Adopting British Sign Language in deaf education: lessons from Welsh and Gaelic

Rob Wilks and Rachel O’Neill | 17th December 2024 | Policy paper

While UK deaf education typically focuses on integrating deaf children into hearing culture through auditory/oral methods, there is potential for bilingual and immersion settings with BSL, inspired by Welsh and Gaelic education experiences.
In Wales, the Cymraeg 2050 policy mandates Welsh education from ages 3 to 16. In Scotland, Gaelic learning is optional, but the BSL (Scotland) Act 2015 promotes BSL, which is included in the Welsh and Scottish curriculums. However, deaf children lack specific rights to learn BSL in schools.
Language attitudes vary by deaf or hearing status and employment level. Top-level deaf participants view BSL as a language, while mid- to bottom-level participants see it as a communication tool. Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People, influenced by audiology, often prioritize medical perspectives, leading to language deprivation and delayed BSL acquisition, contributing to poorer educational outcomes.
Gaps in early years BSL provision are highlighted, with inconsistent availability across Scotland and Wales. Early language acquisition is crucial, yet the early years sector lacks BSL proficiency and resources. The relative success of Welsh-medium education suggests the need for a long-term commitment to BSL immersion from early childhood.
An adequate supply of qualified BSL teachers is essential, requiring the expansion of undergraduate and postgraduate BSL courses, integration of BSL into teacher training, and geographic accessibility. Challenges include the lack of a central register for BSL teachers and balancing qualifications with deaf individuals' educational backgrounds.
Recommendations include a focus on promoting BSL, improving language pedagogy, and ensuring sufficient resources and qualified teachers. Recognizing BSL's full linguistic value and integrating it into deaf education is necessary for its revitalization, requiring commitment and funding from the UK's legislative bodies.

Introduction

In this paper we compare the approaches to Welsh- and Gaelic-medium education with deaf education and the use of British Sign Language (BSL). The two countries’ experience with teaching in the medium of these languages is useful when considering bilingual and immersion settings with deaf children and BSL. Deaf education in the UK has traditionally been dominated by an audiological approach, emphasizing speech and auditory development. However, this has often led to language deprivation, a condition in which a child does not receive sufficient accessible language input during critical periods of development, which can lead to significant delays in language acquisition, cognitive development, and social integration. This is one of the key controversies in deaf education: whether to prioritize auditory/oral methods, which often fail to provide sufficient language input, or to adopt a bilingual approach incorporating both spoken language and sign language. Bilingualism, particularly in the form of early sign language acquisition, can prevent language deprivation and promote cognitive, linguistic, and social development.

Meanwhile, in Wales, 24% of primary aged children are in Welsh-medium education settings and in Scotland 1% of children are in Gaelic-medium settings. The aim of Welsh and Gaelic-medium education is to promote bilingualism and revitalize those minority languages in Wales and Scotland respectively. Language policy in Wales is currently governed by the Welsh Government’s Cymraeg 2050 policy, which is implemented throughout the Welsh education system, with children mandated to learn Welsh from the ages of 3 to 16, andand Welsh-medium education is available in all 22 unitary counties and county borough councils. Similarly, in Scotland, a policy exists for Gaelic, albeit to a lesser extent, where Gaelic is confined to Gaelic-medium schools or as an L2 or L3 language. Scotland has the BSL (Scotland) Act 2015, whereas Wales does not have such an act, but BSL is integrated into its new national curriculum. The Scottish Curriculum for Excellence and the recently introduced Curriculum for Wales both allow BSL to be taught to both deaf and hearing children, albeit without conferring any specific right to deaf children to learn BSL in school.

The benefits of bilingualism and immersion education are well documented in the case of Welsh and Gaelic but have not yet been widely applied to deaf education in the case of BSL. BSL is the way forward in deaf education because it addresses language deprivation, fosters bilingual cognitive benefits, and aligns with the Welsh and Gaelic-medium education models. When a child is diagnosed as deaf, particularly during their early years, audiologists, other health care professionals, Speech Language Therapists (SLTs) and Teachers of Deaf Children and Young People (ToDs) become involved and often influence the parents in terms of the audiological technology to help their children such as hearing aids and cochlear implants. The benefits and importance of their deaf child learning BSL are rarely alluded to, and it is only brought to the parents’ attention as an option if they already have connections with the deaf community, or if the audiological technology is not successful, often contributing towards language deprivation.

