See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23790131

Apartheid in Deaf Education: Examining Workforce Diversity

Article  in  American Annals of the Deaf · February 2008

DOI: 10.1353/aad.0.0060 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

27 530

4 authors, including:

Laurene Simms Melissa Michelle Ausbrooks

Gallaudet University Jackson State University
4 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jean F Andrews
Lamar University
44 PUBLICATIONS   552 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An ASL/English bilingual education (AEBE) longitudinal impact study: Five years at the Mississippi School for the Deaf View project

Teaching Science to Deaf Students: Language and Literacy Considerations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melissa Michelle Ausbrooks on 08 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 384

APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION:

EXAMINING WORKFORCE DIVERSITY

A
SURVEY OF 3,227 professionals in 313 deaf education programs found
that 22.0% of teachers and 14.5% of administrators were deaf—a less
than 10% increase in deaf professionals since 1993. Additionally, 21.7%
of teachers and 6.1% of administrators were professionals of color. Of
these minority teachers, only 2.5% were deaf persons of color. Only 3
deaf administrators of color were identified. The study describes how
“apartheid” or “intellectual oppression” may result from unchanged
hiring practices in K–12 programs for the deaf and in postsecondary in-
stitutions. Using a bottle metaphor, the researchers describe how deaf
persons of color are often stuck in “a bottleneck on the highway to op-
portunity.” Relevant data underscore that the field of deaf education
must diversify its professional force in order to utilize the intellectual,
linguistic, and multicultural proficiencies of hearing teachers of color,
deaf teachers, and deaf teachers of color.
LAURENE SIMMS, MELISSA
RUSHER, JEAN F. ANDREWS, My country, ’tis of thee, Sweet land Socioeconomic disparities, social in-
AND JUDY CORYELL
of liberty, Of thee I sing. equities, and political injustices have
hindered their ability to gain full access
—SAMUEL F. SMITH, 1831
to opportunities more easily afforded
SIMMS IS THE DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE to nondiverse, nondisabled Americans
PROGRAMS IN DEAF EDUCATION AT Grab the broom of anger and
(Dunn, 1992; Moores & Oden, 1977;
GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC. drive off the beast of fear!
Rittenhouse, Johnson, Overton, Free-
RUSHER IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE man, & Jaussi, 1991).
—ZORA NEALE HURSTON, 1937
DEPARTMENT OF DEAF STUDIES AND DEAF Substandard educational opportu-
EDUCATION, LAMAR UNIVERSITY, BEAUMONT, nities and inadequate communication
Not all Americans experience the sweet
TX. ANDREWS IS A PROFESSOR IN THE SAME accessibility have left 50% of deaf high
land of liberty idealized in patriotic
DEPARTMENT. CORYELL IS THE DIRECTOR OF
song. Like African Americans, Latino school graduates reading at or below
THE KAP’IOLANI DEAF CENTER AND THE
Americans, Asian Americans, and Na- the fifth-grade level (Cawthon, 2004;
GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTER Holcomb & Peyton, 1992; Holt, Traxler,
tive Americans, deaf Americans have
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I—KAP’IOLANI
been marginalized, disenfranchised, & Allen, 1997; LaSasso & Lollis, 2003;
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, HONOLULU. Padden & Ramsey, 2000). Despite legal
and disillusioned (G. Anderson, 2007;
Krentz, 1996; Padden & Humphries, protections and mechanisms, many
2005; Vernon & Makowsky, 1969). deaf children have been deprived of

