Exploring Hispanic parents’ beliefs and attitudes about deaf education

ABSTRACT

Beliefs about disability play an enormous role in shaping parents’ decisions about the education of their children with disabilities. Using the Beliefs and Attitudes about Deaf Education Scale, we examine attitudinal differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents. We hypothesize that perceptions of disability among Hispanic parents orient their attitudes about deaf education more towards a medical rather than a cultural model when compared to non-Hispanic parents. Our analysis confirms our hypothesis. We posit that this orientation may influence the educational choices that Hispanic parents make for their children, and subsequently, their educational outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• bilingual special education
• early childhood
• English language learners
• Latino/a children and families

Parental beliefs about disability play an enormous role in shaping the decisions parents make about the education of their children with disabilities. These beliefs are inextricably tied to perceptions of disability that derive from cultural norms. If different cultures convey different notions about disability, then we might predict that the educational choices and opportunities offered to children from different cultures would differ, impacting educational outcomes. In this article, we examine whether Hispanic/Latino parents of children who are deaf hold beliefs about approaches and philosophies of deaf education that are different from those of non-Hispanic parents, and consider whether these differences may stem from cultural beliefs about disability in general.

The theoretical framework of this work derives from a consideration of deaf Hispanic children as living at a crossroads of multiple languages and multiple cultures. More specifically, deaf Hispanic children who sign in ASL and who also grow up in homes where Spanish is spoken (and in some cases both Spanish and English) are members of multiple linguistic groups. Given the importance of language, customs, and beliefs to an individual’s identification as a member of a group (Allen, 2015; Senghas & Monaghan, 2002), it is critical that we understand the impacts that multiple cultures may have on decisions that are made about education. Individuals at the crossroads of different cultures face competing rules for how to function in society. How the parents of children with disabilities identify themselves and their families within this multiplicity of cultures strongly impacts their decisions. For children who are deaf, these competing cultural and linguistic influences can be quite profound.

Hispanic conceptions of disability

For the Hispanic parents of children who are deaf, the stressors brought about by the absence of speech and spoken language are especially acute, as parents must make decisions about how best to communicate with their child, and whether to integrate a visual language with a spoken language in the home. As the child develops and approaches school age, additional decisions confront parents regarding school placement. How are these decisions influenced by the perceptions Hispanic parents have towards persons with disabilities in society?

Hispanic parents’ views regarding education and disability differ from those held by Anglo-American parents. Salas-Provance, Erickson, and Reed (2002) compared the educational beliefs of Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers. Their results showed that the former held beliefs that were more authoritarian than those of their Anglo-American counterparts. For example, the Mexican-American mothers believed that educational decisions should be left entirely up to the teacher and the school. Lynch and Stein (1987), in a study that compared parental involvement in school activities, found that Hispanic families participated far less than Black and Anglo families. The authors speculated that the reason for this was that Hispanic parents perceived that the professionals in the education system were more knowledgeable than they were; therefore, they knew better how to handle and meet the needs of their child with a disability.

The study by Salas-Provance et al. (2002) identified three elements that summarized Hispanic cultural beliefs about disability: (1) the meaning of disability in the family; (2) the causes of disability; and (3) the treatments for disability. Regarding the meaning of disability, they reported that, in Hispanic families, a child’s disability belongs to the family and not just to the child. As a result, families may become overprotective. Regarding the causes, the authors identified commonly held beliefs, which included both medical and folk reasons. The most frequently cited medical reasons included birth or genetic trauma, childhood accidents, the mother’s use of drugs during pregnancy, and the lack of oxygen during birth. Common folk reasons included premonitions during pregnancy, sins from the past, earthquakes, and susto (a scare during a pregnancy). For treatment of hearing problems, the most predominant responses included reliance on the medical profession and prayer. In sum, these authors characterize Hispanic beliefs as resulting from a limited understanding of both causes and treatments, and reliance on religious explanations and prescriptions for action.

