Introduction

Language education policy (LEP) shapes educational systems and fosters inclusive and accessible learning environments. While spoken languages dominate the research on LEP, this article will focus on language education policy for deaf children (LEPD),Footnote 1 where the contents are very similar, with a central focus on sign language. This policy is particularly significant for individuals who are deafFootnote 2 or hard of hearing, as language is essential for their cognitive, social, and educational development. Among the various sign languages used worldwide, Irish Sign Language (ISL) holds a unique position in Ireland as the primary language of the Irish deaf community.Footnote 3 Recognising the importance of ISL in education is vital for promoting linguistic justice and educational success for deaf individuals.

This article delves into the intricate web of literature surrounding LEPD in Ireland. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the existing literature on LEPD. By doing so, I aim to fill gaps in understanding, highlight nuanced perspectives, and contribute to a more holistic comprehension of the challenges faced by deaf children in education. To underscore the urgency of our exploration, let us reflect on a recommendation from the National Council for Special Education's review of Special Needs AssistantsFootnote 4:

“Students who are profoundly deaf (without a cochlear implant) may require a competent ISL communicator to support them in the school setting” (NCSE-National Council for Special Education, 2018, 23).

The NCSE recommendation suggests that ISL is only recommended for deaf children without cochlear implants, raising concerns about ableism and audism.Footnote 5 This recommendation excludes deaf children with hearing devices from accessing ISL, which contrasts with research findings advocating for all children, regardless of their hearing status or having cochlear implants, to have immediate access to ISL (Hall et al., 2019; Napoli et al., 2015). The NCSE’s recommendation displays bias toward a specific communication method, putting ISL at a disadvantage and showing ignorance about its benefits. This recommendation encapsulates a pressing concern surrounding LEPD in Ireland, setting the stage for our literature-based analysis.

LEPD in Ireland has undergone significant shifts (Crean, 1997; Griffey, 1994; Leeson & Saaed, 2012; Leonard, 2023). In the nineteenth century and well into the late 1990s, the predominant approach was oralism, which emphasised spoken language acquisition and discouraged the use of sign languages. This approach often marginalised ISL and hindered deaf individuals from accessing education in their preferred language (Conama, 2010, 2013).

However, there have been significant developments in LEPD concerning ISL in recent years. The introduction of the ISL Act in 2017 marked a significant milestone, recognising ISL as a distinct language and providing legal protection for its use and promotion. The Act aims to enhance access to ISL and promote its recognition in various domains, including education (Irish Sign Language Act, 2017). The emergence of the UN Convention of Rights for Persons with DisabilitiesFootnote 6 adds significance to LEPD (Murray et al., 2018, 2020). Despite ISL being present in Irish life for the last three centuries (Conama & Leonard, 2020), the enactment of ISL recognition in 2017 signifies a very belated acknowledgment of the rights of ISL signers.

Despite these positive advancements, current attitudes towards ISL still face challenges. Many misconceptions and biases persist, which will be explained later in this article, hindering its full recognition and integration into educational settings. Limited resources, inadequate teacher training, and a lack of awareness about the benefits of ISL can impede its implementation and support in schools.

However, looking to the future, there are opportunities to address these challenges and enhance language education policies related to ISL. The recent review of the ISL ActFootnote 7 and the ratification of the UNCRPD provides a platform for evaluating its impact and identifying areas for improvement. Efforts to change attitudes towards ISL, increase its recognition and support, and develop a proper infrastructure for teaching ISL as a viable career pursuit are essential for fostering inclusivity and equality in deaf education.

In this article, I will explore the importance of ISL in education, examine the historical context of LEPD, delve into current language education policies concerning ISL, discuss current attitudes towards ISL, and highlight the challenges and opportunities for future language education policies in promoting inclusivity and accessibility for deaf individuals. To conclude, recent events sha** current LEP have disregarded ISL’s importance as a core value in LEPD despite ample research and ethical concerns. As a deaf ISL scholar (Conama, 2021), I approach this article from the standpoint of social and linguistic justice.

Language education policy (LEP)

Language education policy (LEP) shapes language practices in education, reflecting authority-driven policies but also grassroots influences (Shohamy, 2006, p. 76). It is influenced by cultural, political, and economic factors, often used by influential groups to legitimise certain languages (Lynch, 2001). LEP decisions, such as which languages to teach and how, are often politically or ideologically motivated (Shohamy, 2006, p. 77). Influential groups in society often use LEP to legitimise a particular language and protect its status (Shohamy, 2006, p. 90). It can reproduce discrimination and injustice, even though schools are often considered neutral and universalistic (Cahill, 2020).

Spolsky presents a three-dimensional language policy model focusing on language practices, beliefs, and management, emphasising the crucial role of effective management in driving change (Spolsky, 2004: 5; Spolsky, 2022: 511). Walsh (2012) adds governance to the model, exemplified in the Official Languages Act 2003 in Ireland, revealing conflicts and contradictions between officials’ language beliefs and policy. This aspect should be considered in researching LEPD.