384

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 385
the linguistically rich and culturally af-
firming environments necessary for
psychosocial growth and academic
success (DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews,
2007). The perpetuation of these
issues has created an apartheid-like
scenario: extreme segregation or sep-
aration and educational disparity re-
sulting in intellectual oppression of
the Deaf community (Dunn, 1992;
Linderman, 1994).
The historical philologist Seth Lerer
(2008) has discussed the etymological
meaning of the term apartheid. It is a
Dutch or Afrikaans translation of the
Latin word segregare. Thus, in its origi-
nal literal meaning, it simply means to
separate or place apart. In South Africa
in 1953, Hendrik F. Verwoerd, the min-
ister of native education, stated,
“When I have control over Native Edu-
cation, I will reform it so that natives
will be taught from childhood that
equality with Europeans is not for
them” (quoted in Dunn, 1992, p. 53).
During the South African apartheid, in-
tellectual oppression was propagated
for political and social gain (Dunn,
1992). But today, the word apartheid
has been “charged anew with political
and cultural tensions” (Lerer, 2008, p.
121). The African American deaf educa-
tor Lindsay Dunn (1992) discusses this
concept of apartheid as he draws par-
allels between the words of Hendrik F.
Verwoerd and the social, political, and
educational tensions aroused by Alex-
ander Graham Bell’s oral approach.
In the present article, we use the
term apartheid in a similar way.
Apartheid is often unconsciously per-
petuated by professionals who fail to
understand core linguistic issues
(Chamberlain, Morford, & Mayberry,
2000; Nover & Andrews, 1998; Ver-
non, 1970), fail to promote cultural
sensitivity (Leigh, 1999), and fail to
maintain high standards for deaf chil-
dren (Cawthon, 2004; Holt et al.,
1997; Johnson, Liddell, & Erting, 1989).
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
For some, the term apartheid is abra-
sive, vitriolic, and counterproductive.
Unfortunately, the data presented
herein speak to the dire necessity for
change, thus warranting such provok-
ing terminology.
To eradicate this intellectual op-
pression, educational policy and prac-
tice must undergo substantial scrutiny
and reform (G. Anderson, 1994; Niko-
laraizi & Makri, 2004; Nover, Andrews,
Baker, Everhardt, & Bradford, 2002;
Simms & Thumann, 2007). Inadequate
educational options, a lack of diversity
in the teaching force, and failure to in-
tegrate culturally affirming teaching
methods must become the exception
rather than the standard. Classroom
teachers and educational leaders must
be trained to understand these issues
and be adequately prepared to ad-
dress them (Andrews & Martin, 2008;
DeLana, Gentry, & Martin, 2005). Sys-
temic change must be initiated at all
levels of the profession, including
classrooms, administration, teacher
and leadership training programs,
and higher education (Andrews &
Covell, 2006).
Intellectual Oppression of
the Deaf Community
The Deaf community shares character-
istics of other oppressed minorities.
For instance, many of its members are
undereducated and underemployed,
and experience inequalities regard-
ing race, gender, and socioeconomic
status (Schuchman, 1996; Vernon &
Makowsky, 1969). Historically, deaf
children have been provided inferior
education in inferior facilities with
poorly trained teachers (Dunn, 1992;
Van Cleve, 1993). This is especially
true for deaf children of color. Because
of these inequities, deaf Americans,
like other oppressed groups, have
been forced into aggressive self-advo-
cacy to uphold their constitutional
rights (Charmatz, Geer, Vargas, Brick,
e d a n
d r d
n
S
H
ix
t y
O n e
Ye
160
ar
s
& Strauss, 2000) and self-governance
(Christiansen & Barnett, 1995).
A bottle metaphor can be used to
illustrate the many barriers faced by
deaf students (Simms, 2007). The bot-
tle metaphor begins with a diagnosis
of hearing loss. Of the 12,000 babies
born annually in the United States
with some form of hearing loss, only
half show a risk factor. Traditionally,
only this high-risk population was
tested, and as a result only 10% to 20%
of all infants with hearing loss were
identified (Elssmann, Matkin, & Sabo,
1987). Optimistically, trends toward
implementing and improving early
hearing detection and intervention
programs have been accelerating be-
cause of the 1998–1999 American
Academy of Pediatrics recommenda-
tion that all infants be screened for
hearing loss, and that intervention be-
gin as early as possible when hearing
loss has been detected ( Joint Com-
mittee on Infant Hearing, 2007).
Mandatory newborn infant screening
laws have developed in many states,
as legislators have became aware that
hearing loss affected 1 to 3 babies per
1,000 (Scholl, 2007).
Precise demographic data on deaf
children of color in these newborn in-
fant screening and early intervention
programs is not readily available due
to weaknesses in tracking protocols
(Scholl, 2007). Many children of color
have fallen into the group of uniden-
tified newborns with hearing loss,
which has had the effect of post-
poning identification until delays in
speech and language acquisition are
detected during the early school years.
Misdiagnosis often has led to children
being put into classrooms for students
who are mentally retarded or who are
classified (or inappropriately classi-
fied) with disorders such as attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, atten-
tion deficit disorder, and oppositional
disorder (Scholl, 2007). Late identifica-
385
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 386
APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION
tion also often has meant a critical de-
lay or total disregard for much-needed
early intervention services (Scholl,
2007; U.S. Office of Special Education
Programs, 2000; Yoshinaga-Itano, 2006;
Yoshinaga-Itano, Sedley, Coulter, &
Mehl, 1998).
Cultural differences may add to the
difficulties of identification and early
intervention (Palmer et al., 2007).
Many professionals may not have an
understanding of how a particular cul-
tural group perceives deaf people
(Leigh, 1999). Palmer and colleagues
studied 139 families of deaf children
from diverse backgrounds. Their study
found these parents to have different
beliefs and attitudes toward newborn
infant screenings related to genetic
causes of hearing loss. For instance,
the researchers found that the rea-
sons families sought genetic testing
for hearing loss varied as a function
of family ethnicity. While all parents
sought genetic testing to understand
why their child was deaf, Asian or His-
panic parents were more likely than
White parents to view family planning,
helping with their child’s medical
care, and helping the family as impor-
tant reasons for testing. Understand-
ing different perspectives on genetic
testing will enhance professionals’
cultural competence and facilitate in-
teractions with parents.
The bottle metaphor continues to
illustrate a system that fails many
deaf children, particularly those of
color. On reaching school age, most
deaf children are first placed in
monolingual programs emphasizing
speech and audition When oral-aural
options fail to facilitate language ac-
quisition, many are moved to Total
Communication classrooms, where
language-mixing approaches predom-
inate (Bernstein & Morrison, 1992).
Akamatsu, Musselman, and Zweibel
(2000) found that by preschool about
67% children with hearing loss are still
386
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
being educated orally. When language
acquisition develops inadequately
through oral/aural means, usually by
elementary school, only about 58%
of the children stay in oral/aural pro-
grams. The remaining students are
moved into signing environments. By
middle and high school, the propor-
tion has declined to 31% in oral/aural
environments.
The point being made is that often
these early classrooms fail to provide
early adequate exposure to a complete
linguistic code, with the result being
impoverished language skills, both
oral and signed, during the early years
(Andrews, 2002). Additionally, a cogni-
tively demanding curriculum is sacri-
ficed in attempts to accommodate
severe language deprivation (Johnson
et al., 1989).
As these deaf children reach the
third grade, they experience the de-
mands of high-stake testing mandated
by the No Child Left Behind Act. Most
either fail state assessments or are fil-
tered into alternative assessment op-
tions (Cawthon, 2004). Falling further
behind in language skill and in aca-
demic content knowledge, many are
socially promoted, continuing on to
grades 5 through 8 with second- to
third-grade reading levels (Johnson et
al., 1989). During the high school years
and even past 18 years of age, some
deaf students are sent to residential
schools for the deaf for independent
living skills and job training (C. Bugen,
personal communication, November
29, 2007; P. Shaw, personal communi-
cation, November 27, 2007). Many of
these individuals exit high school with
a certificate of attendance rather than a
diploma, and thus are left with insuffi-
cient credentials to compete in the job
market or to qualify for entrance into
postsecondary programs. Instead, they
are relegated to work programs or
trade schools (P. Shaw, personal com-
munication, November 27, 2007).
By age 18 years, however, deaf stu-
dents of color may drop out, struggle
to sustain employment, and rely on
Supplemental Security Income or
group home options (Dunn, 1992;
1995; Turk, 1995). Dunn (1995) has
noted that in the case of Black deaf
youth, many of their lives do not im-
prove once they get out of school;
they can remain on the vocational re-
habilitation caseload as long as 5 years
without being placed in permanent
job positions. Many of these deaf
adults, unable to maneuver through
society effectively, make poor life
choices. Consequently, some become
entrapped in the criminal justice sys-
tem, unable to provide themselves an
adequate defense due in part to illiter-
acy in English, and often because of
weak or nonexistent sign language
skills (LaVigne & Vernon, 2003; Miller,
2001).
The more fortunate ones find ways
to further their education. Only a
small percentage enter postsecondary
education, thanks to discrepancies
and biases on college entrance exams.
According to the 2004 Gallaudet Uni-
versity Enrollment Report, deaf stu-
dents as well as deaf students of color
have high dismissal and withdrawal
rates and low levels of graduation and
persistence.
In fall 2004, a total of 1,136 deaf stu-
dents were enrolled at Gallaudet Uni-
versity. Of this enrollment, 672 were
White (59%), 138 were African Ameri-
can (12%), 81 (7%) were Latino, 54
were Asian American (5%), and the re-
mainder were international students,
Native American, or of unknown back-
ground.
Using these same 2004 enrollment
Gallaudet figures, we found that of
the 241 deaf students who withdrew
or were dismissed during the 2004 ac-
ademic year, 40 (17%) were African
American, 12 were Latino (5%), 10
(4%) were Asian American, and 136
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 387