These findings are mirrored in another study conducted by Skinner, Correa, Skinner, and Bailey (2001), who found that Hispanic parents believed that their child’s disability was either a punishment or a gift from God. Those who believed it was a punishment thought that they were being castigated for sins they had committed. Those who believed it was a gift thought that they had received a blessing from God because of their special obligation to care for a child with special needs.

Coupled with the reliance on medical and religious beliefs is the view, held by many Hispanic parents, that children will achieve normalcy and function physically in society without limitation only when they learn to speak the language of their culture (Harry, 1992). For deaf children, this leads many parents to emphasize approaches to education that depend on the child’s ability to use speech.

Conflicting attitudes and beliefs about deaf education

Clark, Baker, Choi, and Allen (2013) describe the historical evolution of two philosophies of deaf education that derive from opposing conceptions of deafness. These have been variously described as oralism vs. manualism, or medical vs. social model. Under the medical model, deafness is seen as a disease to be cured or fixed, and educational approaches focus on oral methods and on technologies for restoring hearing. According to the National Association of the Deaf (2000), deafness has been unfairly portrayed in education as an impairment that must be corrected through hearing aids or cochlear implants. This misconception may stem from professionals such as doctors, audiologists, and researchers who treat deafness and hearing loss as a disability (Baker-Shenk & Kyle, 1990). In opposition to this medical model is the view that deafness constitutes minority, linguistic, and cultural characteristics (Allen, 2015). This view defines deafness as a “difference” rather than a “disability,” and leads to educational approaches that embrace individual and cultural differences and seek educational strategies, including the use of visual language in the classroom, which acknowledge alternative pathways to educational attainment.

Demographically, the vast majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who may have never been exposed to American Sign Language and deaf culture (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). These parents are unlikely to be aware of (or accepting of) the cultural/social views of deafness. They will seek ways to make their child a “normal hearing” child. Thus, this view may hold for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents. Our purpose in conducting this research is to examine the degree to which this is true, or whether Hispanic parents, based upon their own culture and perceptions about disability, have a greater reliance on a medical orientation of deafness than do their non-Hispanic counterparts.

Language: Monolingualism, bilingualism, and the child who is both Hispanic and deaf

Language plays a major role in defining ethnic communities. Therefore, language can be a bridge or a barrier among cultures, and it can also be a source of cultural identity. However, in the United States, an Anglo-centric monolingual (English) ideology is pervasive. This ideology has been explained (Wiley, 2000) as deriving from the notion that languages compete with one another, and the misguided assumption that, in a well-functioning society, only one language can prosper. Critically (and somewhat ironically), in a monolingual society that insists on linguistic assimilation, immigrants from non-English-speaking countries must themselves become bilingual. Thus, native languages emerge as minority languages and are likely to have a lower status than the majority language. Hedge (2010) describes how languages that are low-status can be suppressed by the majority culture and carry negative connotations that are associated with their use, such as “disadvantaged” and “low social status.”

Such negative connotations have a profound impact on education. Unlike many countries that embrace bilingual education, the United States has historically pursued an English-only approach. This may result in the situation where students whose primary language is not English are first exposed to it when they enter school. Once they are in school and are successfully assimilated, they may end up losing their native language. Thus, the English-only approach does not allow learners to succeed in their native language and culture (Durán, Roseth, & Hoffman, 2010).

Children who are deaf and raised in signing families face the same obstacles to language learning in Anglo-centric hearing schools as do children who are raised in families from other linguistic groups. Indeed, the challenges faced by children who are deaf are even greater, given that their language is in a different modality and they cannot hear English-speaking voices in the classroom (or hear them adequately, in the case of children who are hard of hearing). We might be tempted, based on these challenges (as many do), to discourage any signing in the home during the preschool years and to vigorously pursue spoken English and hearing restoration. These are basic tenets of the medical model of disability and are consistent with the precepts of an Anglo-centric culture. However, there is growing evidence that early access to a visual language contributes to cognitive advantages and the acquisition of literacy skills (e.g., Allen, Letteri, Choi, & Dang, 2014). Thus, there are reasons other than those of language and culture (having to do with learning and development) that support multi-lingual educational philosophies (this literature is rich and growing and includes studies of bilingualism and cognition, critical periods in language learning and development, and longitudinal studies of individual differences, but these are beyond the scope of this article).