There remain persistent achievement gaps between hearing and deaf children. There are many causes, from not making the most of early diagnosis, expecting hearing aids or cochlear implants to have excellent effects when outcomes vary, and low expectations and poor access to learning in school classrooms. This policy paper combines two linked studies on deaf education in Scotland and Wales. The first study analysed the impact of the BSL (Scotland) Act 2015, focusing on the first national and local BSL plans and how public bodies have met their goals in promoting BSL. Documentary analysis was conducted through a review of materials from college and university websites, local BSL plans, and the BSL (Scotland) Act Facebook group, in both BSL and English. Data were also collected from the Scottish Deaf Teachers’ Group (DTG) using Instant Messenger and from newsletters on deaf education developments. The second study aimed to compare the approaches to BSL in Wales and Scotland and employed semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth opinions from 21 participants across 19 interviews, including government officials, public body representatives, ToDs, families of deaf children, and third-sector employees. This research compares the approaches in Scotland and Wales across three themes: language attitudes, early years provision, and resources. By drawing insights from Welsh- and Gaelic-medium education, we identify best practices for BSL adoption to improve deaf children's educational outcomes.

Language Attitudes

Differences in language attitudes were observed in interview participants based on their deaf or hearing status and employment level, with ‘top-level’ participants working at a government or national public body, ‘mid-level’ in local authorities, and ‘bottom-level’ on the frontline in schools. Top-level participants saw BSL as a language with bilingual potential: ‘bilingual, multilingual and plurilingual … is really, really, important’ while mid- to bottom-level participants viewed it as a mere communication tool, referring to BSL as a ‘communication mode’ and ‘Visual Communication’ (Wilks and O'Neill 2022: 64).

The ToDs who were interviewed framed deaf children through an audiological lens, prioritizing medical perspectives over educational ones due to their integration into ToD training and daily responsibilities. This system works for auditory/oral approaches to spoken language acquisition using hearing aids and cochlear implants, ensuring they are maintained and functioning optimally. However, a similar amount of focus is not given to sign languages in ToD courses, leaving gaps in the support available for bilingual language development. This reflects a medical model of deafness, which focuses on devices and auditory training, rather than recognizing the importance of accessible communication through sign language. In contrast, an educational perspective prioritizes providing language access, including sign language, to support the child’s full cognitive and social development.

This approach to deaf education has a tangible impact on deaf individuals, as two participants attested. One participant recalled how medical professionals advised their parents not to sign to them because it was deemed unfavourable: ‘the medical profession [told] my parents not to sign to me because it wouldn’t be a good thing to do, that they should speak to [me]: "You must speak to her, don’t sign”’ (Wilks and O'Neill 2022: 69). Although their parents followed this advice, they now recognize that learning BSL would have been beneficial. This realization stemmed from later experiences of the effects of language deprivation. Another participant shared their personal experience growing up in an oral/aural education system avoiding sign language until the age of 25. At the time, they believed that their lipreading and speaking abilities were sufficient for communication, as this was the focus of their education. The assumption was that if they could read lips and speak clearly, they could function well in society. However, they later realized that this approach had hindered their progress due to language barriers: ‘I didn’t know what was happening in the world around me, I struggled every day. I didn’t know where I was going with my career’ (Wilks and O'Neill 2022: 70).

The findings reveal significant differences in language attitudes and the approach to deaf education based on deaf or hearing status and employment levels. Top-level deaf participants advocate for BSL's bilingual potential, while those in mid- to bottom-level positions perceive it merely as a communication tool. ToDs, influenced by audiology, often prioritize medical perspectives over educational ones, ignoring the risks of language deprivation and favouring speech-only methods. This medicalized approach significantly impacts deaf individuals, as evidenced by personal accounts of language barriers and the detrimental effects of delayed BSL acquisition. These insights underscore the need for a shift towards recognizing BSL's full linguistic value and integrating it more holistically into deaf education.

Early Years

The theme of gaps in early years provision emerged from both phases of the study. The Scottish local authority BSL plans to demonstrate how languages are perceived by local authorities, with varying levels of inclusivity. The plans were created by council officials sometimes working with ToDs and showed a lack of understanding in providing language acquisition resources for deaf infants. Early years activities have become a key area for ToDs, but actual provision varies widely across Scotland, with no local authority providing BSL as a real option for families with consistent input of fluent BSL in an immersion setting, despite the need for significant input to achieve fluency in two or more languages.

From the interviews, mid- to bottom-level participants did not mention early years at all, which we considered to be an interesting omission given that deaf children need to learn or acquire BSL and English as soon as possible, preferably within the first three years. Therefore, we conducted interviews with two participants involved in the Wales early years sector to explore this issue further. The importance of early years education was emphasized, as it is crucial for deaf children to receive BSL support from an early age: ‘I think it goes back to the early years really, when it comes to language and as we know, like 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents and that kind of support and information may not be there from the start’ (Wilks and O'Neill 2022: 72).

