standardize things, including the manifestation of a language.” Using Signed English, she continued, will help students grasp the syntax of English, which, in turn, will help them read and write.
Sign what you say
Parents who were not satisfied with the education offered at PSD established the Miriam College – Southeast Asian Institute for the Deaf (MC-SAID), which teaches pre-school to secondary levels, in 1974. It was a forerunner in adopting the Total Communication Philosophy. But unlike PSD, MC-SAID used and still uses Signed Exact English, an even more precise visual code for spoken English than Signed English.
Every morpheme in spoken English has an equivalent sign in SEE: verbs must be conjugated, meaning there are appropriate gestures that tell you whether a verb is in the progressive form (“-ing”) or the past tense (“-ed”); articles and prepositions are not skipped, neither are affixes. Basically, everything that is said is exactly signed (hence the name).
“The advantages of SEE are many. I’ve seen how the use of this sign system has helped our graduates,” said Carol Ui, MC-SAID principal.
“An educator’s concern is literacy and I believe that this is what SEE can give to our deaf students.” She continued that the use of SEE does not exclude FSL. “They can both be functional and useful for any deaf child.”
For Ms. Ui, MC-SAID’s graduates are the best arguments for using SEE. There’s Jemima Ming Go, who graduated cum laude from the University of the Philippines, Diliman, College of Fine Arts last year. As a matter of fact, many Deaf leaders now advocating for the use of FSL were products of SEE.
“I think that one of the reasons they can engage intellectually in these conversations and discussions about FSL and SEE is that they have command over both languages [FSL and SEE],” said Ms. Ui. “That they favor FSL over SEE is not really an issue with me. It makes me proud as a teacher to see them engaged. Not any deaf person can do [what they’re doing].”
The MC-SAID principal continued that seeing how well the system has worked for them just bolsters the case for SEE. “When we’re talking about classroom situation, I really believe that we should use SEE,” she said, adding that literacy is reading and writing, and, therefore, knowing the rules of English (which is the closest the world has to a lingua franca). “But again, that doesn’t mean that FSL cannot be used in other contexts.”
A learner-centered environment
Raphael “Raphy” Domingo is a Deaf leader who works as coordinator of Education Access for the Deaf at the De La Salle College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB)-Center for Education Access and Development (CEAD). He was president of the PFD from 1999-2003 and a major contributor to An Introduction to Filipino Sign Language. Mr. Domingo, who lost his hearing pre-lingually, is bilingual, being fluent in FSL and English. DLS-CSB uses FSL in its School of Deaf Education and Applied Studies (SDEAS), which has a Multimedia Arts track and a Business Entrepreneurship track. There are more Deaf teachers in the school than hearing teachers.
“FSL is our language,” Mr. Domingo said through an interpreter. “It is the natural language of the Filipino Deaf community. The deaf, in general, use their eyes to understand the world.”
(Later on in the interview, Mr. Domingo requested that BusinessWorld use “Mr. Domingo said” in this article instead of “Mr. Domingo said through an interpreter.” “This is my voice, these are my thoughts and not the interpreter’s,” he said, adding that the phrase “through an interpreter” could be used once as a compromise.)
To illustrate how FSL is different from SEE, he used the question “What is your name?” as an example. SEE entails signing each word — “what,” “is,” “your,” and “name” — plus the question mark at the end of the interrogative sentence. In FSL, the sign for “name” and a puzzled facial expression suffices.
Mr. Domingo stressed that it’s not a shortcut but a visual concept.
“Before learning English, Tagalog, or whatever spoken language, the Deaf should first learn their own language, which is FSL,” he said. “The problem is that teachers keep using ‘hearing’ methods to teach us.
They bombard the Deaf with so many written words and we just copy, copy, copy without understanding anything. Communication is one way and there’s no feedback. It has to be more visual.”
Theresa Christine “Techie” Benitez-dela Torre, director of CEAD and dean of SDEAS from 2002-2009, said that DLS-CSB uses FSL because it is “learner-centered.”
“You have to see it from the view of the students. You have to understand it from a sociocultural perspective,” she said. “Deaf people cannot hear, yes, but that does not define their personhood. Their identity is not their hearing ability. They have their own unique experiences.”
Imagine a deaf infant born in a hearing world. “From day one, this baby is isolated and cut off. There is a barrier — a barrier that is not necessarily a product of his deafness but a product of his hearing environment, which has always addressed only the needs of hearing people,” said Ms. Benitez-dela Torre. “If we understand the context of the deaf, then we can adjust the environment so that they can access the same things hearing people have access to.”
