article review

FRANCIS M. HULT AND

SARAH E. COMPTON

Deaf Education Policy as Language Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Sweden and the United States

The history of deaf education can be summarized as a debate over the best way to help deaf and hard of hearing chUdren participate in society.What language should be used to teach them? What language should they use to communicate?

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center

As THE OPENING epigraph suggests, the role of languages is a central issue in deaf education. The function of sign languages in education and deaf students' opportunities to develop Hnguistic abiH- ties in both sign languages and the dominant language (s) of a society are key considerations (Hogan-Brun 2009; Reagan 2010, 53; Swan- wick 2010a). Accordingly, what Kaplan and Baldauf (1997, 122-23) term language-in-education planning—planning that deals specifically with education—is a fruitful area of inquiry for sign language poHcy and planning. It is in this vein that we provide a comparative poHcy analysis of national education poHcies that create a context within

Francis M. Huit is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Sarah E. Compton is a doctoral student in the Department of Languages at the University ofjyväskylä.

602

SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES VOL. 12 No. 4 SUMMER 2012

Deaf Education PoUcy as Language Policy | 603

which sign languages exist and operate in the educational systems of two countries—Sweden and the United States.

The purpose of this study, then, is to offer a cross-national analy- sis that examines how sign language status and acquisition planning (Cooper 1989) are represented in U.S. and Swedish poUcy documents. We begin with an overview of deaf-education poUcy in both poUties, which is foUowed by a discussion of principles of status and acquisi- tion planning as they relate to education. We then present our textual analysis, focusing on the ways in which status and acquisition issues are characterized in the poUcies of each country. FinaUy, we consider the different implementational spaces (Hornberger 2005; Johnson 2009) that these poUcies make avaüable for multiUngual education.

Background

A consteUation of poUcy documents governs education in Sweden and the United States. In Sweden, these documents include the Edu- cation Act,' as weU as national curricula (Lgr 11; Lpf 94, Lpfb 98) and syUabi.̂ Deaf students foUow the same national curriculum for compulsory education as mainstream students but with certain modi- fications and accommodations that are set forth in the Ordinance for Special Schools (SFS 1995:401) and the syUabi for special schools (Skolverket 2002).

The Ordinance for Special Schools (SFS 1995:401) and the syl- labi for special schools (Skolverket 2002, 2010) apply to government- subsidized special schools to which deaf and hard of hearing students in Sweden have access (Bagga-Gupta 2004, 28).These special schools offer the same curriculum as mainstream Swedish schools but make special accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing students (Bagga- Gupta 2010; Svartholm 1993, 299).-' For compulsory education, there are five special schools at the regional level and one at the national level, as weU as a few at the local level (Bagga-Gupta 2004, 25). Al- though the special schools are set forth expUcitly in policy, other placement possibüities are avaüable in Sweden as weU, including the mainstream classroom (Svartholm 2010, 168-69).

Deaf education in the United States is governed principaUy by the Individuals with DisabiUties Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).Whüe IDEA outlines in general terms the educational rights

6o4 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

of students with disabUities,'' the Regulations of the Offices of the De- partment of Education, which are codified in Tide 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, provide the federal-level interpretation of IDEA and elucidate the processes by which IDEA is implemented at the state, district, and school levels. Together, these two texts form the legislative framework for deaf education.

There are two primary requirements in IDEA that must be satis- fied when implementing the policy. First, an annual individualized education plan (IEP) must be created for each student. The IEP team, v̂ ĥich comprises educators and parents, estabHshes academic and fiinc- tional (e.g., language) goals.Then the IEP team determines the edu- cational context within which the student wUl be placed (Ramsey 1997). For deaf and hard of hearing students, these contexts include regular education and self-contained classrooms, regional programs, and schools for the deaf (Fiedler 2001, 56).

Principles of Language Policy and Planning

Kaplan and Baldauf explain that language-in-education planning is a subset of national language planning that focuses on the domain of education and takes into account "what languages are desirable in the repertoire of speakers in the corrununity and for what purposes those languages will be used" (1997,126). Inherent in language-in-education planning, then, are two of the three major types of planning: status planning and acquisition planning.^

Status planning, meaning decisions that relate to the societal func- tions of a language, has been recognized as a core type of planning since Kloss's work in the late 1960s (Hornberger 2006, 28). It typicaUy involves formal and pubHc aspects of language use since they tend to faU under the purview of government and institutional control unHke private or interpersonal language use (Fishman 1979, 12).The educa- tional domain, thus, is a major site for status planning, with respect to both selecting media of instruction and determining which additional languages wUl be taught as subjects (Cooper 1989, 109-15).