e d a n
d r d
n

S
H

ix
t y
O n e

Ye
160

(56%) were White. Thus, more than
25% of the students who dropped out
were from diverse backgrounds.
Of those who do graduate, less
than 20% are from diverse back-
grounds. That is, of the 148 students
who graduated from fall 2004 to fall
2005, a total of 104 (70%) were White,
11 (7%) were African American, 5
(3%) were Asian American, and 6 (4%)
were Latino. Furthermore, of those
deaf undergraduates who do gradu-
ate, few proceed to graduate school,
often because of stumbling blocks re-
sulting from an inability to pass stan-
dardized tests such as the Graduate
Record Exam or Law School Admis-
sion Test (Mounty & Martin, 2005).
Deaf youth with lower socioeconomic
status may also be stymied, as they
cannot pay high tuition rates. Assis-
tance from vocational rehabilitation
services may be difficult to obtain.
The small percentage who do enter
graduate programs in teacher educa-
tion experience obstacles in passing
state certification exams, such as the
PRAXIS, a national test for teacher cer-
tification, despite successful comple-
tion of their degree program (Mounty
& Martin, 2005).
Diversity Among Deaf
Children and the
Teaching Force
America’s deaf children are becoming
increasingly racially and ethnically di-
verse (see Table 1). This demographic
trend merits attention. Unfortunately,
the teaching force does not mirror stu-
dent diversity (Andrews & Jordan,
1993). For instance, Jensema and Cor-
bett (1980), Woodward (1985), Cohen,
Fischgrund, and Redding (1990), and
Moores (1992) found less than 10% di-
versity among deaf education profes-
sionals (see Table 2). Recall that in
Table 1 a total of 49.3% of deaf chil-
dren were shown to be of diverse
origin in the 2004–2005 academic year.
In sharp contrast, the most recent
study (Andrews & Jordan, 1993) found
only 15.2% of professionals to be deaf,
10.4% to be persons of color, and 1.2%
to be deaf persons of color.
This is not to suggest that ethnicity
or hearing status should be the main
variable in determining who is pre-
pared and hired. Above all, compe-
tence in academic subject area,
bilingual competence, and pedagogi-
cal practices are necessary. However,
knowledge of the needs of ethnic and
ar
s
multicultural communities is also criti-
cal. When the teacher and leadership
forces are predominantly White and
hearing though the student popula-
tion is increasingly diverse, key issues
regarding the recruitment, prepara-
tion, and retention of additional deaf
teachers and teachers of color in
teacher education programs and hiring
practices in schools cannot be over-
looked (Andrews & Martin, 1998).
The field of education has much to
share with deaf education regarding
inequities in educating students of
color. For example, Jonathan Kozal’s
books (1991, 2005) provide a heart-
wrenching inside picture of the
inferior quality of education in sub-
standard facilities provided to poor,
urban Black and Hispanic youths. J.
Anderson (2007) describes a concept
of “race-conscious” educational policy,
claiming that only through the study of
multiethnic history can the complex
ways that racial ideology has shaped
beliefs and behaviors be understood.
Milner (2007, p. 397) claims that issues
of race and culture are important
when one is conducting educational
research, cautioning researchers to
“honor those communities in ways