Regarding sign languages, Krausneker (2015) identifies five opposing ideologies impacting attitudes, hindering revitalisation efforts and framing policy deliberation as welfarist accommodation. Lo Bianco (2020) stresses the need for legal recognition to encompass the cultural aspects of sign languages, cautioning that symbolic recognition may have limited impact on community vitality. Conama (2020) analyses the influence of ideologies on the ISL recognition campaign, aligning with Krausneker's findings.

Haualand and Holstrom (2019) highlight shortcomings in the treatment of sign languages in Norway and Sweden, despite Norway having more comprehensive laws, particularly regarding the right to learn sign language. They note instances of language shaming in both countries, where sign languages face linguistic subordination, indicating that legal recognition does not fully reflect the overall acceptance and status of sign language (Haualand and Holstrom, 2019). These observations can be applied to Ireland, suggesting similar challenges in sign language acceptance and status.

LEPD is often heavily influenced by the early intervention process, which is crucial for deaf children's language acquisition and subsequent educational placement (Humphries et al., 2017). However, access to language, particularly sign language (such as ISL in Ireland), is limited for many deaf children, as they are often born into hearing families without prior exposure to sign language or deaf culture (Cradden, 2017; Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). The acquisition process of sign language is not readily accessible for deaf children, as around 90% of them are born into hearing families without prior exposure to ISL or access to deaf culture (Cradden, 2017). Delayed language acquisition in deaf children can lead to cognitive deficits, emphasising the importance of early exposure to sign language (Humphries et al., 2017).

The dominance of medical professionals in early intervention can marginalise input from the deaf community (Conama, 2013; Mathews, 2011). Inclusive education initiatives may further complicate LEPD, as mainstream schools often prioritise spoken languages over sign languages, relegating ISL to a disability-related matter (Geers et al., 2017). Cochlear implantation, which favours oral approaches, can also discourage the use of sign language, perpetuating the delay in introducing sign language if implants fail (Geers et al., 2017).

Despite these challenges, overlooking the importance of sign language in language development is refuted by research (Hall et al., 2019). These dynamics, though observed in the US, have parallels in Ireland although attitudes persist that discourage hearing parents from learning sign language (Mathews, 2011).

In summary, LEPD profoundly affects sign languages in deaf education, with factors like philosophical perspectives, early intervention, mainstreaming, cochlear implantation, and the availability of proficient sign language teachers playing crucial roles. Decisions regarding language education, including the choice of first language, teaching methods, and educators, shape deaf education policy in Ireland. It is crucial to underscore the importance of ISL in education before evaluating LEPD in Ireland.

The importance of Irish sign language (ISL) in education

From the Irish deaf community’s perspective, ISL holds immense significance in the realm of deaf education in Ireland, serving as a crucial tool for communication and learning within the deaf community of Ireland (Conama, 2013; Mathews, 2011; O'Connell, 2021a, 2021b). Recognising the pivotal role of ISL in deaf education is of utmost importance as it fosters inclusivity and accessibility within the learning environment for deaf individuals (O'Connell, 2021a, 2021b).

Emphasising the importance of ISL in deaf education becomes even more critical when considering the potential risks of language deprivation faced by deaf and hard-of-hearing children who are denied access to sign languages. Language deprivation occurs when a child lacks exposure to a fully developed and natural language during the critical period for language acquisition. This deprivation can lead to significant delays in cognitive, linguistic, and social development, ultimately impacting a child's emotional well-being in the long run (Emmorey, 2023; Hall, 2017).

Early access to sign language is also recommended for Deaf children with cochlear implants to optimise cognitive development (Hall et al., 2019). It is worth noting that sign languages, including ISL, are not correlated with hearing loss and do not hinder the ability of deaf children to learn to speak or listen (Lieberman et al., 2024). On the contrary, research suggests that learning ISL can support spoken/written language acquisition and promote bilingualism (Emmorey, 2023). Additionally, sign language enhances communication between deaf and hearing individuals by providing a visual and tactile means of interaction that can be more accessible in specific contexts than spoken language (Sagara & Zeshan, 2016). For example, the concept of "iconicity"Footnote 8 further underscores the significance of ISL in language acquisition and processing (Emmorey, 2023).

ISL stands as a unique and vibrant language deeply intertwined with deaf culture in Ireland (Conama, 2021; Leeson & Saeed, 2012; O'Connell, 2021a, 2021b). Recognising and supporting ISL in deaf education are crucial steps toward ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing children have unfettered access to a fully developed and natural language, which is imperative for their cognitive, linguistic, and social development as the World Federation of the Deaf and Irish Deaf Society's position papers urge policymakers and teachers to prioritise the importance of ISL in deaf education and take proactive measures to ensure that deaf children have access to the linguistic and cultural resources they require to thrive (WFD, 2023; IDS, 2023). They consider sign language as direct pedagogical instruction, a fundamental human right. This right is already outlined in Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Ireland has ratified the Convention but has yet to incorporate its provisions into Irish law. The ratification by the Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) should be genuinely complied with in the true spirit.

