When Will the Government Hear?

Recently, and out of interest, I visited the website for Jamaica Association for the Deaf (JAD), a government based organisation. I visited their schools page and I was most facinated by what I read under “Programmes and Curriculum.” It reads:

“Instruction is delivered in academic and vocational subjects and the curriculum pursued is based on the Ministry of Education's guidelines/curriculum with additional components to address language and speech development, these being the areas most affected by deafness. A special feature of our programme is the current thrust for a multilingual approach to instruction. The approach embodies the use of both Jamaican Sign Language and English in communication with students allowing the student to utilize the communication mode most comfortable to him/her. Research efforts are further seeking to develop a clearer understanding of the structure and usage of Jamaican Sign Language by the Deaf population as a means of aiding their development of English as a second language” (emphasis mine).

It is my conviction that the Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture (MOEYC) is blameworthy of double standard here! How so? The Ministry allows for full implementation of Jamaican Sign Languag (JSL) in deaf education - from pre-school to continuining education - whilst, at the same time, it practically disregard to the use of Jamaican Ceole (JamC) in the education of the hearing population, even at the primary level. True, societal attitudes toward JamC are (???) more negative than those toward JSL (I’m not certain as to the veracity of this claim as I have no corroborating evidence, save my limited experience). And we are all aware that the status of a speech variety has much to do with its use in both informal and formal domains. The MOEYC acknowledges the problem of societal attitudes in its Language Education Policy where it states its decision to adopt “transitional bilingualism.” Besides financial and orthographic constraints, states the ministry, transitional bilingualism was favoured above full bilingualism (its ideal choice) because of “political and social attitudes to Creole as a medium of instruction.” It goes on to say that these social attitudes “could present obstacles that are difficult to overcome” (MOEYC, 2001:24). My opinion: the government hasn’t yet got (there’s hope here!) the backbone to do what’s in the best interest of the majority of the nation’s aural/oral population.

Also, by not accomodating Jamaican Creole in the classroom as a vialble medium of instruction, the MOEYC repudiates its claim that it’s best to move from the known to the known. That the government expouses this principle is stated in the sentence “Research efforts are further seeking to develop a clearer understanding of the structure and usage of Jamaican Sign Language by the Deaf population as a means of aiding their development of English as a second language.” But what are we to conclude when the ministry’s approach to instruction in aural/oral schools is anything but “multilingual”?