The aim of the study is to look at three deaf schools with a different religious view or philosophy at the foundation...
So one protestant school, one catholic school and one neutral school, which isn't bound to a religion or a certain philosophy.
The aim is to see whether their visions on raising and education deaf children is the same or if there are differences between the three.
And if there are differences, to look at the causes of these differences, whether religion is at the base of them, or whether it's for different reasons.
With these three schools I did notice a difference in the way they raise the children, yes.
The neutral school aims to have the child function as independently and autonomously as possible.
They get to make their own decisions, have their own ideas, the ball is in their court.
Deaf people are the same as hearing people in that regard, they can do their own thing and indicate their own boundaries.
This wasn't so much the case with the Catholics. They're raised to be obedient and recognize the church as your superior. Those are the priest and such...
That was the same for hearing children, both hearing and deaf people were supposed to be obedient to the church.
The protestant school aimed to raise children to develop a sense of self-awareness and a conscience. Knowing right from wrong, leading a just life.
So you can be accountable to god, the higher power.
That was the same for hearing people.
So in terms of how they were raised there were no differences between deaf and hearing children, it was the same as with hearing children.
In terms of education, the three schools are the same.
It doesn't matter whether there is a signing system or a spoken language: all three schools had learning to speak as their first priority.
For all three of them, it was speaking. Language was important.
Not maths, history, or geography. It was language, language, language. Spoken language, that is.
There were differences in the methods used, however.
At the neutral school it went like: 'Okay, we'll do accompany speech with signs.'
But using signs at the start, when the child is still young.
When growing up that become 'not done'. They'd try to have the child sign less and talk more.
But outside of classes that was their own responsibility.
That was a consequence of their style of raising children.
Deciding what language to choose, that was up to them.
And the catholic school, they used signs for a long time.
But why signs? Because the aim was to create a connection with the heart and the mind.
They claimed a spoken language was more of a dead language, and sign language was a living language.
So if you wanted to explain the bible to the child or you wanted to make clear who god was and what was going on with god, you were supposed to sign.
Later that shifted, and they switched to oralism. Radically. Signing was prohibited.
But they were even forbidden outside of school hours.
And that is a result of the school's catholicism.
People, children should be obedient to the church, to the priest.
If the priest said you couldn't sign, you were supposed to humbly abide and stop signing.
So it was the protestant school who started the oral method.
But later people indicated that they wanted to sign.
That returns in the protestant upbringing, where the goal is to have people take their own responsibilities.
So you want to sign? Okay, then we'll add some signing.
So all three of them had signs, but the period in which they did varies.
Signing was allowed there then and it wasn't there, the schools differed from each other in this regard.
But the foundation for all three of them was the same: signing isn't a goal, signing is a tool.
For the start of language development. But the highest goal, the most important this is: spoken language. For all three schools. So...
My research covers a period from the foundation of the first deaf school in 1790 through the beginning of bilingual education in 1990.
That's the time period I researched.
There should really be further research into the period from 1990 till the present.
What did bilingual education end up looking like? With which goals? How was it given shape? What methods are used? What kind of materials are used?
I'm not sure but I feel... are they really bilingual? I doubt that.
The sign language input, are the teachers really fluent users of sign language?
And how about the exams in written Dutch? Where are the exams in sign language?
I feel that at the foundation level, sign language has remained an instrument. It hasn't become a goal in and of itself. Yeah.