Table 1
Ethnic/Cultural Background of Deaf Children in the United States: 1973–2005
1973–1974 1983–1984 1993–1994 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005
N 43,794 53,184 46,099 43,861 43,416 42,361 40,282 38,744 37,500
White 31,115 35,069 27,779 23,384 22,992 21,892 20,280 19,640 18,712
75.8% 67.0% 60.3% 54.7% 53.9% 52.6% 51.2% 51.5% 50.7%
African 6,407 9,337 7,935 6,945 6,757 6,607 6,084 5,880 5,647
American 15.6% 17.8% 17.2% 16.3% 15.9% 15.9% 15.4% 15.4% 15.3%
Hispanic 2,987 5,720 7,381 8,903 9,299 9,489 9,695 9,226 9,226
7.3% 10.9% 16.0% 20.8% 21.8% 22.8% 24.5% 24.2% 25.0%
Asian–Pacific 278 1,130 1,760 1,721 1,681 1,768 1,698 1,567 1,512
Islander 0.7% 2.2% 3.8% 4.0% 3.9% 4.2% 4.3% 4.1% 4.1%
American 177 267 312 370 350 327 329 329 307
Indian 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8%
Other 106 479 638 692 727 687 669 688 708
0.3% 0.9% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9%
Multi-ethnic 298 294 723 797 838 823 819 805
NA
0.6% 0.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2%

387

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 388

APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION

Table 2 in the 2004 replication, a traditional

Studies Examining Diversity in the Deaf Education Workforce paper survey was mailed to all pro-
Study Sample grams listed in the program directory
Significant findings of the annual reference issue of the
Jensema & Corbett (1980) 868 teachers of the deaf in the United States American Annals of the Deaf (April
White teachers: 94% 1991 and April 2004). Three types of
Female teachers: 83% programs were represented in the
Deaf teachers: 14% comprehensive lists: K–12 public
Woodward (1985) Database 1: 4,840 teachers of the deaf; schools, K–12 residential schools, and
only 10 Black deaf teachers university teacher-preparation pro-
Database 2: 1,947 teachers of the deaf; Only 3 Black
grams. In 1993, the survey was distrib-
deaf teachers
uted to the comprehensive list of 893
Database 3: 73 residential schools; only 14 Black
programs (Andrews & Jordan, 1993).
deaf teachers
Cohen, Fischgrund, 986 deaf education programs
The original study had 349 returns, for
& Redding (1990) Student diversity: 35.6% a response rate of 39%, and resulted
Minority faculty: 6.8% in a database of 6,043 deaf education
Black faculty: 4.5% professionals serving 25,769 deaf chil-
Hispanic faculty: 1.3% dren (Andrews & Jordan, 1993). Simi-
Native American faculty: 0.1% larly, the 2004 mail-out of 960 yielded
Asian–Pacific Islander faculty: 0.9% 313 completed questionnaires; this
Moores (1992) 213 Teachers of the deaf replication had a 33% response rate
Hearing teachers: 85% and resulted in a database of 3,227
Female teachers: 89%
deaf education professionals serving
White teachers: 90%
17,108 deaf children. Descriptive sta-
Black teachers: 5%
tistics from the 1993 study are high-
Hispanic teachers: 2%
Asian–Pacific Islander teachers: 2%
lighted in the present article to frame
Andrews & Jordan (1993) 6,043 deaf education professionals from 349 K–12 and the 2004 replication.
deaf education teacher-training programs
Minority professionals: 10.4% Instrumentation
Deaf professionals: 15.2% As we have noted, we conducted the
Minority administrators: 1.2% original study on diversity in 1993.
Baker, Ausbrooks, & 249 preservice teachers from 8 teacher preparation programs Then, in 2004 we replicated the study.
Dauggard (2007) Differences in recruitment and training priorities among The present article is the reporting of
deaf and hearing participants and diverse and this 2004 data. The survey question-
nondiverse participants were statistically significant.
naire was printed on a 3-inch by 5-inch
mail-back postcard. Program direc-
tors were asked to fill out the card
that maintain their integrity.” Certainly, diversity among deaf education pro- with the following information: direc-
deaf education professionals should fessionals. Implications of workforce tor’s name, name of the program, the
consider the works of writers such as diversity for educational options and number of deaf children/youth served,
Kozol, J. Anderson, and Milner when teaching practices were considered in city, state, zip code, and telephone
developing instructional policies, in conjunction with the findings of a de- number. Directors were also asked
conducting educational research, and mographic survey conducted in 1993 to provide information regarding the
in designing teacher training and doc- and replicated in 2004. levels of schooling their programs
toral leadership programs in deaf edu- provided, whether preschool/kinder-
cation (Andrews & Covell, 2006). Methodology garten, elementary, junior high, high
Being descriptive in nature, the pres- school, or teacher training.
Purpose of the Study ent study employed survey methodol- Compacted grids were used to ease
The purpose of the present study was ogy with a purposive, comprehensive completion of other demographic data
to gather descriptive data regarding sample. In the original 1993 study and such as population numbers, ethnicity,