Given what we have discussed regarding the prevailing perceptions of Hispanic parents of children with disabilities, the Anglo-centric philosophies that have determined language policies in schools, and the presence of competing models for deaf education centered around medical versus cultural models, we can see and appreciate the huge challenges facing parents of Hispanic children who are deaf. There has been little research to date on these challenges.

Steinberg, Bain, Yuelin, Delgado, and Ruperto (2003) conducted a study to examine the decision-making processes of 27 Hispanic families with a child with hearing loss. Of these, only five families believed that sign language was the most important language for the child to learn, while 17 families wanted their children to be either bilingual (English and Spanish) or trilingual, adding sign language. These parents stated that they wanted their children to learn about their Hispanic culture and background, and also develop the ability to communicate in school. In one of the interviews, a mother stated that it was more important for her child to learn English because English is the language spoken in school; however, she also hoped that Spanish would be learned later on. The researchers also explored parents’ choice of communication method and found that 17 of the families were only offered Total Communication (a communication approach for educating deaf and hard-of-hearing children that combines multiple communication methods including sign language, fingerspelling, gestures, and speech) as an option. These families readily accepted this option without inquiring about other alternatives. Lastly, their results revealed that 96% of the parents considered the recommendations from professionals as the most important factor in their decision making.

A study conducted in Spain sought to identify factors that influence the language choices made by parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing (Guiberson, 2013). Since this study was conducted in Spain, these parents were more similar to English parents in the United States than to Hispanic parents in the United States. The results revealed that the parents’ bilingual status, their beliefs about bilingualism, and the encouragement they received from educators were associated with a decision to pursue bilingual education for their deaf children. These findings suggest that when professionals encourage parents to use two spoken languages with their deaf and hard-of-hearing children and when there are cultural practices and language policies favoring bilingualism, they are more likely to do so.

Another study (Steinberg, Davila, Collazo, Loew, & Fischgrund, 1997) examined the beliefs of nine Puerto Rican families with deaf children attending a school for the deaf in the United States. Among the participants, six of the nine families used God as a reason to explain why their child was born deaf. Seven out of nine mothers reported feeing sad, hurt, or shocked when their child received the deaf diagnosis. They also reported that fathers had stronger reactions, such as, “porque es duro para un padre tener un nene asi” (it is hard for a father to have a kid like that). The families also believed that children who are deaf should not be treated any differently than their other children who are hearing and should grow up as “normally” as possible. They believed that feeling normal helps the deaf child feel included. Communication practices, on the other hand, were not consistent. Parents reported having good communication with their children, but they also reported knowing little or no sign language.

Hispanic parents who do not use English because it is not their first language and who use Spanish instead to communicate with their children may find it very difficult to learn ASL. Some may resort to using home signs, and some may not communicate with their child at all. Gerner De Garcia (2000) posited that using home signs might negatively impact the child because they do not develop a proper language.

The current research examined the relationship of these opposing conceptualizations to a family’s ethnicity and predicted that, among Hispanic families where there are strong beliefs about children with disabilities and strong values regarding uniform cultural identifications within the family, there will be stronger beliefs oriented toward medical (as opposed to social) approaches to education and learning.

Using the Beliefs and Attitudes about Deaf Education (BADE) scale (Clark et al., 2013), the current study examined differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents along the four subscales defined by the instrument: (1) Scale 1: Literacy through Hearing Technologies and/or Visual Support for Speech Comprehension; (2) Scale 2: Visual Language and Bilingualism; (3) Scale 3: Listening and Spoken Language; and (4) Scale 4: Difficulties Associated with Hearing Parents Learning ASL. Given predominant conceptions about disability in the Hispanic culture discussed earlier (and corresponding differences in conceptions of deafness), we hypothesized that Hispanic parents will score higher on Scales 1, 3, and 4, and lower on Scale 2; i.e., they will be more positively disposed towards beliefs that emphasize speaking, listening, and hearing restoration as a means to facilitate the assimilation of their children into the monolingual American culture and less positively disposed toward educational approaches that emphasize American Sign Language and bilingualism.