The lack of BSL as an option may be due to cuts in local authority services and a lack of importance placed on early years for bilingual growth. Staff in the early years sector lack bilingual proficiency in BSL and English or knowledge of multilingualism and there are no courses for nursery nurses or play workers to learn BSL; as a result, most deaf children are expected to become fluent in spoken English. Early diagnosis and better technology have improved spoken language success for deaf children. Alternative approaches, such as nurseries or playgroups with fluent BSL user models, peripatetic nursery workers, and BSL courses for parents are lacking in Scotland and Wales. These limitations could also be due to the loss of ToD posts and an increase in untrained ToDs working with deaf children aged 0 to 5.

The triumph of Welsh-medium education in Wales has been maintained for over five decades as a product of the initial efforts of the voluntary organization, Mudiad Meithrin, a Welsh early years specialist organization. Consequently, it is anticipated that the introduction of BSL to deaf children in the early years will demand at least the same duration of time to achieve equivalent prominence and impact. To establish similar structural informal education opportunities in Wales and Scotland for BSL, a community spirit and well-trained and knowledgeable professionals well versed in language pedagogy are needed. However, there are documented difficulties in recruiting fluent Welsh- and Gaelic-English bilingual leaders in early years settings despite recommendations that local authorities and organizations managing non-maintained settings provide support and training for practitioners on language immersion methods, as well as guidance on the development of language, literacy, and communication skills. It is likely that assembling an early years infrastructure to support parents and families in acquiring BSL will face similar challenges.

Resources

There is a significant list of requirements necessary to ensure an adequate supply of qualified and trained BSL teachers to meet the growing demand for BSL education. These requirements include expanding undergraduate and postgraduate language courses to provide opportunities for individuals to develop fluency in BSL, incorporating BSL as a subject in initial teacher training courses, offering continuing professional development training courses for already qualified teachers, and providing resources to supplement such training courses. Valuable insights can be gained from the capacity-building efforts for Gaelic and Welsh, such as language sabbaticals , which allow teachers to take up to one year to learn a new language.

The issue of increasing BSL learning capacity in Scotland and Wales is closely tied to the qualification and fluency of BSL teachers. Determining the number of BSL teachers, their level of qualification, and the curricula they use is difficult as there is no central register or requirement for BSL teachers to register with a professional body. One potential short-term solution to increase the number of children learning BSL in schools could involve collaborating with other schools, local authorities, and universities to supply teachers fluent in BSL. Another option would be to adopt the concept of athrawon bro (area teachers) from Wales. A crucial aspect of developing these courses and resources is ensuring their geographic accessibility in both Wales and Scotland, to maximize participation in the available learning opportunities. However, in Wales, concerns have been raised about the potential issues associated with unqualified teachers teaching BSL, who may not be fluent in the language themselves. Although there is a capacity issue, it is unclear how the deaf community would react to such concerns. Six organizations in Wales produced a note for schools and regional consortia on teaching BSL as an additional language, advising educational institutions to ensure that potential BSL teachers possess the necessary teaching skills and linguistic fluency, generally being qualified at a minimum of two levels above the level they are teaching. In addition, a council-level participant raised concerns about assessing BSL qualifications: ‘how can you assess it? How can you possibly take it on as a qualification when you are not qualified to assess it?’ (Wilks and O'Neil 2022: 85). This underscores the need for qualified assessors who are knowledgeable about BSL to establish and moderate BSL assessments.

While the teaching of modern foreign languages is generally not shaped by considerations of identity or representation, the teaching of BSL is deeply tied to the cultural and linguistic identity of the deaf community, leading to a political argument that only deaf individuals should teach it. De Meulder et al. explain that as sign languages gain popularity, there is a tension between promoting them and the potential loss of ownership and authenticity for deaf people . However, there are several challenges to this argument. Firstly, there is an insufficient number of deaf individuals with the required qualifications to become teachers. Secondly, while some deaf individuals may be fluent in BSL, minimum benchmarks in knowledge about the language are necessary to ensure quality. Lastly, the distribution of deaf tutors across Scotland and Wales may pose geographical challenges. Compounding the issue, BSL teachers find it difficult to obtain the necessary qualifications and English literacy due to their non-traditional academic backgrounds, training with a hearing focus rather than a deaf focus, lack of tailored resources for deaf individuals, limited career progression, and the part-time nature of BSL teaching. Addressing all these issues is crucial to ensure successful outcomes as the demand for BSL learning in Scottish and Welsh education systems increases.