388

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 389
gender, and hearing status. Ethnic/cul-
tural categories were broadly defined.
White was defined as Anglo-American
and not Latino. Latino was defined
as Mexican American, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, or others from other South or
Central American countries. Asian/
Pacific Islander (Asian/PI) was defined
as Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese,
Laotian, Hmong, Hawaiian, Philippine,
or other Pacific island ancestry. The
multiethnic/other category referred
to Native American, Middle Eastern,
mixed-race ancestry, and any other
defined by the respondent. This cre-
ated a limitation within the study since
respondents did not specify back-
grounds of professionals in this cate-
gory. Detailed information on Native
Americans, Middle Easterners, Euro-
pean Americans, or other mixed-race
Americans employed in deaf education
was not ascertained.
Results
Data analysis included reviews of de-
scriptive statistics regarding certain
demographic attributes: ethnicity,
Figure 1
Comparisons of Teachers in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Ethnicity
100%
89.9% 91.3%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White
Note: PI, Pacific Islander.
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
gender, hearing status, program type,
and geographical region. Data for
teachers and administrators were sep-
arated during some analyses and ag-
gregated for others.
Ethnic Background
Persons of color represented only
9.5% of teachers in the 2004 replica-
tion (see Figure 1, which compares
this finding, broken out by racial/eth-
nic group, with that from the original
1993 study). In both databases, White
teachers were the majority, account-
ing for 90.0% of the teaching force in
1993 and 91.3% in 2004. There was a
slight increase in teachers of Asian/PI
origin and a decrease in those of Black
origin. These changes were not con-
sidered substantial, suggesting that
hiring practices were unchanged.
Of the 461 administrators surveyed
in 2004, 80.7% were White (n = 372).
Thirteen percent of administrators
chose not to report ethnicity. Persons
of color represented only 6.1% of ad-
ministrators (n = 28). Figure 2 com-
pares the 1993 and 2004 databases of
6.7%
3.2%
2.2% 3.8%
Latino Black Asian/PI
e d a n
d r d
n
S
H
ix
t y
O n e
Ye
160
ar
s
administrators. As was the case for
teachers, White administrators pre-
dominated, despite an 8% decline.
Numbers of Latino and Black adminis-
trators decreased, and Asian/PI ad-
ministrators increased slightly. Again,
these changes were not considered
substantial, denoting no change in
workforce trends.
Hearing Status
Of the 2,766 teachers in the 2004 data-
base, only 22.1% were deaf (n = 610).
Only 2.5% of teachers were deaf
teachers of color (n = 69; see Figure
3). Compared to the 1993 database,
there was a 5.0% increase in White
deaf teachers, a 6.9% decrease in
Black deaf teachers, and a slight in-
crease in Latino and Asian/PI deaf
teachers.
Regarding administrators, 85.5%
were hearing (n = 394) and 14.5%
were deaf (n = 67). Only 0.6% of ad-
ministrators were deaf persons of
color (n = 3). No Latino deaf or
Asian/PI deaf persons were identified
within the population (see Figure 4).
1993 data, N = 5,166
2004 data, N = 2,766
Teachers
1.0% 2.0% 0.5% 0.4%
Other
389
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 390

APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION

Figure 2
Comparisons of Administrators in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Ethnicity

100%
88.3%
90%
80.7% 1993 data, N = 877
80%
2004 data, N = 461
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
5.9%
10% 4.0% 1.7% 2.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7%
0%
White Latino Black Asian/PI Other

Note: PI, Pacific Islander.

Overall, there was a slight increase in
deaf teachers (from 16% to 22%) and
in deaf administrators (13% to 14%)
from 1993 to 2004. However, deaf per-
sons of color continued to be under-
represented in the workforce.
Gender
As Figure 5 shows, most teachers in
2004 were female, with the majority of
those being White and hearing. Not
surprisingly, there were considerably
more female than male teachers of
color. Interestingly, gender differ-
ences were present to a lesser extent
among deaf teachers.
Most administrators in 2004 were
also female (see Figure 6). The per-
centage of female administrators had

Figure 3
Comparisons of Teachers in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Hearing Status
25%

19.5% 1993 data, N = 5,166 teachers

20%
2004 data, N =2,766 teachers

15% 14.3%

10%
7.1%

5%

0.8% 0.0% 1.0% 0.1 % 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%

0%
White deaf Black deaf Latino deaf Asian/PI deaf Other deaf
Note: PI, Pacific Islander.

390

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 391

e d a n
d r d
n

S
H

ix
t y
O n e

Ye
160

ar
s
Figure 4
Comparisons of Administrators in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Hearing Status
16%
13.9%
14%
12.0% 1993 data, N = 877
12% 2004 data, N = 461

10%

8%

6%

4%

2% 0.5%
0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
0.0%
0%
White deaf Black deaf Latino deaf Asian/PI deaf Other deaf

Note: PI, Pacific Islander.

increased significantly since the 1993
study, from about half to about two
thirds. However, this phenomenon oc-
curred only among hearing administra-
tors. As was the case with the teacher
database, gender differences were not
present among deaf teachers, with
6.7% being female (n = 31) and 7.5%
being male (n = 39). Unfortunately,
only 3 deaf administrators of color
were identified in the database, repre-
senting less than 0.6% of the group.
Program Type, Ethnicity,
Gender, and Hearing Status
Teacher and administrator databases
were aggregated (N = 3,277) to ex-
amine demographic data within dif-
ferent types of programs: K–12 public

Figure 5
Comparisons of Teachers in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Gender, Hearing Status, and Ethnicity

100%

78.4% 80.3%
80%
1993 data, N = 5,166
62.3% 62.0% 2004 data, N = 2,766
60%

40%

21.6%
20% 12.0% 14.4% 13.2%
8.0%
7.5% 7.9% 6.3% 5.5%
5.5%
0.6% 1.2% 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%
0%
Female White White deaf Hearing Deaf Male White White deaf Hearing Deaf males
teachers hearing females females of females of teachers hearing males males of of color
females color color males color

