Parents of deaf children would be saddened to hear that educationists oppose teaching deaf pupils the technique of “total communication,” a handicapped child’s parent has stated in a letter to the “Post.”
Mr. David Heather, who has a multiply handicapped son who cannot speak, was commenting on an article in the “Post” earlier this month.
In the June 4 issue of “Valley Wednesday,” it was stated: “Although Miss Hamilton (the teacher in charge of the deaf unit at Hutt Valley Memorial Technical College) does not say that the total communication method of teaching the deaf is wrong,” she said people should know that the oralism system is working extremely well in New Zealand.”
Mr. Heather said the article and earlier articles on sign language had brought to a head the opposition of Wellington teachers to the introduction of the system. He said he had some feedback from teachers who were opposed to “total communication.”
“Total communication” teaches the deaf to use every ability they have, from facial expressions to sign language.
Mr. Heather stressed that if the oral method worked so well, parent pressure to introduce the new system would not have occurred. Neither would they have sought additional speech therapy tutoring or concessions for deaf children sitting School Certificate exams.
Recent research published by the British Medical Research Council found that 6.3 percent of children with a slight hearing loss had speech which was barely intelligible and 73.5 percent of children who were profoundly deaf, had barely intelligible speech.
The percentage of unintelligible speech rose sharply with the increase in hearing loss, he said. This indicated that the better speech of the partially hearing children was because of their better hearing, and not to their education.
Oral training benefited children who hardly needed it, he said. It was a waste of time for those who most needed help, who could not learn to speak, even using hearing aids.
Mr. Heather said his son had to attend Homai College (for the blind) in Auckland to learn the new system. It was only through this system, that he was able to “talk” to his son.
Educational programmes should be designed to meet a child’s specific needs and not be based on teachers’ beliefs in a particular method, he said.
However, the director of special and advisory services for the Education Department (Mr David Ross) said it was the department’s policy to develop the teaching of the “total communication” system. They were still going to place a very real importance on teaching speech and language to the children who could cope.
But the programme had to be introduced over a period as teachers were given appropriate training, he said.
Within the next month or so Wellington teachers would be able to attend such a course in Christchurch. All new teachers of the deaf were being trained in the new system.
It was true that some teachers who had worked very hard at teaching speech genuinely felt that teaching the new system might lessen the child’s ability to learn to speak. However new research did not support their view.