Cooper (1989) introduced the concept of acquisition planning as a way to highHght aspects of language planning that focus specificaUy on the users of a language. Planning of this type concentrates on how users might be supported (or not) in the advancement of their

Deaf Education Policy as Language Policy | 605

Unguistic repertoires through provisions for the ongoing development of a language and/or through the opportunity to learn additional languages (Hornberger 2006, 28). Strictly speaking, acquisition plan- ning need not center on educational institutions since incentives and opportunities to acquire and develop proficiency in a language can be fostered beyond the confines of the classroom by, inter alia, em- ploying a language in media or requiring a language as a professional quaUfication (Cooper 1989,159-60).The domain of formal education, however, is an institutionalized space where planning about how lan- guages are learned can be shaped through national educational poUcy that guides curricular documents, as weU as the aUocation of resources for personnel and material (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997,125-39). Indeed, as Spolsky remarks, "the language poUcy adopted by an educational system is without a doubt one of the most powerflü forces in language management" (2009, 90).

In sum, status and acquisition are intertwined elements of language- in-education planning. The societal functions of a language (status) are inseparable firom the users of a language and how they come to develop the Unguistic abüities (acquisition) to perform those functions (Hornberger 2006, 28; Huit 2004, 182). With respect to education, status planning may be said to address what languages are learned, whüe acquisition planning may be said to address how languages are learned. In terms of status planning for sign languages, language- in-education planning takes into account both what languages (sign and spoken) are to be used in the educational setting itself, as either media of instruction or as subjects, and what languages students need to add to their Unguistic repertoires in order to participate in social and professional Ufe beyond the confines of schools (Reagan 2010, 157-62). Acquisition planning, in turn, deals with the implementation of language education and development in schools, including how sign languages are to be used in the instructional environment as weU as what kind of material and pedagogical support students receive in a given language (Spolsky 2009, 101-108).

Present Study

The analysis that we present here explores the ways in which both Swedish and U.S. educational poUcies for deaf education reflect these

6o6 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

aspects of status and acquisition planning. The foHowing question guided our investigation: How do Swedish and U.S. educational poH- cies for deaf education reflect principles of language-in-education planning with respect to status and acquisition? Specifically, we identi- fied the major national poHcies for deaf education in each poHty. For Sweden, the poHcy documents^ examined were the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) and the Ordinance for Special Schools (SFS 1995:401) current at the time of our investigation. In addition, the national syl- labi for special schools, both the current (Skolverket 2002) and the revised provisional (Skolverket 2010) versions, were examined. For the United States, both the Individuals with DisabiHties Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and Tide 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were analyzed.While the two poHties have differ- ent legislative and educational systems, these sets of poHcies represent the governing documents for deaf education on the national scale in each country and thus allow for useful comparison. We employed a discourse analytic approach to poHcy analysis (e.g.. Huit 2010; Scol- lon 2008) to identify circulating discourses about language status and acquisition in the texts.

Status Planning

RecaUing our discussion on language planning, the status of spoken and sign languages in education can be identified by examining the domains for which the languages are prescribed and the functions as- signed them within those domains. Deciding which language is used for direct instruction is "perhaps the status-planning decision most firequently made" (Cooper 1989, 109). Thus, in order to determine status planning for sign languages, it is necessary to examine the poH- cies to find out which educational spaces (domains) are outHned and ascertain the position of sign languages within those contexts. We first turn to the Swedish context.

Students in Sweden typically attend schools that are within their local municipaHties. For those who are deaf or hard of hearing, how- ever, the Education Act estabHshes special schools as de jure educational contexts^ for deaf pupils (SFS 2010:800, chapter 7, §6). As such, uruque Hnguistic spaces emerge within the special schools. The syllabi state

Deaf Education PoHcy as Language PoHcy | 607

that among the special schools"'most important tasks" is that of sup- porting deaf students' language development "by offering a rich sign language environment and good models of sign language" (Skolverket 2002, 15). This foregrounds the function of languages within these spaces (Spolsky 2004, 46).