Methods

The BADE scale is a measurement developed for and used in the Early Education Longitudinal Study (EELS; Allen, Morere, Clark, & Murphy, 2014), conducted by the National Science Foundation Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) at Gallaudet University. BADE scale data were extracted from this larger, three-year longitudinal study of young deaf children making the transition from preschool to school (the children were ages 3–5 in the first wave of data collection) included parental ratings of their beliefs about deaf education included on the BADE scale. The data also included a question about the ethnicity of the participants, as well as questions covering a wide range of demographic and home and school variables. The broader purpose of this larger study was to track the development of language, literacy, and cognitive skills of deaf children in the earliest years of their education. The study sought broad representation of deaf participants from different cultural and communication backgrounds. The schools that participated in the study were located in 23 states in communities of different sizes. The study involved collecting data from four sources: parents, teachers, administrators, and direct assessments of deaf children. A full technical report of the study methodology is available online (Allen et al., 2014).

In the current article, we conducted secondary analyses of data from the large database produced from the longitudinal literacy study described earlier. Subscale attitude scores from the four BADE subscales were extracted, along with information about the participant ethnicity. We also extracted information about participant age, gender, family income, language use, and instructional communication mode.

BADE is comprised of 46 statements determined by factor analysis to measure attitudes in four domains: Literacy through Hearing Technologies, Visual Language and Bilingualism, Listening and Spoken Language, and Difficulties for Hearing Parents to Learn ASL. Items consist of statements such as “Efforts should initially focus on medical interventions in order to try to reduce the negative effects of hearing loss” and “A bilingual environment that includes ASL provides full access to language and communication.” Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Ratings are summed within each subscale and divided by the numbers of items comprising the subscale to provide an average rating representing the subscale.

Results

Demographics

In the total sample of 154 participants, 28 (18.3%) reported a Hispanic ethnicity. Crosstabulations of ethnicity by five other demographic characteristics are presented in Tables 1–5. Results show similarities in age and sex distributions for Hispanics and non-Hispanics, but notable differences in family income (Hispanics had higher prevalence in the lower SES categories), language (none of the non-Hispanics reported using Spanish in the home), and communication of instruction (47.4% of the non-Hispanics were reported as receiving instruction in ASL only, compared to 26.9% of the Hispanics).

Table 1. Distribution of Sample by Sex for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants.

	Hispanic/Latino		Non-Hispanic/Latino
Sex	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
Male	18	64.3%	71	57.7%
Female	10	35.7%	52	42.3%
Total	28	100.0%	123	100.0%

Table 2. Distribution of Sample by Age for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants.

	Hispanic/Latino		Non-Hispanic/Latino
Age	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
2	0	0%	1	0.8%
3	10	35.7%	41	34.7%
4	8	28.6%	31	26.3%
5	7	25.0%	37	31.4%
6	3	10.7%	8	6.8%
Total	28	100.0%	118	100.0%

Table 3. Distribution of Sample by Household Income for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants.

	Hispanic/Latino		Non-Hispanic/Latino
Income	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
Less than $15,000	6	21.4%	10	8.4%
$15,001–$30,000	8	28.6%	17	14.3%
$30,001–$40,000	4	14.3%	19	16.0%
$40,001–$50,000	4	14.3%	12	10.1%
More than $50,000	6	21.4%	61	51.3%
Total	28	100.0%	119	100.0%

Table 4. Distribution of Language Used in the Home for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants.

	Hispanic/Latino		Non-Hispanic/Latino
Language	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
Spanish only	3	15.8%	0	0.0%
Spanish and English only	5	26.3%	0	0.0%
Spanish and ASL only	1	5.3%	0	0.0%
Spanish, English and ASL	3	15.8%	0	0.0%
English and no Spanish	7	36.8%	83	100.0%
Total	19	100.0%	83	100.0%

Table 5. Distribution of Communication Method Used to Teach the Child for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Participants.