Moreover, there is an interesting yet-to-be-discussed subject related to Irish LEPD, known as 'deaf pedagogies.' Deaf teachers often draw from their lived experiences and incorporate them into their pedagogies. Recent articles by Ladd (2022), Scott et al. (2023), and Henner and Robinson (2021) provide valuable insights. Ladd uncovers hidden benefits, shedding light on lesser-known aspects. Skyer proposes re-evaluating teaching methods within Vygotsky's biosocial theories, recognising visual advantages. Henner and Robinson challenge conventional views, asserting that all languages and 'languaging' stem from complex societal stances, thereby challenging notions of language disorders.

Once we understand the importance of ISL in deaf education, we should explore the origins of LEPD, which did not arise from a single source. It is important to note that various factors, such as religion, politics, and societal attitudes towards deaf people, shaped LEPD from the nineteenth century to the late 1990s.

Previous LEPDs in Ireland (19th century to late 1990s)

Before establishing formal education systems for deaf children and the opening of schools, private tuition by affluent families played a significant role in deaf education. Breslin (2004) documented several deaf artists from the eighteenth century in Ireland who seemed to have received adequate education. Leonard (2023, p.56) mentioned John Burns, who authored an almanack book in 1775, identifying himself as deaf and dumb. It is known that many deaf individuals received private tuition in Britain during that time, and Leonard (2016) reported that deaf individuals from Ireland attended the Braidwood School for deaf children in Edinburgh. Schools like Braidwood in Britain raised awareness in Ireland, leading to the opening of Claremont, the first recognised formal school for deaf children, in 1816 (Pollard, 2006). From the emergence of Claremont, we can trace the rudimentary origins of LEPD in Ireland.

Schools for deaf children in Ireland were segregated based on various factors, including gender, religion (Catholic and Protestant), hearing loss ability, and territorial considerations. As Pollard (2006, p.76) and Leonard (2023, p.77) mentioned, Belfast established its school to cater to its specific region and reached an agreement with Claremont in Dublin to respect their respective catchment areas. The issue of proselytism often surfaced in educational politics within the broader society (Coolohan, 1982), and it was frequently cited as a reason for teaching deaf children based on religious lines (Leonard, 2023; McDonnell, 1979; O'Dowd, 1955).

As Leonard (2023, p.68) noted, classism even impacted one of the schools, where Claremont and Belfast's Lisburn Road accepted private tuition fees from wealthier families, separating deaf children into different internal living quarters. While the impact of classism on ISL and BSL (British Sign Language) during this period is virtually unknown, there is a clear instance of classism in much later stages, which will be mentioned below. These multiple layers of segregation significantly influenced and shaped various aspects of ISL.

In 1845, a committee, the Catholic Institute for the Deaf (CID), was established to set up Catholic schools in Dublin to counter the alleged proselytism. St. Mary's school, managed by Dominican nuns, opened in 1846 during the challenging period of the Irish Famine. Matthews (1996) noted that the CID somehow secured sufficient funds for the school. Two Dominican nuns and two deaf girls were sent to Caen in France, where a deaf school was run based on the method developed by l'Épée (Crean, 1997; Leeson & Saaed, 2012). This method was then returned to St. Mary's, and the signs used were modified to align with English grammar. A Francophile, Father Burke translated the introductory book on sign language from French to English, as many tended to believe it to be the foundation of Irish Sign Language (ISL), ignoring the previous decades where many deaf people signed (Conama & Leonard, 2020; Lesson & Saeed, 2012; Leonard, 2023). Another interesting aspect is that the Catholic authorities chose France instead of staying within the same town to study and observe how Claremont communicated with its pupils. Claremont followed British Sign Language.Footnote 9 (Pollard, 2006, p.122; Leonard, 2023, p.20).

St. Joseph's School, run by the Christian Brothers, was established in 1857. Its method of communication was similar to that of St. Mary's. It was initially located in Glasnevin in 1851 by the Carmelite Brothers (Leonard, 2023, p. 67); the school was later handed over to Christian Brothers and moved to Cabra. It is worth noting that the two schools had minimal contact despite St. Mary's and St. Joseph's proximity. LeMaster (1990) chronicled the separation between these two schools that led to the gendered variations of ISL.

There are various explanations for the existence of gendered variations in Irish Sign Language (ISL). According to Leeson and Grehan (2004), St. Mary's School for Deaf Girls originally developed signs that were considered too feminine by the Christian Brothers, who subsequently created separate signs deemed more masculine for their male students (Crean, 1997). LeMaster (1997) presents a different perspective, suggesting that the schools operated independently with minimal interaction, resulting in distinct vocabularies. Interestingly, LeMaster noted that the nuns "feminised" the signs for girls rather than the other way around, although the reasons for this are not fully explained (LeMaster, 1997, p. 67). Not only gendering ISL, but Leonard (2023, p.107) also reports that the Royal Commission report in 1889 recognised that the gender segregation policy was deliberately aimed to prevent these children from mixing and marrying in later life. This can be regarded as a subtle act to constrain the spread of ISL.