391

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 392

APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION

Figure 6
Comparisons of Administrators in 1993 and 2004 Survey Databases by Gender, Hearing Status, and Ethnicity

80%
67.4%
1993 data, N = 877
60% 57.7%
2004 data, N = 462
50.5% 50.6%

38.4% 37.7%
40%
31.2%

22.3%
20%
9.2%
4.8% 6.5% 4.1% 7.3% 7.4% 4.8%
0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0%
0%
Female White White Hearing Deaf Male White White Hearing Deaf
admins. hearing deaf females females admins. hearing deaf males of males of
females of color of color males males color color

schools, K–12 residential schools,
and university teacher-training pro-
grams (see Figure 7). Across all set-
tings, professionals were primarily
White, female, and hearing in the
2004 database. Interestingly, deaf
professionals, professionals of color,
and male professionals were more
frequently reported in residential
schools than in other settings. From
1993 to 2004 there was an increase in
White professionals in public schools.
Additionally, there was more than a
doubling in the representation of deaf
teachers in public schools from 7.3%
to 15.4%. Decreases among profes-
sionals of color occurred in residential
schools (3%) and in public schools

Figure 7
Comparisons of Professionals in the 2004 Survey Database by Program Type, Ethnicity, Hearing Status, and Gender
60%
Public schools, N = 1703
Residential schools, N = 1312
Teacher training programs, N = 224
45.4%
41.8% 40.9%
40%
31.3%

26.6%
23.9%

20%

9.6%
6.10% 7.5%
5.36% 6.1%
3.5% 3.8% 4.40% 4.7%
0.84% 1.27% 1.24%
0%
White Professionals Hearing Deaf professionals Female Male professionals
professionals of color professionals professionals

392

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 393

e d a n
d r d
n

S
H

ix
t y
O n e

Ye
160

ar
s
Table 3
Distribution of Diverse Professionals by State
Asian-
State White Black Hispanic Pacific Islander Multiethnic Other N =3,277
Alabama 74 8 0 0 0 0 82
Arizona 18 0 0 1 0 0 19
Arkansas 6 0 0 0 0 0 6
California 361 21 35 27 2 0 446
Colorado 65 1 2 0 0 0 68
Connecticut 46 1 0 0 1 1 49
District of Columbia 54 1 2 3 0 0 60
Florida 31 1 0 0 0 0 32
Georgia 109 16 1 0 0 0 126
Hawaii 20 1 0 12 1 0 34
Illinois 168 6 1 3 0 1 179
Indiana 12 0 0 0 0 0 12
Iowa 75 0 1 0 0 0 76
Kansas 48 1 2 2 0 0 53
Kentucky 40 2 0 0 0 0 42
Louisiana 118 14 0 1 0 0 133
Maine 19 0 0 0 0 0 19
Maryland 11 0 0 0 0 0 11
Massachusetts 50 0 0 2 0 0 52
Michigan 144 5 1 0 0 0 150
Minnesota 82 0 1 1 0 0 84
Mississippi 8 0 0 0 0 0 8
Missouri 33 2 0 1 0 0 36
Montana 14 0 0 0 0 0 14
Nebraska 11 0 0 0 0 0 11
Nevada 39 1 0 1 0 0 41
New Jersey 102 1 0 1 0 0 104
New Mexico 44 0 6 1 1 0 52
New York 187 4 8 1 0 0 200
North Carolina 21 0 0 1 0 0 22
North Dakota 17 0 0 0 0 0 17
Ohio 142 2 1 2 0 0 147
Oklahoma 8 2 1 1 0 0 12
Oregon 10 0 0 0 1 0 11
Pennsylvania 130 1 1 0 0 0 132
South Carolina 78 4 0 0 0 0 82
South Dakota 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
Tennessee 24 2 0 0 0 0 26
Texas 244 7 20 0 4 0 275
Utah 39 1 0 0 2 0 42
Vermont 19 0 0 0 0 0 19
Washington 62 0 0 1 0 0 63
West Virginia 62 0 0 0 0 0 62
Wisconsin 41 0 1 0 0 0 42
Note. Survey responses were not received from Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wyoming.