	Hispanic/Latino		Non-Hispanic/Latino
Method	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
Spoken Language Only	3	11.5%	18	15.5%
Sign Language Only	7	26.9%	55	47.4%
Sign Supported Spoke Language	13	50.0%	39	33.6%
Spoken Language with Cues	3	11.5%	4	3.4%
Total	26	100.0%	83	100.0%

Independent sample t-tests were used to compare the beliefs and attitudes about deaf education between parents who were Hispanic/Latino and those who were non-Hispanic. These results are depicted in Figures 1 through 4. There was no statistically significant difference in responses between Hispanic (M = 3.34, SD = 0.86) and non-Hispanic (M = 3.10, SD = 0.82) parents on the Literacy through Hearing Technologies and/or Visual Support for Speech Comprehension subscale, t(147) = 1.39, p = 0.167, d = .29. Although not statistically significant, the differences were in the predicted direction, with an effect size = .29: Hispanic parents had a higher agreement level with hearing restoration through technologies (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Graph showing the mean responses on the literacy through hearing technologies and/or visual support for speech comprehension subscale given by participants in the Hispanic/Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino groups.

Figure 2. Graph showing the mean responses on the visual language and bilingualism subscale given by participants in the Hispanic/Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino groups.

Figure 3. Graph showing the mean responses on the listening and spoken language subscale given by participants in the Hispanic/Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino groups.

Figure 4. Graph showing the mean responses on the difficulties for hearing parents to learn ASL subscale given by participants in the Hispanic/Latino and Not Hispanic/Latino groups.

There was a statistically significant difference in responses between Hispanic (M = 3.83, SD = 0.69) and non-Hispanic (M = 4.10, SD = 0.61) parents on the Visual Language and Bilingualism subscale, t(147) = −2.02, p = 0.045, d = .44. As predicted, non-Hispanic parents had a higher level of agreement with these statements than did Hispanic parents (see Figure 2). The effect size indicated a standardized difference approximately equal to .44 of a standard deviation.

There was a statistically significant difference in responses between Hispanic (M = 2.49, SD = 0.93) and non-Hispanic (M = 2.10, SD = 0.83) parents on the Listening and Spoken Language subscale, t(147) = 2.18, p = 0.031., d = .47 Again, the difference was in the predicted direction. Hispanic parents were more likely to agree with statements in this subscale (see Figure 3). The effect size indicated a standardized difference approximately equal to .47 of a standard deviation.

There was a statistically significant difference in responses between Hispanic parents (M = 2.33, SD = 1.03) and non-Hispanic parents (M = 1.54, SD = 0.74) on the Difficulties for Hearing Parents to Learn ASL subscale, t(32.19) = 3.81, p = 0.001, d = .74 [equal variances not assumed]. Again, the difference was in the predicted direction. Non-Hispanic parents showed a lower level of agreement than did Hispanic parents (see Figure 4). The effect size indicated a standardized difference approximately equal to .74 of a standard deviation.

Conclusion

We hypothesized that Hispanic parents would score higher on Scales 1, 3, and 4, and lower on Scale 2 of the BADE tool. The data revealed that all but Scale 1 showed a significant difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents in their BADE responses in the predicted direction. Although there was no significant difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents in Scale 1, Hispanics had a higher agreement level with hearing restoration through technologies. This is congruent with previous findings that stated that Hispanic parents want their children to be as similar to hearing children as possible, including the ability to speak and function in society. Those findings are also consistent with the findings in Scale 3, Listening and Spoken Language. Both groups tended to disagree with statements indicating that learning ASL with English may pose a threat to later language development. However, Hispanic parents indicated more agreement with these statements than non-Hispanics parents, indicating that Hispanic parents are more likely to hold positive attitudes about approaches to education that emphasize listening and speech. This might be due to the advice of professionals, who advise parents to use the oral method only and discourage the use of sign. Previously cited research showed that Hispanic parents regard educators and medical professionals as absolute authorities (Lynch & Stein, 1987; Salas-Provance et al., 2002) . Thus, when these professionals give such advice, it is unlikely that the Hispanic parents would question them.