The languages used in the special schools are set forth in the syHabi, the national guidehnes produced by the Swedish National Agency for Education:

Education in the Specialskola [special school] is characterized by the fact that both Swedish and sign language are used [in] paraUel in dif- ferent functions and reinforce each other as tools for communication and learning. (Skolverket 2002, 12)

This excerpt clearly illustrates that the special schools are domains for both sign and spoken languages. In addressing the language of instruction, the role of sign language in the biHngual classroom is described as foHows:

The biHngual environment creates conditions [in which] to exchange experiences concerning the two languages, their structure and con- tents, and together with teachers and comrades plan the working methods and contents of education, express views, search for and impart knowledge, as weU as develop new ideas. Learning takes place through both languages. (Skolverket 2002, 14)

The functions of sign language, then, include the formal study of the language, the sharing of knowledge, communication with peers and teachers, and the formulation of new ideas. Furthermore, the last two Hnes of the text suggest that sign language also functions as a language of instruction. Further evidence can be drawn from the document's recognition that "biHnguaHsm is thus important not just within the subjects of Swedish and sign language, but in aH the subjects taught in the school"; teachers are responsible for ensuring that "pupils develop a mastery of these concepts in both languages" (Skolverket 2002, 14). Thus, sign language holds a clear status as a language of instruction, a tool for communicating with peers and teachers, and a school subject.

Taken together, these poHcy texts expHcitly demonstrate "a com- mitment to the use of sign language in the educational domain"

6o8 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

(Reagan 2010,157).Thus, one can argue that sign language lays claim to a specific status within the special schools because it emerges from "the process of language selection" as a language to be taught and learned (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 37).This status echoes a sentiment, often credited to a 1981 parliamentary biü* but present in Swedish curricular documents since the 1970s, long expressed in Swedish policy that deaf students need to achieve bilingualism in order to participate both in the Deaf community and in mainstream society (Bagga-Gupta 2010, 262-63; SvarthoHn 2010, 157).

Turning to the United States, IDEA also estabHshes special schools for deaf students. These contexts, however, are but one of several edu- cational environments set forth in the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision:

To the maximum extent appropriate, chUdren with disabilities, in- cluding chüdren in pubUc or private institutions or other care faciU- ties, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schoohng, or other removal of children with disabih- ties from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disabUity of a chUd is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C. § 6i2(a)(5)(A))

At least two sigrüficant findings for language planning can be drawn from this provision. First, the regular mainstream classroom is posi- tioned as the preferred setting. The strength of this inclusion discourse can be seen by the structure of the provision itself. It begins by placing at the head of the paragraph the phrase "to the maximum extent ap- propriate" and concludes with steps that educators can take to ensure placement within the general education classroom: providing "supple- mentary aids and services" such as assistive Hstening devices and sign language interpreting services (34 C.F.R. § 300.34).

Second, the LRE provision estabHshes "peers" to mean students who "are not disabled." This discourse first arises within the general provisions set forth at the beginning of IDEA:

Before the date of enactment of [IDEA], the educational needs of millions of chUdren with disabilities were not being fiilly met because . . . the chUdren were excluded entirely from the pubhc school sys- tem and from being educated with their peers. (20 U.S.C. § 601 (c)

Deaf Education Policy as Language Policy | 609

Prior to IDEA, deaf students were educated primarüy in schools for the deaf that are similar to the special schools found in Sweden.^ Their peers were other deaf students. This changed with the passage of IDEA; the majority of deaf students are now educated alongside hearing students^" (who communicate in spoken EngUsh) rather than with other deaf pupus (GaUaudet Research Institute 2007). Given that spoken EngUsh is the dominant language of the mainstream classroom, determirüng student placement is a de facto form of language man- agement (Siegel 2008; Spolsky 2009).

Although the U.S. poUcies are expUcit about student placement, the status of sign language in education is addressed only latently. Sign language is defined as a native language for deaf students in Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

§ 300.29 Native language.

(b) For an individual with deafness or blindness, or for an individual with no written language, the mode of communication is that nor- mally used by the individual (such as sign language. Braille, or oral communication).

Outside of this definition, the term "sign language" appears only once in IDEA and is mentioned once more in the CFR. The role of sign language in the K-12 context is not expUcitly stated in IDEA. Howev- er, the CFR does make space for sign language as a related service that can be provided in the mainstream setting (34 C F R . § 3OO.34(4)(i)).