Conclusions and recommendations

The monoglot language traditionally relies on education in order to impose and ensure its continued use; while education cannot by itself promote and revitalize a minority language, schools can extend and reconstitute what counts as ‘accepted’ and ‘acceptable’ cultural and linguistic knowledge. They can do so through the positive attitudes of teachers towards the minority language and through a critically aware curriculum, as is the case for Welsh and Gaelic. It is therefore argued that BSL could be revived through the education system.

In order to achieve this, a total of 28 recommendations were made for the Welsh and Scottish Governments and other stakeholders to consider. Focusing on Scotland, we proposed initiating a national debate regarding language attitudes, updating BSL plan templates for local authorities, colleges and universities, and involving deaf people, parents of deaf children, and teachers in planning processes. We highlighted the need for open communication and accountability for organizations receiving government funding for the implementation of the National BSL Plan to enhance transparency. We also urged the General Teaching Council for Scotland to learn from the DTG and advocated for half of ToDs to attain a BSL qualification with Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework level 6 proficiency within three years, Level B2 on the Common European Framework (CEFR) framework.

More generally, we recommended promoting BSL and language pedagogies for deaf children in Wales and Scotland. In particular, we suggested BSL awareness training for health professionals, the creation of BSL Therapists to support deaf children, and funding for BSL education in early years childcare settings. For BSL teachers, we called for a national mapping exercise to assess skills, the expansion of degree-level language courses, and increased resources to support these courses. We also proposed collaboration between language provision networks for Welsh, Gaelic, and BSL. Finally, more opportunities for language teachers to qualify as ToDs and access language sabbaticals should be provided.

The Scottish Government was also encouraged to incorporate these recommendations into the second National BSL Plan, and the authors note that 10 of the 28 recommendations made have been incorporated into the national BSL plan for 2023-2029, including helping health professionals such as midwives, health visitors and audiologists to understand the benefits of BSL provision on child and family wellbeing, to support opportunities for early years workers to learn BSL and ToDs to achieve BSL fluency at higher levels and to develop education with a view to explore access to BSL and the teaching of BSL. In Wales, a BSL Partnership of 9 of 11 higher education institutions has been formed with the support of the Welsh Government to incorporate BSL into teaching programmes.

Carter and Aitchison (2000: 177) remind us that ‘the ability of a lesser-used language to maintain and reproduce itself depends on the degree to which it finds active support from those who control public opinion and wield economic and social power.’ This is certainly true in the case of BSL and deaf education. A shift towards bilingualism in deaf education is essential for addressing language attitudes, the gaps in early years, and need to be considered when dealing with resources. This requires a holistic approach, including policy changes, investment in BSL teacher training, and community support, similar to the strategies employed in Welsh- and Gaelic-medium education. Implementing such an approach, however, requires re-evaluating existing educational infrastructure and considering how unwritten language policies and attitudes affect the provision currently offered to deaf children. The results of the two studies document the attitudes towards BSL that pervade the system, with a clear disconnect between policy-level personnel and frontline educators who continue to be influenced by medical professionals. The resource gap for the teaching of and through BSL and in the early years sector is also apparent. The way forward for the revitalization of BSL in the UK is clear; what is needed is full commitment and money from the legislature of all four nations of the UK to make it happen.

References

Carter, Harold and John Aitchison. 2000. Language, Economy and Society: The Changing Fortunes of the Welsh Language in the Twentieth Century (University of Wales Press)

Wilks, Rob and Rachel O’Neill. 2022. Deaf Education in Scotland and Wales: Attitudes to British Sign Language in Deaf Education Compared to Gaelic and Welsh. CBL Bristol Law School. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17322.29127

Cite this article

Wilks, Rob and Rachel O’Neill. 2024. ‘Adopting British Sign Language in Deaf Education: Lessons from Welsh and Gaelic’, Languages, Society and Policy, https://www.lspjournal.com/post/adopting-british-sign-language-in-deaf-education-lessons-from-welsh-and-gaelic

About the authors

Rob Wilks is a Senior Lecturer in Law at UWE Bristol and teaches employment law and legal skills. He is interested in equality, anti-discrimination, and language law as they relate to deaf people, sign language recognition and developing Deaf Legal Theory as a new perspective in legal jurisprudence.

Rachel O’Neill is a Senior Lecturer in deaf education at the University of Edinburgh. Her research interests include investigating language policies relating to the use of British Sign Language in the school system, and curriculum support and literacy teaching to deaf children and young people.