In mid-nineteenth century Irish schools, signing was the primary method of instruction for deaf children (Wilde, 1854), and Leonard (2023, p.70) reported that most schools used signing in their education instruction. The state provided most school funding (Leonard, 2023) but allowed schools to shape their internal language policies. This approach led to a range of approaches, from signing to oralism. Oralism is the belief that deaf children should be taught primarily through lipreading and utilising any remaining hearing while discouraging the use of sign language (Lynas, 2005; Moore, 2010; O'Connell & Deegan, 2014). Pressure from parents and religious figures likely influenced schools to conform to oralist practices (Crean, 1997).

According to McDonnell (1979), Ireland experienced a late transition to oralism in the late nineteenth century, which differed from the overall European trend. This delay can be attributed to the scarcity of trained teachers, inadequate financial support, and a high number of deaf children in schools. According to O'Dowd (1955), the CID rejected oralism until the 1940s for financial reasons after the British government turned down their funding request in the late nineteenth century. These rejections underscore the insufficient emphasis placed on ISL within deaf education.

After the Second World War, Catholic schools embraced oralism and prohibited signing, while smaller schools had already switched to oralist methods from the late nineteenth century (Matthews, 1996; Leonard, 2023). In 1947, a decision was made by St. Mary’s to change its LEPD to oralism (Griffey, 1994), and that decision had vast implications. Its goal was to help deaf children develop the ability to speak and read lips, allowing them to integrate into the larger hearing society (Griffey, 1975, p. 23). Griffey (1994) mentions that a visit to British deaf oral schools in 1946/7 resulted in the decision to introduce oralism at St. Mary's. As part of this change, deaf teachers and assistants were removed from their employment, and an audiological clinic was established in St. Mary's in 1947.

After visiting British deaf oral schools in 1946/7, three nuns from the Dominican order, including a prioress named Sr. Peter Flynn, decided to adopt the oral method. Despite acknowledging that their school was superior to the ones they visited, they justified the switch in a report to the CID, which had sponsored the trip. They confessed that, while their general education, religious training, school facilities, and overall conditions were superior, they had not utilised the potential for educating deaf children through lipreading and speech. Despite this, they emphasised the necessity of adopting the oral method to prevent Irish children from seeking education in deaf schools in England and Scotland solely for the oral method (Griffey, 1994, p. 157).

Referring to the former point of integrating them into a wider society, Griffey (1980, quoted in Crean, 1997, pp. 149–157) listed that one of the reasons for implementing oralism was for deaf children to overcome social isolation when they leave school. Signing was reduced to a status of remedial tool for those who were not able to benefit from oralism (LeMaster, 1993; Leeson & Saeed, 2012; O'Connell, 2021a, 2021b).

Interestingly, to contextualise the possibility of capturing the sense of feeling among children and former pupils during the transition from a regime favouring the usage of ISL to an oralist regime, there was a distant possibility that sadness was impalpable. For instance, in the former regime, there was a clear policy decision to apply to everyone, not only in communication with deaf children in deaf schools. Staff, including non-native and hearing individuals, were required to use sign language on campus (LeMaster, 1993). LeMaster quoted Sister Griffey, a prominent figure in Irish deaf education, in an interview, which is worth a repeat here:

The Deaf here in Cabra was a community—a deaf community…completely. We were like deaf people. We did not speak either. That was lovely for the Deaf.Footnote 10 In general, teachers were primarily members of Catholic Orders…who are all hearing people. However, there were few lay teachers as well (LeMaster, 1993, pp. 130-131).

This approach acknowledged sign language as distinct and highlighted signing as a natural, effective, and accessible communication method for deaf individuals.

However, there were misguided concerns that this approach isolated deaf children from the broader society when they left the school. The decision to switch over to oralism and the consequences were twofold. Firstly, it resulted in a lack of adequate and accessible communication between deaf children and hearing individuals in schools. Secondly, it led to a decline in their written language literacy skills. Ironically, this further isolated them in broader society due to their significant difficulties with written English literacy (see Leonard, 2023).

Nevertheless, Sr. Griffey claimed:

In 1950, I found that 90% of the past pupils of our school in Dublin wanted Irish deaf children to learn to speak and lipread……The position has not changed much today" (Griffey, 1975).

Griffey did not indicate where she got this source. In Sr. Peter's claim, the primary motivation was to halt the migration of Irish deaf children to oralist schools in Britain. The migration of these children exemplifies that their parents expressed a preference for oralism. This factor significantly influenced the trends in LEPD, even though it was initially unrelated to ISL. It highlights how vested interests played a crucial role in sha** policies.