One way of “adjusting the environment” is using FSL, a visual and kinesthetic language that is the natural language of the Deaf.
“Oral-based languages are learned in an auditory manner. Hearing and post-lingual deaf people already have the foundations they need in their brain to understand the rules,” said the CEAD director. “The same is not true for the pre-lingual deaf.”
It is better for a deaf child to learn FSL, she continued, and use it as a bridge to a second, oral-based language such as English. “It should not be the other way around,” Ms. Benitez-dela Torre said. “It’s difficult when you force an oral-based reality on those who are deaf. All we want is for them to have choices and the power to make them.
- Web Research on Deafness and Hard of Hearing (bilingualmontessori.wordpress.com)
- International Day of Signed Languages Celebration at the California State Capitol (prweb.com)
These past two months, I was invited to attend two disability-related conferences. One was the three-day Philippine Community Based Rehabilitation Congress from August 25-27. The other one was the 1st National Disability Summit from September 24 – 25. Incidentally, both of them were held on the same place, the Manila Pavilion Hotel in UN Avenue. The National Council on Disability Affairs was the lead host on both events.
On both occasions, I was there only to listen to the various resource speakers, join the breakaway sessions and photograph the event. I have no intention of giving a piece of my mind. However, I was willingly assigned to assist in the presentation of our group during the first event. I was also unwillingly assigned to facilitate in the group’s proposals and present it on the plenary for the second event. I was also tasked to share my insight of the summit from the academic point of view.
On both conferences, there were NO DEAF PERSONS invited. Those were truly disappointing activities because among those sectors involved with disability, only the deaf people were not represented. I had to bring two of my deaf students on the next day so that they can at least be “SEEN”.
On both events, the term “INCLUSIVE EDUCATION” was tackled, rather violently on the first one, and a more subdued yet equally rancorous on the second one. The debate focused more on it’s definition, which was ambiguous as per every sector who defines it. An advocate for the blind group, a certain overstaying foreigner from up north (I don’t want increase his google search rank so I won’t mention his name here.), pounced his belief that the education sector must embrace inclusive education lock, stock and barrel. He claimed that Special Education teachers must be abolished. Instead they should be trained as specialized teachers. All teachers must become inclusive teachers. No more special classes for special children. His principles were met with serious resentments, some raised eyebrows from most participants.
I was also irritatingly surprised that another so called advocate on the rights of deaf persons for more than two decades, another foreigner (I wish these closed-minded foreigners with antiquated beliefs should stop meddling with our people and go home to their own countries.) and a man of God, asserts that deaf people in the Philippines have very poor abstract intelligence. He also stressed that most deaf are having difficulty understanding simple English instructions. Now, where did he get that impression? His assertions were highly derogatory and too judgmental. Probably those deaf people in his own world have low verbal ability. But I can categorically assert, not in my world!
After hearing those two foreign bodies force their own definition of inclusive education to the group aside from the many conflicting views from other participants, I was led to believe that there must be a more in-depth, multi-sectoral study on how it should or should not be implemented in the Philippines. Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) says that the States Parties:
… recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and life long learning directed to:
- The full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
- The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
- Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.
While exercising the rights of disabled persons to inclusive education, it must also take appropriate measures to:
…Facilitate the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community; Article 3 Section b.
Therefore, the United Nations clearly recognizes and supports the use of SIGN LANGUAGE and respects the IDENTITY and CULTURE of the Deaf Community. In this case, how can education be inclusive if the medium of instruction being used in classroom opposes with the language being used by the deaf?
A typical Philippine primary school uses the vernacular Filipino or Tagalog together with English. Since these are spoken languages, it won’t be difficult for us hearing people to fully understand them. Aside from that, these languages have been taught, learned and used as the hearing child’s first languages.
But a deaf person does not have a first spoken language. Sign language is primarily their “first” language. It is a non-spoken and visual language. It does not have a direct equivalent in either the English or Filipino language.
How do we reconcile these entirely different languages where a deaf child is exposed to? Should we “force” them to speak so that they can focus more on English? Or should we accept their sign language, understand it, learn from it, use it, adapt it and cultivate it?
This issue has been discussed and debated countless times with hearing people as protagonists. We have been dictating education to them since “education” was invented. Deaf education in the Philippines started more than 100 years ago. Has there been an improvement since then? Don’t we think it’s about time that the deaf people should be more involved in these discussions? It’s their rights that we’re securing, not ours. I hope that when the people from the government especially from the Department of Education start making in-depth discussions about inclusive education, they should at least give the deaf people a chance to be heard. I support the full participation of all persons with disabilities including the deaf groups in forming and planning framework on education curriculum and system for them.