SASLJ Vol. 2 No. 1 SASLJ Vol 2, No 1 | Page 47

Reading, Special Education, and Deaf Children Supalla & Byrne Discussion and Conclusion In reviewing all of the different considerations for supports in teaching reading to deaf children, problems for both instruction and assessment become apparent. The importance of recognizing that English text is restrictive for deaf children cannot be emphasized enough. Deaf children must have the opportunity to learn to read which is best accomplished through signed language-based texts accessed through ASL gloss. Both English and ASL support approaches are plagued by problems because of the use of English texts. In addition, with English support approaches, special education holistically fails to address the serious implications of using spoken language with deaf children. This includes not taking into consideration the concept of linguistic accessibility and the status of ASL as a signed language. In theory, reading becomes unattainable with no working or natural language in place. With ASL support, teachers of the deaf have their hands tied by their special education training. Such teachers cannot venture into signed language reading or ASL gloss, as it means the use of non-English text. Subject for discussion later, such supports would cease to exist when deaf children can read in their own language. This offers as a plausible explanation for the common practice of teachers settling on the practice of translating books into ASL for deaf children. Reading is deemed as a 'hearing thing' in this context and obviously a wrong perception, but has been widely spread among teachers of the deaf (S. Supalla, et al., 2017). The default ideology is deaf children have reading difficulties and must be provided with the information through translation. Thus, deaf children receive support from ASL and become part of the flawed special education framework. For clarification, the Arizona charter school, where ASL gloss originated, included some translation, but it was done differently than what is reported for the ASL support approach. For example, at the Arizona charter school, a limited but specific type of translation which changed regular books into glossed books was used. The interlinear translation practice at the charter school falls in line with the Universal Design for Learning framework. Ralabate (2011), a prominent UDL scholar, explained that translation constitutes a vital way of manipulating text. Deaf children end up reading a much needed ASL-like text. With the glossed books, there is no need to support deaf children because the text is already accessible and facilitates deaf children's learning. A plan for learning and curriculum supports the ASL gloss approach and actually works around the curriculum. This is a big difference. Again, ASL gloss is not just designed for reading in ASL, but for deaf children to have an effective means of transitioning to written English as their second language. The current situation for the education of deaf children in the United States without ASL gloss is dire. Extensive reviews of the literature on reading research in deaf education have concluded that the criteria, or level of evidence, for the literacy recommendations is limited or lacking (i.e., Easterbrooks, 2010; Guardino, Cannon, & Eberst, 2014; Luckner, Bruce, & Ferrell, 2015; Schirmer & McGough, 2005; Trezek & Wang, 2017). The fact that these findings are in the context of the English and ASL support approaches is not surprising. Why are supports so important to special education? It is interesting that the notion of 'support' has an affiliation with the field of mental retardation (Wehmeyer, 2003), which in itself has implications for the education of deaf children. It is plausible, because of special education's obligation to serve all children with disabilities, including those with cognitive impairments, that the consideration for cognition may unintentionally be grounded in deaf education. Historically, cognition was once used against children who suffer a cognitive impairment as they would not SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018 47