With respect to status planning, one can see how "language selec- tion and the implementation to choose and disseminate the language or languages selected" are framed both expUcitly and impUcitly within these national poUcies (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 29).

Acquisition Planning

In addition to status planning, the poUcies of both countries address acquisition issues. The legislative texts (Education Act, Ordinance for Special Schools, and IDEA) of the two poUties do not specify many expUcit aims and processes for language acquisition. This is, perhaps, not surprising given their legal rather than pedagogical na- ture. Nonetheless, looking beyond the legislative texts themselves to the poUcy documents guiding educational practice (i.e., the syUabi

óio I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

for special schools in Sweden and the Code of Federal Regulations in the United States), provisions related to language-acquisition plan- ning are discernible.

The development of Swedish/Swedish Sign Language (SSL) bi- lingualism is a major feature in the syUabi for special schools. For example, the syUabus for Sign Language and Swedish specifies the foUowing:

The majority of pupUs in the Specialskola develop, in communica- tion with sign language surroundings, their sign language as a first language. In such an environment, deaf and hearing impaired pupils are given the opportunity to develop high standards of biHnguaHsm in sign language and Swedish. (Skolverket 2002, 13)

Thus, the special school is framed expHcitly as a site for language- acquisition planning and the development of biHnguaHsm. The syUabi flesh out how multiHnguaHsm can be developed; for instance, students use their knowledge of sign language and Swedish to develop pro- ficiency in EngHsh as a foreign language, participate in drama, and develop their deaf identities (Skolverket 2002). As such, the syUabi for special schools serve "to create or to improve the opportunity to learn" Swedish and continue to develop SSL (Cooper 1989, 159).

This focus on biHngual language use and development continues in the proposed new syUabi for special schools, which state that, "For deaf and hard of hearing people commanding both sign language and Swedish is valuable for being able to take part actively in social and professional life" (Skolverket 2010, 28). This reflects continued ex- pHcit attention to language-acquisition planning in the special schools. Moreover, this excerpt highhghts that such planning transcends the educational setting itself to consider the Hnguistic repertoire that a student needs to develop in order to participate in society at large (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 126).This is also supported by the current syUabi's aim to develop deaf students' fluency in both languages: "The Specialskola has the task of preparing pupUs so that they can live and work as individuals with two languages in society" (Skolverket 2002, 13).The discourse in these excerpts thus suggests that sign language is framed as a language for participation in mainstream Swedish society and that it should be learned with that purpose in mind.

Deaf Education Policy as Language Policy | 6ii

As we have seen in the Swedish documents, a major element of acquisition planning is a consideration of how sign language will be used in education, including its relationship to spoken languages.This is further evident in how the use of sign language interpretation is addressed. As Reagan suggests, "perhaps the most important example of acquisition planning for sign languages . . . is in the preparation of sign language interpreters" (2010, 171). Both the Swedish and the U.S. poHcy documents address the role of sign language interpretation. The proposed new syllabi for special schools include specific topics to address in the subject of sign language with respect to interpretation:

Grades 1—4: "Sign language interpretation and how one engages with interpreted conversations and speeches, for example, how interpreta- tion is used, the interpreter's role and obligation to observe silence." (Skolverket 2010, 29)

Grades 5-7: "Sign language interpreting in formal and informal con- versations and during speeches." (Skolverket 2010, 30)

Grades 8-10: "The effect of sign language interpretation and the interpretive context on conversation." (Skolverket 2010, 32)

Sign language interpretation is Hnked here to the development of a Hnguistic repertoire that faciHtates social interaction in various speech events such as informal and formal conversation as well as speeches. In the higher grades, attention is also paid to developing critical aware- ness of the potential impact of interpretation on social interaction. Thus, sign language interpretation is framed as a communicative re- source to be ctiltivated in school for broader use in society (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 126).