However, the implementation of oralism faced challenges despite expectations. Influenced by advice from Dutch schools (Conama, 2002; Griffey, 1994; Leeson & Grehan, 2004), the nuns internally segregated pupils into three groups: one for those educated through the oral method with residual hearing, another for those with lower residual hearing also taught through the oral method, and the last for children who used signing. Strategies against signing were implemented to discourage oral learners from using sign language. Griffey expresses regret for this segregation, stating:

I was more interested in the individual child than in the method. I regretted the segregation of the oral children from those who used signs, but I could not see any other way of making a success of the oral method (Griffey, 1994, p. 57).

This statement implies that Griffey prioritised the success of the oral method over the child's emotional, social, and linguistic needs. Evidence suggests that the governmental ministry, the Department of Education, was aware of this internal segregation, and O'Cuilleanain, a divisional inspector, indicates that the Department approved this segregation policy (O'Cuilleanain, 1968, p. 8).

In 1972, the Irish government published The Education Of Children Who Are Handicapped By Impaired Hearing report (Irish Government, 1972). The report made several recommendations, including continuing the oral policy for education, considering sign language as a last resort for individuals struggling with oral communication, and implementing internal segregation of students in deaf schools based on their hearing status. One of the recommendations suggested creating a Visiting Teacher Service to ensure the continual flow of DHH pupils into deaf schools. Yet, despite the absence of legislation, the Visiting Teacher Service, in practice, eventually helped integrate DHH pupils into mainstream settings (Mathews & O'Donnell, 2018, p. 9). This move implies that the report was adopted as ad hoc policy in LEPD but contradicted at the frontline in later stages, which is contrary to the original recommendation.

Upon closer examination of this report, particular concerns or issues become apparent. Firstly, it needed a clear rationale for setting up the committee and its recommendations. Additionally, the committee responsible for authoring the report did not include any deaf individuals, which raised concerns about authentic representation. Moreover, the committee should have considered existing research in the field, thereby missing out on valuable insights. For instance, important advancements in the study of sign language, like Stokoe's breakthrough in 1960 (McBurney, 2001) and the increasing global interest in researching sign languages in deaf education, were overlooked. This indicates a dismissive attitude towards alternative approaches during that period. Griffey (1975) declares:

I have had the advantage of having spent the greater part of my life in a school for the Deaf. There is no substitute for first-hand experience in our field. I believe that researchers must have had long experience in grappling with the language problems of the young deaf child. …Is it not significant that the professionals in the periphery of our field express great dissatisfaction with the standard of education among the deaf? (22–23)

Another significant critique was the report's failure to consider a social survey conducted by the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) in collaboration with the National Rehabilitation Board (NRB-National Rehabilitation Board, 1973). Notably, many members of the advisory committee for this survey were also part of the central committee responsible for the report's creation (Conama, 2002). The survey showed high unemployment and a lack of workplace connections for deaf individuals. While its recommendations were unclear and didn't affect LEPD, they highlighted the need for more support services for deaf people (Conama, 2002). This survey can be seen as similar to the failures in LEPD during the two previous decades. Some respondents likely experienced oralism during their education, and it is evident that they did not achieve the expected level of social integration.

Until the 1960s, the legitimacy of indigenous sign languages as actual languages was not widely accepted in deaf education globally. In 1960, William Stokoe's ground-breaking research in the United States identified the linguistic elements of American Sign Language (ASL), establishing it as an independent language (Kyle & Woll, 1985, p. 28). Dr Tervoort of the Netherlands also made significant progress in understanding indigenous sign languages in 1958 (Kyle & Woll, 1985, 79).

These findings prompted further national and international research into sign languages (Ladd, 2003), with subsequent discoveries debated at conferences. This movement influenced educational policies for Deaf children globally, including in Ireland. Griffey (1968) acknowledged the breakthrough but dismissed it as insignificant, stating that linguists assured her of evidence of modified linguistic structureFootnote 11 in the sign system they used (Griffey, 1968, p. 93). This statement, made at a 1966 conference at Manchester University, likely went unnoticed by Irish delegates due to the stagnant nature of policies on signed languages in Ireland during the 1960s and 1970s (Conama, 2002).

Subsequent government reports and documents published in the 1970s did not significantly address LEPD. This reflected a broader societal attitude that viewed deafness as a medical issue rather than a language difference (McDonnell, 2007). The mainstreaming of deaf children into regular schools under the banner of inclusion has significantly impacted ISL since the 1990s. At the same time, the emphasis was on physical inclusion, and LEPD issues needed to be adequately addressed. This shift has resulted in a decline in the use of signing in schools, leading to limited exposure to ISL for deaf and hearing children. Consequently, there is a generation of deaf children who lack fluency in any language.