393

VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 394
APARTHEID IN DEAF EDUCATION
(5%). Deaf teachers employed at
teacher-training programs showed a
2% increase.
Geographic Distribution of
Professionals
The greatest concentrations of deaf
professionals were reported in Califor-
nia (n = 191), Minnesota (n = 39), the
District of Columbia (n = 37), New
York (n = 32), Texas (n = 30), New
Mexico (n = 28), Alabama (n = 28),
Washington (n = 26), Ohio (n = 23),
Michigan (n = 23), Illinois (n = 17),
Colorado (n = 17), Kansas (n = 17),
and Pennsylvania (n = 17 ). The great-
est concentrations of professionals
of color were reported in California (n
= 83), Texas (n = 27), and Georgia (n
= 16). See Figure 9. Table 3 provides
the geographic distribution of these
diverse professionals.
Conclusion
Deaf education continues to be domi-
nated by White, hearing, female profes-
sionals. Given that K–12 deaf students
of color represent almost 50% of the
school-age population, the need for di-
versified teachers and administrators is
evident. Clearly, workforce trends fall
short of the ideal.
The lack of ethnically diverse teach-
ers and administrators is not solely the
fault of university leaders in teacher
and doctoral programs. Clearly, other
careers such as law, medicine, telecom-
munications, and business have at-
tracted potential teacher education
students with higher salaries than
those salaries found in the education
field.
Nationwide, there are indications
of progress in hiring more deaf and di-
verse faculty. For instance, the admin-
istrative head at Gallaudet University
is deaf and Latino; at the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf, the
head is deaf; and at California State
University, Northridge, the head is
394
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
deaf and female. In addition, of the 13
faculty in deaf education at Gallaudet
University there are 6 deaf faculty, 2 of
whom are persons of color. While
there is awareness and action has
been taken at these universities to di-
versity the leadership and faculty
workforce, the data suggest that more
action is needed in K–12 programs
and university teacher and leadership
programs to diversity the workforce.
The lack of ethnically diverse teach-
ers and administrators is not the sole
reason why deaf children are caught in
the bottleneck of opportunity. Such
simplistic answers seldom tell the
whole story. Complex issues surround
the failure of deaf education to raise
academic standards and provide equal
opportunity or equal outcomes. The
issues center not only on who is hired
in educational settings but also on the
paradigms regarding issues of diver-
sity. The politics of authority struc-
tures, racism, audism, and oppressive
language and academic policies often
work against deaf children’s early
struggle to acquire language, an aca-
demic foundation, and a healthy cul-
tural identity. Professionals must allow
language and cultural understanding
to naturally and freely emerge, evolve,
and develop. When language and cul-
ture becomes more valued, the hiring
of deaf teachers and teachers of color
will naturally follow, due to the prag-
matic need to tap their intelligence
and their multilingual and multicul-
tural talents.
Note
This paper was partially funded by
Training Doctoral Leaders Grant No.
H325E040078 and Project Deaf Mosaic
Grant No. H325K055110–07, U.S. De-
partment of Education grant projects
at Lamar University, Beaumont, TX.
References
Akamatsu, C. T., Musselman, C., & Zweibel, A.
(2000). Nature versus nurture in the devel-
opment of cognition in deaf people. In
P. Spencer, C. Erting, & M. Marschark (Eds.),
The deaf child in the family and at school
(pp. 255–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, G. (1994). Tools for a wiser, health-
ier, black deaf community. Deafness, Life,
and Culture: A Deaf American Monograph,
44, 1–4.
Anderson, G. (2007, July). African-American
Deaf. Paper presented at a meeting of the
Texas Association for the Deaf, Arlington, TX.
Anderson, J. (2007). Race-conscious educa-
tional policies versus a “color-blind constitu-
tion”: A historical perspective. Educational
Researcher, 36(5), 249–257.
Andrews, J. (2002). Bilingual language ap-
proaches for deaf students. Speech and
Hearing Review, 3, 277–310.
Andrews, J., & Covell, J. (2006). Preparing future
teachers and doctoral-level leaders in deaf
education: Meeting the challenge. Ameri-
can Annals of the Deaf, 151(6), 464–475.
Andrews, J., & Jordan, D. (1993). Minority and
minority-deaf professionals: How many and
where are they? American Annals of the
Deaf, 138(5), 388–396.
Andrews, J., & Martin, T. (1998). Hopwood, af-
firmative action, and deaf education. Ameri-
can Annals of the Deaf, 143(4), 305–313.
Andrews, J., & Martin, T. (2008). Shaping the
river: Preparing diverse doctoral-level
leadership in deaf education. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Baker, S., Ausbrooks, M., & Dauggard, J. (2007).
Recruiting diverse teachers: A survey of pre-
service teachers. Unpublished manuscript.
Bernstein, M., & Morrison, M. (1992). Are we
ready for P.L. 99–457? American Annals of
the Deaf, 137(1), 7–13.
Cawthon, S. (2004). Schools for the deaf and
the No Child Left Behind Act. American An-
nals of the Deaf, 149(4), 314–323.
Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R.
(2000). Language acquisition by eye. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Charmatz, M., Geer, A., Vargas, S., Brick, B., &
Strauss, S. (2000). Legal rights: A guide for
deaf and hard of hearing people (5th ed.).
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Christiansen, J., & Barnett, S. (1995). Deaf presi-
dent now! The 1988 revolution at Gallaudet
University. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Uni-
versity Press.
Cohen, O., Fischgrund, J., & Redding, R. (1990).
Deaf children from ethnic and racial minor-
ity backgrounds. American Annals of the
Deaf, 135(2), 67–93.
DeLana, M., Gentry, M., & Andrews, J. (2007).
The efficacy of ASL/English bilingual educa-
tion: Investigating public schools. Ameri-
can Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 73–87.
DeLana, M., Gentry, M., & Martin, T. (2005): Deaf
mosaic: Training highly qualified teachers
of the deaf for Texas and Louisiana. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF
17167-AAD153.4 10/22/08 2:23 PM Page 395
Dunn, L. (1992). Intellectual oppression of the
Black deaf child. Deafness, Life, and Culture:
A Deaf American Monograph, 42, 75–79.
Dunn, L. (1995). Education, culture, and com-
munity: The Black Deaf experience. Deaf-
ness, Life, and Culture: A Deaf American