Sign language interpretation in U.S. poHcy is firamed in terms of related services. As Kaplan and Baldauf (1997,130—33) note, language- in-education planning includes providing personnel and staffing to support students' Hnguistic needs. In IDEA, the purpose of sign lan- guage interpretation can be gleaned from how it is framed in the requirements set forth for training language professionals:

Preparing personnel to be qualified educational interpreters, to assist children with low-incidence disabilities, particularly deaf and hard of hearing children in school and school-related activities, and deaf

6i2 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

and hard of hearing infants and toddlers and preschool children in early-intervention and preschool programs. (20 U.S.G. § 662(c)(2)(E))

Thus, the need to account for multimodal communication is ad- dressed; however, unHke the Swedish pohcy, the focus is on helping deaf students to gain access to "school and school-related activities" rather than on developing communicative skills related to using an interpreter as part of a biHngual/bimodal Hnguistic repertoire. This is further seen in the Code of Federal Regulations, where interpretive services are defined:

(4) Interpreting services includes— (i) The foUowing, when used with respect to children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Oral transHteration services, cued language transHt- eration services, sign language transHteration and interpreting services, and transcription services, such as communication access real-time translation (GART), G-Print, andTypeWeU; and (H) Special interpret- ing services for chudren who are deaf-bHnd. (34 G.F.R. § 300.34(4))

ExpHcit attention is paid to the role that sign language interpretation plays in how deaf students access educational services, but the focus is on its role as a compensatory tool for accessing the dominant hearing classroom environments (i.e., the least restrictive environment, as noted earHer) through " 'language brokers' who can interpret between the sign language and the national spoken language" (Reagan 2010, 161).

Furthermore, with respect to acquisition planning, Kaplan and Baldauf (1997, 127) point out that it is important to determine "the space in the curriculum allocated to language instruction." For Sweden, the Ordinance for Special Schools states that of the 7,845 hours of instructional time during the academic year, time spent on language instruction wiH be aHocated as foHows: 1,560 hours for Swedish, 725 hours for Swedish Sign Language, 515 hours for EngHsh, and 320 hours for other language électives (SFS 1995:401, appendix). Although the U.S. poHcy does not similarly codify the aHocation of instructional time, space for the development of sign language/EngHsh biHnguaHsm can be found in IDEA in the communication-needs provision:

[I]n the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's

Deaf Education PoUcy as Language Policy | 613

language and communication mode, academic level, and fuU range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode. (20 U.S.C. § 6i4(d)(3)(B)(iv))

While the dominant discourse in the LRE provision suggests that the regular education classroom is the preferred placement option, IDEA also requires that deaf students' communication needs be considered when making placement decisions. The regular education classroom provides students with access to peers without disabüities; however, it often restricts deaf students'"opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel" and direct instruction in sign language." It becomes evident, then, that competing discourses exist within the U.S. poHcy texts regarding where deaf students should be placed, thus creating "gaps and spaces" that individuals can use (Bau 2006, 45) to support sign language acquisition.

Discussion and Conclusion

Through this comparative analysis, we have traced the ways in which Swedish and U.S. deaf education poHcies address educational language- planning issues. Language-in-education planning for sign languages centers on the educational contexts in which deaf students are placed and the functions of sign language within these domains. Figure i (inspired by Skutnabb-Kangas 2000, 512) iUustrates the interaction of these two types of planning. On the horizontal axis we map the discourses of biHngual development and assimilation (i.e., acquisi- tion) that are present within the poHcy texts.The various educational contexts (i.e., status) are mapped onto the vertical axis, with schools for the deaf at one end and the inclusion setting at the opposite end. Then, drawing on the findings from the textual analysis we have presented, we plot the Swedish and U.S. poHcies in order to visuaUy represent the interaction between status and acquisition planning. It is important to note that our focus here is on policy provisions rather than on the implementation of deaf education in practice, which would vary greatly in each country.'^

Considering acquisition planrüng, the Swedish syüabi are placed on the left side of the continuum given that Swedish and SSL devel- opment are promoted and sign language is set forth as a language of

6i4 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

School for the Deaf

Syllabi for Special Schools

SFS 1995:401 SFS 2010:800

Bilingual

Development

IDEA:

Communication Needs Provision

Inclusion Setting

' Assimilation

IDEA:

Least Restrictive Environment

(LRE)

FIGURE I . Interaction between Status and Acquisition Planning for Deaf Education in Sweden and the United States.

communication and instruction. The Ordinance for Special Schools (SFS 1995:401), with some attention to instructional time for differ- ent languages, though not clearly specifying buingual instruction, is placed sUghtly to the right of the syUabi. In the LRE provision, sign language is firamed as a related service to assist deaf students in ac- cessing the dominant language of society: EngUsh. At the same time, the communication needs provision provides space for sign language as a language of communication and instruction. As such, the LRE provision is placed closer to the assimüation side of the horizontal axis. The communication needs provision, in turn, is placed in the middle of the continuum to signify that buingual development is dependent upon the needs of the deaf or hard of hearing student.