During the 1980s and 1990s, there was considerable attention given to researching the literacy skills of deaf children in written languages. This focus emerged due to noticeable deficits in their ability to read and write in written languages., which led to criticism of the oralist system. Reports such as the Conrad Report in Britain in 1979 and a similar report in Finland in 1987 contributed to this growing criticism. A similar report with dismal findings in Ireland was published in 1991 (Conama, 2002).

In conclusion, the previous LEPD from the nineteenth century to the late 1990s were influenced by religion, politics, and societal attitudes towards deaf people. The focus on oralism and the lack of attention to ISL in LEPD reflected the prevailing view of deafness as a medical issue rather than a language difference. The mainstreaming of deaf children has further impacted ISL, resulting in a decline in its use and limited exposure for deaf and hearing children. It is clear that from establishing schools in the nineteenth century and continuing to the twentieth century, Ireland adopted a laissez-faire approach to language education policies for deaf children. Until the 1980s, the state left LEPD untouched or gave schools carte blanche to shape and implement localised policies. School management often leaned towards implementing policies favouring oralism without or with minimal input from deaf-led organisations. These policies tended to overlook the belief that ISL should be a central focus, demonstrating little understanding of their potentially devastating consequences on deaf children (Crean, 1997; O’Connell, 2021; O'Connell & Deegan, 2014).

The consequences of oralism in Irish Deaf education led to significant developments, including establishing the Irish Deaf Society (IDS) in 1981, with a subsequent but principal aim: advocating for the recognition of ISL. A report in 1991 revealed alarming literacy rates among deaf children, exposing the failures of the oralist approach (NRB – National Rehabilitation Board, 1991). In 1993, the government-sponsored Special Education Review Committee discussed ISL without directly consulting Deaf people and did not reach firm conclusions on the status of ISL. The IDS initiated ISL interpreter training in 1994, improving access to education, which led to the subsequent establishment of the Centre for Deaf Studies. The Education Act 1998 acknowledged the need for Special Needs Assistants (SNAs)Footnote 12 for supporting disabled children, including deaf children, in schools. A 2008 partnershipFootnote 13 addressed deaf education challenges, leading to a significant conference in 2010. The NCSE published a policy advice paper in 2012, emphasising tailored approaches. The Deaf Education Centre established a preschool in Cabra in 2013, focusing on early intervention. A 2016 conference in Portlaoise gathered professionals to improve educational outcomes for deaf students.

These events and initiatives reflect the ongoing efforts to address the consequences of oralism and improve the educational opportunities and support available to the Deaf community in Ireland. Despite these achievements and significant milestones, shifting LEPD in favour of ISL has had minimal impact.

Current language education policies concerning ISL

Including deaf children in the mainstream education system has been a central aspect of state policy for many years. As such, there have been several initiatives to support their learning. However, despite these efforts, the LEPD still falls short in promoting ISL. In this section, I will discuss the current state of LEPD concerning ISL, including the Dublin City University (DCU) course, the ISL scheme, and the ISL Act review conducted by the National Disability Authority (NDA) in 2023.

The current policies in Irish deaf schoolsFootnote 14 focus on individual needs, tolerating the inclusion of ISL usage on campus and in classrooms. According to the websites of schools for the Deaf, students are encouraged to use ISL, and they acknowledge that it is used as a primary mode of communication for some children. One school's policy document mentions that staff are encouraged to learn ISL, although it is not mandatory.Footnote 15 This is evident in the teaching job advertisement (Conama forthcoming). Yet, ISL is also not recognised or mentioned in the state curriculum (NCCA website).Footnote 16

The NCSE operates a visiting teacher service which employs 29 teachers visiting over 5000 children in the country (NCSE, 2022). With regards to Special Needs Assistants, there are over 21,000 SNAs currently employed in the education sector (Dail Debates, 2023), and a good proportion of these SNAs are allocated to care for deaf children in deaf and mainstream schools since there is no breakdown of statistical information available. A tiny minority of them are native ISL users.Footnote 17 There is a certificate-level course for SNAs to develop their skills for classroom interaction, and within this course, there is a general module focussing on communication and language covering all disabilities on the spectrum.Footnote 18

In addition, the ISL Home Tuition Scheme, designed to offer funding for families to hire a tutor to teach their child ISL, faces limited availability and accessibility challenges, as noted by the Joint Oireachtas Committee in 2023. Additionally, the scheme has been criticised for failing to reach its full potential according to the NDA ISL Act review in 2023. Furthermore, the LEPD does not require schools to teach ISL, and many deaf children who attend mainstream schools do not have access to ISL classes. This lack of access can significantly impact deaf children's education, as ISL is essential for communication and language development.

The DCU course is an initiative that aims to promote ISL in education.Footnote 19 The course trains native ISL users to become primary teachers, and the hope is that these teachers will be able to promote ISL in their classrooms and schools. While the impact of the course remains to be seen, it is an exciting development in the promotion of ISL in education (Mathews & Ryan, 2022). However, it is essential to note that the DCU course is not a solution to the lack of ISL in mainstream education. The course is limited in scope, and there are only a limited number of graduates each period. In 2019, they had four entrants, and the next batch of intakes will be in 2024 (DCU-Dublin City University, 2019).

The Department of Education has launched an ISL scheme that employs interpreters and ISL advisors to support deaf students (Department of Education, 2022a, 2022b).Footnote 20 The scheme aims to ensure deaf students have the same educational opportunities as their hearing peers. The scheme supports students in primary, post-primary, and third-level education and those attending further education and training courses. It is too early to assess the impact of this scheme on LEPD as it has yet to go fully operational at the time of writing.

It is essential to recognise that before the implementation of this scheme, SNAs were often expected and might continue to take on auxiliary roles in interpretation, even though they were not sufficiently qualified for such tasks (de Wit, 2017). In 2017, it was estimated that there were about 15 deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers in the secondary education sector (Danielsson & Leeson, 2017, p. 142). Rose and Conama (2018) state that SNAs often end up interpreting, a task typically handled by qualified interpreters in other countries. This highlights an internalised belief that English is considered the more prestigious language and is deemed most beneficial for Deaf children.

Some parents have taken a proactive role in promoting ISL in education.Footnote 21 They have sought legal recourse or persuaded individual schools to accommodate ISL in their child's education. While some individual cases have seen success, these efforts are not a sustainable solution to address the absence of ISL in mainstream education. This is because they focus on specific situations rather than class-based actions that can bring about systematic change. Furthermore, these efforts significantly burden parents, who should not have to fight for their child's right to an education.

The examination of the ISL Act, as mandated by Article 10 of the ISL Act, conducted by the National Disability Authority (NDA) in 2023, provided a critical assessment of the current state of ISL within the educational landscape. The analysis revealed insufficient promotion of ISL in education and a need for recognition of ISL as a legitimate language. Furthermore, it identified limited access to ISL education for deaf and non-deaf students (NDA, 2023).

The review made several recommendations, including promoting ISL in educational settings, acknowledging ISL as a legitimate language, and providing ISL education for deaf and non-deaf students (NDA, 2023). While these recommendations signify a positive stride, their effective implementation is crucial, and their complete adoption remains to be determined. If these recommendations are successfully carried out, they could significantly influence the trajectory of LEPD in deaf education.

In conclusion, while there have been several initiatives have been to support the inclusion of deaf children in mainstream education, the LEPD still falls short in promoting ISL. The DCU course, the ISL scheme, and the ISL Act review are all positive developments in promoting ISL in education. However, these initiatives are not without flaws, and there is still a significant lack of access to ISL education for deaf students.

Current attitudes towards ISL

It is pertinent to examine current attitudes and language ideologies towards ISL. The starting point is the state body, the National Council for Special Education (NCSE), and exploring additional sources to determine tolerance or acceptance towards ISL in LEPD. The NCSE recommendation mentioned in the introduction is an example. By denying access to ISL based on the presence of cochlear implants, there is a potential disregard for the preferences and needs of deaf children and their families, who may choose or benefit from ISL. This approach inadvertently perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces the notion that one mode of communication is superior to others. Cochlear implant teams often advise against using ISL for young deaf children (Barent et al., 2020; Mathews, 2011).

Another example is that the current availability of ISL only through the Leaving Certificate Applied (LCA) programme in Ireland limits its accessibility. The LCA is an alternative senior cycle programme offered in some schools. It primarily aims at students who may benefit from a more practical and vocational approach to their education and does not offer direct entrance to universities (Smyth et al., 1999). By offering ISL solely within the LCA program, access to ISL becomes restricted to a specific subset of students enrolled in these schools and opt for this particular curriculum. This limitation may hinder the widespread adoption and understanding of ISL among the general population and perpetuate the marginalisation of the deaf community. It is crucial to consider expanding access to ISL education beyond the confines of the LCA program, enabling students across different educational pathways to learn and engage with ISL to foster inclusivity and promote communication accessibility for all.

A standardised curriculum is necessary. Schools for the Deaf in Ireland are awaiting the development of a comprehensive curriculum for Irish Sign Language (ISL) by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (Holy Family School for the Deaf, n.d.). The NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) is currently assessing the impact of the ISL Act on the primary curriculum (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2018). Without an established curriculum, these schools operate ad hoc, relying on their resources and approaches to teaching ISL to students and teachers. It hinders consistent and structured learning experiences for students, making ensuring continuity and progression in their ISL education challenging. Teachers are left to develop their own materials and teaching methods, which can vary across schools and may need a cohesive framework.

However, recent job advertisements for teaching positions in deaf schools do not seem to prioritise proficiency in ISL as strictly necessary; being considered "desirable" rather than “required” appears to be sufficient.Footnote 22 The hiring process for staff, including SNAs, predominantly hearing and non-ISL users, lacks an evaluation of their ISL skills (O'Connell & Lynch, 2020). This oversight poses significant challenges for effective communication and support for deaf students. Proficiency in ISL is essential for meaningful interaction between deaf students and their support staff. The absence of an ISL competency assessment during the hiring process raises the risk that teachers and SNAs may have limited or no knowledge of ISL, exacerbating the challenges in the situation.

In order to promote ISL teaching outside education that may encourage potential applicants to consider entering the teaching profession, there is a prevalent issue of internalised beliefs among many ISL users, which contribute to the perception that teaching ISL or teaching in ISL is not a worthy career pursuit. This belief stems from years of underdevelopment and underfunding of ISL education, which has marginalised the status and recognition of ISL teaching as a profession. The persistent underdevelopment and underfunding of ISL education have led to limited opportunities for formal training, career advancement, and professional development in ISL teaching. This lack of support and resources has created a perception that teaching ISL is a secondary or supplementary role rather than a valued and respected profession. As a result, many ISL users may not consider teaching ISL as a viable career option or may view it as something to do "on the side" rather than a primary focus. This perpetuates a cycle of underrepresentation and limited professional growth within the ISL teaching community.

To address this issue, it is crucial to address the historical underdevelopment and underfunding of ISL education. This includes advocating for increased support and investment in training programmes, professional development opportunities, and career pathways for ISL teachers. By recognising the value and importance of ISL teaching as a dedicated profession, we can work towards breaking down these internalised beliefs and creating a more inclusive and thriving educational environment for ISL in Ireland.

Language Connects, a state-sponsored organisation,Footnote 23 offers Irish Sign Language (ISL) as a second language (L2) to over 80 primary schools. This initiative aims to promote the inclusion of ISL in the educational curriculum and provide students with the opportunity to learn and engage with ISL as a valuable language. The positive reception of investment and effort in this context is notable, yet a discernible observation is the comparatively minimal attention and resources dedicated to ISL within the LEPD. This discrepancy is consistent with international observations highlighting a stark contrast in attitudes toward teaching sign language (Lillo-Martin & Henner, 2021). Remarkably, a robust enthusiasm exists for teaching sign language to hearing children. In contrast, the instruction of deaf children, particularly those from hearing families, tends to be met with disapproval or active discouragement. The approach of Language Connect exemplifies this contradictory stance.

It is evident that attitudes, particularly at the policy-making levels, have not favoured the inclusion of ISL in LEPD. This issue needs to be addressed thoroughly, especially considering future opportunities that may arise for our nation.

Challenges to future opportunities

The introduction of the ISL Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Article 24 provides an opportunity to enhance and resource a proper language education policy in ISL. These legislative measures acknowledge the importance of ISL as a language and the rights of deaf individuals to access education. To fully capitalise on these opportunities, there is a need to change attitudes towards ISL, particularly within policy-making circles. Increasing recognition and support for ISL as a language of instruction and communication can lead to greater inclusivity and accessibility in education for deaf individuals.

Develo** a proper infrastructure is crucial to promoting teaching in ISL as a viable career pursuit. This includes providing adequate resources, training programs, and career development opportunities for ISL teachers. Investing in the professionalisation of ISL teaching in universities,Footnote 24 it becomes an attractive and respected career choice, attracting skilled individuals who can contribute to the linguistic and educational development of deaf students.

It is essential to reinforce the importance of recognising and supporting ISL in Irish deaf education. Acknowledging ISL's role in language development and educational success can lead to improved outcomes for deaf students. Emphasising the significance of ISL in curriculum design and educational policies can create an inclusive and empowering learning environment.

Furthermore, encouraging further research and action to promote inclusivity and accessibility in LEPD is crucial. This includes ensuring that all deaf children have equal opportunities for language acquisition and education. It requires ongoing efforts to remove barriers, provide appropriate resources and support, and promote inclusive practices in classrooms and educational institutions. By implementing these measures, Ireland can advance towards a LEPD that fully recognises and supports ISL, creating a more inclusive and equitable education system for all deaf individuals.

Over the centuries, deaf education in Ireland has undergone several changes. However, none of them have prioritised the central role of ISL in deaf education (except for Catholic-run schools up to the 1940s). Political, religious, and economic factors have historically played a significant role in sha** language education. Shohomy’s (2006) Language Education Policy (LEP) framework and insights from other scholars discussing policy-making models and attitudes emphasise that decisions made at the school or institutional level can also profoundly impact LEPD. Unfortunately, these decisions often fail to address the central role of ISL adequately.

While this article does not delve into issues like personal identity and the hearing status of children, it is important to acknowledge that these factors could further enrich the discussion on LEPD. Those with power and influence in the LEPD have shown a paternalistic attitude towards the role of ISL, thereby neglecting its national significance in deaf education. The presence of deaf ISL teachers in the past and present has not adequately addressed the importance of ISL in schools. To ensure the future centrality of ISL in deaf education's LEPD, there must be a serious nationwide coordination with sufficient resources and a strong commitment in line with the UNCRPD and the ISL Act 2017.