Non-Hispanic parents had a higher level of agreement with the statements in Scale 2: Visual Language and Bilingualism. These statements are about perceptions of learning ASL, English, and belonging to the deaf community. As evidenced in our literature review and the findings in this article, non-Hispanic parents are more likely to accept cultural, as well as medical, approaches to education.

The results from Scale 4, Difficulties for Hearing Parents to Learn ASL, revealed that while both groups tended to disagree with the items on this scale, non-Hispanic parents showed a lower level of agreement than Hispanic parents with statements suggesting that hearing parents have difficulty learning ASL. This may be because ASL is likely to be a third language in most Hispanic households, and therefore Hispanic parents may be more likely to judge ASL as being more difficult to learn. It is also true that the Hispanic participants in the study came from lower SES households and therefore would have fewer resources available for learning ASL.

The results of our investigation support our hypotheses: parents of Hispanic deaf children express greater agreement with statements that support approaches to education that derive from a medical orientation towards deafness and less agreement with statements that derive from a social/linguistic/cultural orientation. These results support our prediction that Hispanic parents would gravitate towards hearing restoration and value unity in the family so that their children will belong to and identify with the family and the school, but rarely with the deaf community. The findings lead to two lines of thinking: first, schools must be sensitive to the cultural mores and needs of students from different cultural backgrounds in the design of approaches to education. Second, given recent research findings that have noted the positive impact that early visual languages may have on the development of literacy and other higher cognitive skills, we wonder if some cultural perceptions, such as a view of disability as retribution for family sins, might hinder educational programs that seek to build early signing skills in children from Hispanic families. Proponents of such programs must proceed with caution and sensitivity to the beliefs of individual families, while pursuing attempts to develop greater early language skills of children.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is the sample size. These findings only represent the beliefs of a small group of Hispanic parents. This may limit the generalization of the findings. However, to our knowledge this is the only national study of its kind with a sample of children who are both deaf and Hispanic. The comprehensive nature of the study and the consistency with previous research shows that these findings are an accurate representation of these parents’ views. Another limitation is the voluntary nature of the participants. It is possible that we had parents more active in their participation and decision making about their child’s education than parents who did not participate.

The findings of this study have implications for Hispanic families with children who are deaf. The results showed that Hispanic parents tend to pursue hearing restoration more frequently than linguistic and cultural approaches to fostering the development of their deaf children when compared to non-Hispanic parents. However, it is likely that educators with those inclinations have not offered all options. There is a need to make all choices about educational programs readily accessible to Hispanic parents. Educational outreach programs could be helpful in disseminating information about these options. This study also showed that many Hispanic parents believe that it is too difficult for them to learn ASL. Some of these parents may be trying to learn English when they are told that ASL is needed to communicate with their deaf child. Perhaps, trilingual teachers would be best suited to teach these parents ASL, since they can make the connection between Spanish, English, and ASL. This study also has implications and shows the need for Hispanic professionals, educators, and researchers to help promote cultural competence.

While our study has focused on one cultural group and one disability, we suggest that these findings may have applicability across a broader set of cultures that may have particular dispositions about disability in a more general sense. These attitudes may impact educational choices in many ways that are, at present, not well understood. Studying these impacts is a fruitful area for future research.

Acknowledgments

The data reported in this article were collected as part of a multi-faceted national longitudinal study of deaf preschoolers, The Early Educational Longitudinal Study from 2010 to 2013, and have been utilized in numerous publications. A previous version of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2016, in Washington, DC.

The authors thank Dr. Donna A. Morere and Dr. M. Diane Clark, who helped design and co-lead the research described in this article.

Additional information

Funding

Support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation Science of Learning Center Program under Cooperative Agreements SBE-0541953 and SBE-1041725 with Gallaudet University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.