Turning to status planning, the poUcies of both countries estabUsh a preferred-placement context for deaf students. In Sweden, the special schools are the de jure educational contexts. As such, the syUabi, the Ordinance for Special Schools, and the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) are placed on the upper end of the figure, with the Education Act centered on the horizontal axis since it offers no specific guidance for or against büinguaUsm or assirrülation. In the U.S. poUcies, the LRE

Deaf Education PoHcy as Language PoHcy | 615

provision sets forth the inclusion setting as the preferred placement context; hence, it is placed in the lower quadrant. The communica- tion needs provision, however, opens up potential space for placement within schools for the deaf and other contexts where sign language development could be fostered. Accordingly, it is placed in the center.

As one can see, framing educational contexts for deaf students in poHcy instantiates a process of language planning whereby the lan- guages to be taught and learned are determined by the context within which students are placed (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, 37). Language- in-education planning for deaf education, as reflected in poHcy texts, tends to be expHcit in Sweden but impHcit in the United States. How- ever, implementational space in the poHcies of both countries exists to varying degrees for sign language development and biHnguaHsm.

As Hornberger (2002, 30) suggests, all poHcies create "ideological and implementational space" to support the coexistence of many lan- guages rather than restricting the educational environment to a single language. Hornberger further states the foUowing:

[I]t is essential for language educators and language users to fUl up im- plementational spaces with multiHngual educational practices, whether with intent to occupy ideological spaces opened up by poHcies or to prod actively toward more favorable ideological spaces in the face of restrictive poHcies. Ideological spaces created by language and educa- tion poHcies can be seen as carving out implementational spaces at classroom and community levels, but implementational spaces can also serve as wedges to pry open ideological ones. (2005, 606)

The first step in responding to Hornberger's caU to fUl up implemen- tational space with multilingual educational practices is to identify where the spaces exist. Hence, we suggest the communication needs provision in U.S. poHcy as one such space that agents can pry open to promote multiHnguaHsm. Similarly, greater awareness of the spaces for multUingual education in de jure Swedish poHcy might help to inform parents, teachers, and other key agents about educational options for deaf students beyond mainstream classrooms.

As Johnson (2009,75) suggests, "[T]here are varying interpretations in each poHcy layer, and such interpretations and re-interpretations create the possibUity for agentive appropriation." Johnson (2004, 81)

6i6 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

further suggests that language educators need not assume that "poHcy texts necessitate inevitable educational outcomes." In addition, educa- tors of deaf students need not assume that poHcies require inevitable placement decisions (Compton 2010). Rather, these educators must view themselves as agents of change (Swanwick 2010b, 147) who work to implement national poHcies within local contexts (Johnson 2009, 75) in such a way as to ensure "the education of deaf children in set- tings in which they will acquire the sign language of the surrounding deaf community" (Reagan 2010, 170).

To conclude as we began, it is useflil to revisit the questions set forth by the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. As we have shown here, tracing language-in-education planning for sign languages within Swedish and U.S. education poHcies brings to Hght the ways in which educational poHcies address how to help students participate in society, what languages should be used for teaching deaf students, and what languages should be developed for communication. Even when it is not expHcit, language planning is undertaken for both sign and spoken languages. Raising awareness of status and acquisition planning in education, especiaUy in contexts where they are impHcit, is a contribution that sign language scholars and language poHcy and planning researchers can make to help educators take advantage of implementational spaces such that educational settings become ro- bust domains for multiHnguaHsm and sites for multimodal language development.

Notes

1. At the time of writing, Sweden is undertaking educational reform, including the replacement of the previous Education Act (SFS 1985:1100) with a new one (SFS 2010:800), which became effective on July i, 2011. While the Ordinance for Special Schools (SFS 1995:401) currently remains in force under the new law (F. Nilsson, personal communication, Feb. 2, 2011), a recent government bill (Prop. 2008/09, 87) set the stage for curricular changes, and the Swedish National Agency for Education has crafted new syllabi for special schools (Skolverket 2010) and other areas of compulsory, education that are expected to go into effect for the 2011-2012 school year (Ministry of Education and Research 2008).