Monograph, 45, 37–41.
Elssmann, S., Matkin, N., & Sabo, M. (1987).
Early identification of congenital
sensorineural hearing impairment. The Hear-
ing Journal, 40, 13–17.
Gallaudet University, Office of Planning. (2004).
Enrollment report. Washington, DC: Gal-
laudet University.
Holcomb, T., & Peyton, J. K. (1992). ESL literacy
for a linguistic minority: The Deaf experi-
ence. Retrieved December 14, 2004, from
http://www.cal.org/caela/digests/ESL_LITER-
ACY.HTML.
Holt, J., Traxler, C., & Allen, T. (1997). Interpret-
ing the scores: A user’s guide to the ninth
edition Stanford Achievement Test for edu-
cators of deaf and hard of hearing students
(Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Re-
port No. 97–1). Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University.
Jensema, C., & Corbett, E. (1980). A demo-
graphic overview of teachers of the hearing
impaired. American Annals of the Deaf,
125(1), 12–16.
Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989). Un-
locking the curriculum. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet Research Institute.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007).
Year 2007 position statement: Principles and
guidelines for early hearing detection and
intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120(4),
898–921.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children
in America’s schools. New York: Crown.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The
restoration of apartheid schooling in
America. New York: Crown.
Krentz, C. (1996). Historical parallels between
the African American and Deaf American
communities. In M. Garretson (Ed.), Deaf-
ness: Historical perspectives: A Deaf Ameri-
can monograph (pp. 69–74). Washington,
DC: National Association of the Deaf.
LaSasso, C., & Lollis, J. (2003). Survey of resi-
dential and day schools for deaf students in
the United States that identify themselves as
bilingual-bicultural programs. Journal of
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(1),
79–91.
VOLUME 153, NO. 4, 2008
View publication stats
LaVigne, M., & Vernon, M. (2003). An inter-
preter is not enough: Deafness, language,
and due process. Wisconsin Law Journal, 5,
843–936.
Leigh, I. (1999). (Ed.). Psychotherapy with deaf
clients from diverse groups. Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Lerer, S. (2008). The history of the English lan-
guage (2nd ed.). Chantilly, VA: The Teaching
Company.
Linderman, A. (1994). Oppression, culture of
poverty, and deaf people. A Deaf American
Monograph, 42, 53–58.
Miller, K. (2001). The forensics study of deaf
criminal offenders in Texas. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Lamar University,
Beaumont, TX.
Milner IV, H. (2007). Race, culture, and re-
searcher positionality: Working through
dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Ed-
ucational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
Moores, D. (1992). Minority, poor, and deaf.
American Annals of the Deaf, 137(3), 251.
Moores, D., & Oden, C. (1977). Educational
needs of Black deaf children. American An-
nals of the Deaf, 122(3), 313–318.
Mounty, J., & Martin, D. (Eds.). (2005). Assess-
ing deaf adults: Critical issues in testing
and evaluation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Nikolaraizi, M., & Makri, M. (2004). Deaf and
hearing individuals’ beliefs about the capa-
bilities of deaf people. American Annals of
the Deaf, 139(5), 404–414.
Nover, S., & Andrews, J. (1998). Critical peda-
gogy in deaf education: Bilingual method-
ology and staff development. USDLC Star
Schools project. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico
School for the Deaf.
Nover, S., Andrews, J., Baker, S., Everhardt, V., &
Bradford, M. (2002). ASL/English bilingual
staff development in deaf education. US-
DLC Star Schools project: Evaluation and
impact study. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico
School for the Deaf.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Inside
Deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign
Language and reading ability in deaf chil-
dren. In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R.
Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by
eye (pp. 165–189. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palmer, C., Martinez, A., Fox, M., Sininger, Y.,
Grody, W., & Schimmenti, L. (2007). Ethnic
e d a n
d r d
n
S
H
ix
t y
O n e
Ye
160
ar
s
differences in parental perceptions of ge-
netic testing for deaf infants. Journal of Ge-
netic Counseling, 17(1), 129–138.
Rittenhouse, R., Johnson, C., Overton, B., Free-
man, S., & Jaussi, K. (1991). The Black and
Deaf movements in America since 1960.
American Annals of the Deaf, 136(5),
392–400.
Scholl, J. (2007). Newborn horizons. Advance
for Audiologists, 9(5), 52, 54–58.
Schuchman, J. (1996). History and Deaf stud-
ies: An essay. Deafness: Historical Perspec-
tives, a Deaf American Monograph, 46,
123–126.
Simms, L. (2007, February). Miseducation of
Black deaf students. Paper presented at a
meeting of the Georgia Society for the Ad-
vancement of Visual-Oriented/Deaf People
of Color, Atlanta, GA.
Simms, L., & Thumann, H. (2007). In search of
a new, linguistically and culturally sensitive
paradigm in deaf education. American An-
nals of the Deaf, 152(3), 302–311.
Turk, F. (1995). The axe falls on the Central
School. DeafLife, 7 (8).
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
(2000). OSEP monitoring reports. Retrieved
November 27, 2007, from http://www.ed
.gov//policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index
.html.
Van Cleve, J. (1993). Deaf history unveiled: In-
terpretations of the new scholarship. Wash-
ington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Vernon, M. (1970). The role of deaf teachers in
the education of deaf children. Deaf Ameri-
can, 23, 17–20.
Vernon, M., & Makowsky, B. (1969). Deaf and
minority group dynamics. Deaf American,
21, 3–6.
Woodward, J. (1985). Black deaf teachers: Short
supply. Perspectives for Teachers of the Hear-
ing Impaired, 4(1), 18–19.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2006). Early identification,
communication modality, and the develop-
ment of speech and spoken-language
skills: Patterns and considerations. In P.
Spencer & M. Marschark (Eds.), Advances
in the spoken-language development of
deaf children and hard of hearing chil-
dren (pp. 298–327). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedley, A., Coulter, B., &
Mehl, A. (1998). Language of early and later-
identified children with hearing loss. Pedi-
atrics, 102, 1168–1171.
395
AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF