1. Early Intervention and Language for d/Deaf learners A Critical Theory View Magen Otwell Gallaudet University Magen Otwell Gallaudet University

2. Access to a full language, from birth, is imperative for the language development of deaf learners.

3. families without language access Parents of d/Deaf infants without full access to spoken English should be provided with interventions/education that will either enhance the child’s access to spoken English and/or American Sign Language.

4. Language Development relevant to all learners Language development does not require instruction. Language acquisition is identical for all modalities...timelines differ for signed and spoken language. Sign combinations and grammatical structure development does not vary by modality either. -Brooks & Kempe, 2012 Language development does not require instruction. Language acquisition is identical for all modalities...timelines differ for signed and spoken language. Sign combinations and grammatical structure development does not vary by modality either. -Brooks & Kempe, 2012

6. Critical theory approach: Critical Disability Theory Goal: Examining hierarchies of power and changing oppressive acts Example: not providing d/Deaf infants/toddlers with access to a full language Devlin & Pothier, 2006 Deaf Rights Theory Goal: Examine the differences in power, opportunities, and resources in the deaf and hard of hearing community Example: ASL is seen as a hinderance to learning English Mertens & Wilson, 2012

7. Moving away from the status quo and getting to the bottom of things Status QuoCritical View who makes decisions about interventions? Those in power (professionals, doctors) Parents & Deaf Adults who participates in interventions? The d/Deaf child, their family, & the ‘experts’ Parents language used primarily in interventions? Spoken/written/signed English Exposure to a fully accessible language who is it designed to benefit? The childNot the parents who does it actually benefit? The child The ‘experts’ for the most part how is deafness viewed?Negative or neutralShould be positive

8. Critical examination of early interventions Early interventions for d/Deaf infants and toddlers suggest there is a problem (e.g. medical, linguistic, etc.) with the d/Deaf child. (If no problem would be left alone) On the contrary, the intervention should be seen as an intervention for the parents, as they are the ones in unfamiliar territory.

9. Critical examination of early interventions Further, interventions should be viewed differently. Currently they are based on a problematic/ medical framework. Instead of being seen as ‘interventions’ the support provided to parents should be seen as ‘education.’ Parents need to be educated on how to provide their children with access to language.

10. Equality vs. Equity Equality- all get the same thing- hearing screening and intervention Equity- all get individual types of intervention that leads to equal access to language

11. Counterarguments to an ASL approach ASL is one valid approach to language in early intervention programs Considering an oral approach is another valid approach to language development. The language for each child will vary on a case by case basis.

12. Early Intervention Deaf infants and toddlers have linguistic rights...they have the right to a fully accessible language. Some will have access to ASL and English naturally. Those who don’t will fall into the category to be considered for early intervention/education. Deaf infants and toddlers have linguistic rights...they have the right to a fully accessible language. Some will have access to ASL and English naturally. Those who don’t will fall into the category to be considered for early intervention/education.

13. Edited Video on Early Intervention http://www.infanthearing.org/videos/ehdi/ei_missing_link.php

14. Summary of Current discourse Discourse: “Concerns itself with particular matters and promotes certain ideas, perspectives, and values at the expense of others” (Snoddon, 2012, p. 28). Status quo views: deafness as negative- “Sorry,” “Failed” intervention is for the child (the child has the problem that needs to be fixed) there is one right intervention that must be chosen deaf staff are not vital to intervention teams only 30% of early intervention programs have deaf staff (Snoddon, 2012) Critical theory views: deafness as positive education should be for the parents families can choose more than one option and change their decisions at later times deaf staff are vital to early intervention programs for the deaf

15. References Benedict, R. (2011). Early intervention: The missing link. Retrieved from http://www.infanthearing.org/videos/ehdi/ei_missing_link.php. http://www.infanthearing.org/videos/ehdi/ei_missing_link.php Brooks, P. & Kempe, V. (2012). Language development. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Devlin, R., & Pothier, D. (2006). Critical disability theory: Essays in philosophy, politics, policy, and law. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Mertens, D. & Wilson, A. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York: Guilford Press. Snoddon, K. (2012). American Sign Language and early literacy: A model parent-child guide. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.