2. The national syllabi are available ordine at http://www.skolverket. se/2.3894/in_english/2.27Oi.

Deaf Education PoHcy as Language Policy | 617

3. While the special schools serve deaf students, they also serve students with a range of special needs related to physical and neurological conditions (SFS 1995:401).

4. WhUe IDEA frames deafness as a disabiHty, we do not share this para- digm. Rather, we view deafhess as a characteristic of Hnguistic and cultural minority groups (see Ladd 2003, 164).

5. The third dimension is corpus planning with respect to vocabulary and the standardization of speUing, grammar, and so on (see Gooper 1989, 122-56).Though aU three are interrelated (Fishman 2006; Hornberger 2006), we focus here on status and acquisition since they are most germane to the U.S. and Swedish contexts.

6. All Swedish policy excerpts were translated by Francis; however, excerpts from Skolverket's (2002) EngHsh version of the syUabi are cited.

7. It should be noted that, de facto, the settings are increasingly main- stream classrooms (Svartholm 2010, 168-69).

8. It is important to note that the 1981 biU passed in Sweden does not grant Swedish Sign Language official status. Rather, the legislation recog- nizes it as a legitimate language of instruction (Bagga-Gupta 2010, 262—63; Reagan 2006, 332).

9. Although schools for the deaf were the primary educational context for deaf students prior to IDEA, the role of sign language in education varied among these facüities. Sign language was the language of instruction in some of the schools, whereas others prohibited its use (Reagan 2010, 333).

10. Bagga-Gupta points out that this is becoming more common in Sweden as weU, with the increased mainstreaming of students with cochlear implants (2004, 25; 2007, 9—10).

11. See Ramsey (1997) for an illustration of how this plays out in regular education classrooms.

12. Future studies that explore connections between poHcy and practice (e.g., Menken and Garcia 2010) might make use of this matrix to plot the implementation of status and acquisition planning.

References Aldersley, S. 2002. Least Restrictive Environment and the Gourts. Jouma/ of

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 7(3): 189-99. Bagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Literacies and Deaf Education: A Theoretical Analysis of the

International and Swedish Literature. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for School Improvement.

. 2007. Aspects of Diversity, Inclusion, and Democracy within Educa- tion and Research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 51(1): 1—22.

. 2010. Creating and (Re)negotiating Boundaries: Representations as Mediation inVisuaUy Oriented MultiHngual Swedish School Settings. Language, Culture, and Curriculum 23(3): 251—76.

6i8 I SIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

BaU, S. J. 2006. Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen Ball. New York: Routledge.

Code of Federal Regulations. 2007. 34 CF.R. § 300 et seq. Compton, S. 2010. Implementing Language Pohcy for Deaf Students from

Spanish-Speaking Homes:The Case of Agents in a Texas School District. Master's thesis. University of Texas at San Antonio.

Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Fiedler, B. C 2001. Considering Placement and Educational Approaches for Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing. TEACHING Exceptional Children 34(2): 54-59.

Fishman, J. A. 1979. Bihngual Education, Language Planning, and Enghsh. English World-Wide 1(1): 11-24.

. 2006. Do Not Leave Your Language Alone: The Hidden Status Agendas within Corpus Planning and Language Policy. Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.

GaUaudet Research Institute. 2007. Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2007-08 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Vbui/î. Washington, D C : Author.

Hogan-Brun, G., ed. 2009. Language Planning and Sign Languages. Special issue. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3).

Hornberger, N. H. 2002. Multüingual Language Policies and the Continua of Büiteracy: An Ecological Approach. Language Policy i: 27—51.

. 2005. Opening and FUling Up Implementational and Ideological Spaces in Heritage Language Education. Modern Language Journal 89(4): 605-609.

. 2006. Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, ed. T. Ricento, 24-41. Maiden, Mass.: BlackweU.

Huit, F. M. 2004. Planning for Multihngualism and Minority Language Rights in Sweden. Language Policy 3(2): 181—201.

. 2010. Analysis of Language PoHcy Discourses across the Scales of Space andTime. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 202: 7—24.

Individuals with DisabUities Education Improvement Act. 2004. 20 U.S.C § 1400 et seq.

Johnson, D. C 2004. Language Pohcy Discourse and Bihngual Language Planning. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 19(2): 73-97.

. 2009. Implementational and Ideological Spaces in BUingual Edu- cation Language Policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13(1): 61—79.

Kaplan, R. B., and R. B. Baldauf. 1997. Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Bristol, Penn.: MultUingual Matters.

Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deajhood. Tonswandi, N.Y.: MultUingual Matters.

Deaf Education Policy as Language PoUcy | 619

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. Language and Literacy. Accessed May 2011, http://www.gallaudet.edu/clerc_center/information _and_resources/info_to_go/language_and_Uteracy.html.

Lgr II. Läroplanen for grundskolan, forskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for Compulsory School, Preschool, and the Leisure- Time Center]. Accessed February 11, 2011, http://www.skolverket.se /sb/d/4i66/a/22i84.

Lpf 94. Curriculum for the Noncompulsory School System. Accessed January 29, 2007, http://www.skolverket.Se/sb/d/468.

Lpfb 98. Läroplan for fbrskolan [Curriculum for Preschool]. Accessed January 29, 2007, http://www.skolverket.Se/sb/d/468.

Menken, K., and O. Garcia, eds. 2010. Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. London: Routledge.

Ministry of Education and Research. 2008. Curricula with New Sylla- buses and Knowledge Requirements and a New Grading Scale. Fact Sheet U08.021. Accessed February 11, 2011, http://www.sweden.gov.se /sb/d/iO339/a/ii77Oi.

Prop. 2008/09:87.TydUgare mal och kunskapskrav—Nya laroplaner for skolan [Clearer Goals and Knowledge Requirements—New Curricula for the School System]. Accessed February 11, 2011, http://www.riksdagen.se /webbnav/?nid=37&rm=2oo8/o9&bet=87&typ=prop.

Ramsey, C. L. 1997. Deaf Children in Public Schools: Placement, Context, and Consequences.W^ishing^on, D C : Gallaudet University Press.

Reagan,T. G. 2006. Language PoUcy and Sign Languages. In An Introduction to Language Policy : Theory and Method, ed. T. Ricento, 329-345. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Reagan, T. G. 2010. Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages.Washing- ton, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.

SchifFman, H. R 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge.

ScoUon, R. 2008. Analyzing Public Discourse: Discourse Analysis in the Making of Public Policy. New York: Routledge.

SFS. 1985:1100. Education Act. Accessed May 3, 2010, http://www.sweden. gov.se/content/1/06/02/15/38/1532b277.pdf.

SFS. 1995:401. Specialskolefbrordning [Ordinance for Special Schools]. Accessed October 20, 2010, http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index .aspx?bet=i995:4Oi&nid=39ii.

SFS. 2010:800. SkoUag [Education Act]. Accessed February 11, 2011, http:// www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=39ii&bet=2oio%3a8oo.

Siegel, L. M. 2008. The Human Right to Language: Communication Access for Deaf Children. Washin^on, D C : Gallaudet University Press.

Skolverket. 2002. Specialskola (School for Pupus with Hearing Impairment) Syllabuses. Accessed May 3, 2010, http://www3.sk0lverket.se/ki/eng /spec_eng.pdf.

620 I S I G N LANGUAGE S T U D I E S

. 2010. Bilaga 7 Förslag tiU kursplaner for specialskolan inklusive kunskapskrav [Appendix 7 Proposal for SyUabi for the Special School including Knowledge Requirements]. Accessed February 10,2011, http:// www.skolverket.se/sb/d/3719/a/19774.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education, or Worldwide Di- versity and Human Rights? Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. . 2009. Language Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Svartholm, K. 1993. BUingual Education for the Deaf in Sweden. Sign Lan- guage Studies 81: 291—332.

. 2010. BiHngual Education for Deaf Children in Sweden. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13(2): 159—74.

Swanwick, R. 2010a. Deafness and BiHngual Education. Special issue, Inter- nationaljournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13(2).

. 2010b. PoHcy and Practice in Sign BUingual Education: Develop- m e n t , ChaUenges, and Directions. International Journal of Bilingual Educa- tion and Bilingualism 13(2): 147—58.

Copyright of Sign Language Studies is the property of Gallaudet University Press for Sign Language Studies

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.