Now there are more and more, or well, a number of initiatives for bilingual education and things like that.
For example with two teachers side by side, one of whom is hearing, and the other deaf.
I'm not fond of the focus on hearing status.
You mean one of them talks, and one of them signs, yeah.
Bilingualism, spoken language from one of them and signing from the other, who could be a hearing person with deaf parents.
As long as someone like that grew up with sign language. That's more important than their hearing status.
But that method, that system of having two people in front of a class... I don't think the form is the most important thing.
Yes, form is important, but what is really important is the vision that is the foundation for it all.
But that's another difficult question that will have to be debated.
For example if you say: now we're going to start using bilingual education. Okay...
The first question: sign language during classes?
Or rather, the first question is: when do we sign and when do we talk?
That's a tough question in and of itself.
You could say that during Dutch language classes, people will speak.
And for the sign language class, people sign.
But in history, maths, etc., will it be signing or speaking?
That's difficult, that has to be discussed.
But the question is also, once you make a decision of, okay, now we're gonna speak, and now we're gonna sign, because both at once would never work, right...
Once that's all settled, the next question is: should the CI be taken off when the class is signing?
I'd say the CI would have to come off.
Signing and hearing with a CI at the same time, that wouldn't work, right?
That's confusing for the children. Just take the CI off when you're signing.
That way they learn to use their eyes.
There needs to be an 'embodiment' of perception.
So the brain connected to, in contact with your perception.
If the CI is on, it'll be listening with the ears, while at the same time looking with the eyes. Of looking less and leaning on your hearing.
That doesn't work at the same time.
Signing has to be combined with taking off the CI.
That needs to be debated.
It could be the case that parents think: Oh no, the CI has to stay on so they can practice with it.
well, that remains to be seen.
But also, what if the children themselves indicate they want to speak?
What would we do then? We can't force them to.
Then we have to talk about: what is our message to the children?
Because sign language's social status is really low. It's still low.
We can keep saying that sign language is wonderful and important, that the goal is bilingualism and that it's special.
But children don't care for that.
Children mostly see others think they're weird.
Those kind of difficult issues, they need to be debated.
You could also ask, if children using a CI can understand everything and speak well: is sign language even necessary?
Those children will have to be told very clearly why sign language is important.
A language's status isn't easy to raise.
Because people in society generally believe signs are necessary if someone can't speak, they reach back to signs.
I really believe we need more bilingual people.
People who can speak, as well as sign.
Then it's made clear to children from experience, that it's just like speaking both English and German, or Dutch and French.
Being able to be bilingual. But now the signs are only because you can't speak. That's what I mean.
You could say that the current generation of children with a CI will be truly bilingual in the future, because they can both sign and talk.
But actually, those children don't have any adult examples.
Right now only deaf adults are capable of talking. So the children think, they can't talk, I can.
I'm not like that deaf adult, I'm different.
Ja, a hearing person does have a higher social status in our society.
That won't change, children can see that, children can feel that.
Also in their surroundings... It's this unspoken thing that's right below the surface, which needs to be made open to discussion.
A doctor or a nurse could make a certain comment, for example.
'So glad your CI is working well', or 'you speak so well'.
Or a teacher saying: 'you don't need signs anymore, you speak so well.'
Parents or family members condescendingly saying: 'yeah well, I'm forced to learn signs for the child.'
Then I think, oh dear, here we go again.
Sometimes parents start signing and they're really trying, and their child says: don't do that!
A common ground needs to be found, that needs to be talked about,
It's just like if... Yeah, it's difficult to explain.
You need glasses to be able to see better, a CI to hear better, and signs are there to make you feel better.
That way you fully utilize your brain. You're able to use both hemispheres of the brain.
You can explain that to children. Just like a child that speaks both Dutch and English, they're praised for that wherever they go.
The situation is similar with Dutch and the sign language. There needs to be a stronger message.
But the problem is that from within deaf education, there's a stronger focus on spoken language.
That hasn't changed, so...
Also, from the perspective of representing interests, there's mostly a medical perspective.
There's a difference between deaf emancipation in the Netherlands, compared to that in the U.S. or England.
In England and the U.S.. it's more like: I have a right to a language.
And in the Netherlands you hear: I need it to sign. Or: I'm mentally challenged, I need it.
That attitude is a big issue. It's still very difficult.
Thankfully, now that UN convention has been ratified.
Article 25 of that convention states: "the right to bilingual education."
That's better than the attitude we've been faced with so far: "it's a necessity."
You don't need it at all! I don't need it. Yes, I find it pleasant, but I don't need it.
That needs to be explained more often.
I think the Netherlands are in a kind of unstable, careful period right now, in regards to that. What do we do now, which way do we go?
And you can see this as a negative thing.
But you can also consider it positively.
This uncertain phase could be a great time for a new initiative, a new perspective.