Evidence and legitimacy in deaf education

EDITORIAL Teacher Morale Recently I was involved in writing up the final report for a study investigating changing perspectives on the meaning and the implementation of the Least Restrictive Environment requirements of Public Law 94-142 in relation to educational placement and provision of services to deaf children. Twenty-eight programs were included in the study, serving children in residential, separate class, resource room, and integrated settings across the United States. As might be expected by educators of the deaf, the results reflected a complicated situation; there was a great deal of variation across and within categories. In one area, however, the findings were consistently negative: the morale of teachers of the deaf appeared to be well below published norms for general education teachers. Regardless of the teaching environment, teacher satisfaction ratings were uniformly low. Whether functioning as itinerant teachers, resource room teachers, teachers in self-contained public school classes, or teachers in residential schools, all showed greater dissatisfaction than regular classroom teachers. Preliminary analysis suggests that this dissatisfaction exists in teachers of the deaf regardless of hearing status, ethnic background, or gender. These results are in sharp contrast to findings in the same study suggesting that the self-concept of American deaf children in various types of educational settings is similar to that of hearing norms, and to encouraging data indicating that parents seem to be adjusting to the presence of deaf children in the family and learning to communicate more effectively than they have in the past. The low morale of teachers of the deaf is especially troubling, as the information was gathered from a well-educated and well-trained sample. The education of deaf children has always placed additional strains on teachers, because most deaf children do not start school with the same English language—or any other language— skills thathearing children bring to the educational process. As a result, much of the curriculum is devoted to closing the English and related communication gap between deaf children and their hearing peers. Teachers of the deaf typically deal with a situation in which their children have normal intellectual potential but academic progress is constrained by limited English and other communication skills. Teachers may see only small incremental growth in standardized test scores from year to year and may— mistakenly in my opinion—hold themselves responsible for what they perceive to be an unsatisfactory rate of progress. Low morale among teachers of the deaf apparently is caused by a number of factors and is more complex than simply dissatisfaction with mastery of English skills by their students. Our results show that the greatest difference between teachers of the deaf and teachers in general is related to feelings about the workload, with teachers of the deaf expressing much greater dissatisfaction. Perhaps teachers of the deaf work harder than teachers in general. This itself is an area in need of study. Another area in which there were great differences lay in the fact that teachers of the deaf felt much greater pressure from community expectations. Possibly, teachers of the deaf believe that the expectations of others for the progress of deaf children are unrealistic, or maybe they believe that the responsibility for fulfilling those expectations falls disproportionately on teachers. Perhaps the situation is not as grim as the results suggest. However, with 213 participants from across the country, there is every reason to believe that the results are valid. In any case, future research is called for to ascertain the validity and generalizability of the findings. If morale is low, this maybe one explanation for the greater turnover among teachers of the deaf that has been documented for more than a decade. If so, it may be necessary to explore the causes of low morale in depth. It is highly likely that preservice training procedures should be modified extensively and that professional in-service training should concentrate much more comprehensively on teacher morale . Last, but certainly not least, we should be paying attention to the environments—physical and otherwise— in which teachers of the deaf function. Donald F. Moores Editor Vol. 136, No. 3 AAD 243 ...

ABSTRACTDeaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) literature, including the reading behaviour of Deaf adults, suggests that Teachers of the deaf (TODs) read different amounts of text during read alouds to DHH prereaders based on the spoken and visual communication modes DHH prereaders use, such as: American Sign Language (ASL), only spoken English (speech), simultaneously spoken and conceptually signed English (ConceptSE), and simultaneously spoken and Signing Exact English (SEE). To date, no studies have surveyed teachers of the d/Deaf serving DHH children using these communication modes to determine whether TODs read different amounts of text during read alouds. To address this gap, we surveyed 69 TODs: 16 TODs serving DHH children using ASL (DHH-ASL), 18 serving DHH children using only spoken language (DHH-speech), 17 serving DHH children using ConceptSE (DHH-ConceptSE), and 18 serving DHH children using SEE (DHH-SEE). A binomial logistic regression indicated that the majority of TODs serving DHH-ASL report relying mainly on the illustrations during read alouds while the majority of TODs serving DHH-SEE report reading almost every word of the text during read alouds, resulting in these two groups being significantly different from each other in read-aloud behaviour. Interestingly, approximately half of the TODs serving DHH-speech and DHH-ConceptSE reported each type of reading behaviour. These results raise several issues about the kinds of input TODs are providing DHH children during read alouds.

Sign Language proficiency among teachers of the deaf form the basis for effective learning by deaf children. It is also the bedrock of successful inclusion. Previous studies and literature have equivocally confirmed that young children who are deaf learn more effectively when taught using Sign Language. The current study sought to establish the level of Sign language competency among teachers of children who are deaf in 10 of the primary schools in Bulawayo that enroll children who are deaf. A descriptive survey and ex-post facto research designs were employed in soliciting data from a sample of 15 teachers of the deaf and 5 college lecturers. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and a Modified Sign Language Proficiency Interview (MSLPI) on a 6-Point rating scale. Document analysis and observation were used to authenticate responses from college lecturers and teachers of the deaf respectively. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and descriptive summaries were used to analyse data. The data indicated that teachers of the deaf in Bulawayo lacked Sign Language proficiency. They could only afford the lowest two scores on the (MSLPI) scale that is the Novice and the No Functional Skills levels. What teachers at times mistook for Sign language was mere finger spelling and some distorted signed systems. From these findings the study concluded that the learning of the deaf children in primary schools in Bulawayo was heavily compromised due to lack of effective communication between teachers and the learners. The study also concluded that the inclusion of deaf children in the schools would remain a pipe dream as long as the teachers were not proficient in Sign language which is the first language of the deaf. The study recommended regular Sign Language staff development programmes, intensification of the practical component of Sign Language in the college programme for trainee teachers of the deaf, external scholarship and exchange programmes for both teachers and college lecturers who train teachers for the deaf.

The education of children with special learning disabilities is not only an educational but also a social issue that has been of great concern to the international educational community during the recent years. In the present study, the education process of students with hearing problems is presented specifically. The established and recognized, after many struggles, language of the deaf, is the sign language. Sign language refers to a non-verbal and descriptive communication, which is achieved through hand and body movements, as well as facial expressions. Each country has its own recognized sign language, which is the one used by every deaf community and the one taught to deaf and hard of hearing students. As far as Greece is concerned, there are special schools for the deaf and hard of hearing students, where they study the Greek Sign Language as their first language. The latter is based on the Greek oral language, but with different rules of syntax and grammar. Of course, deaf and hard of hearing students can also attend general schools and the decision of the appropriate educational unit for students is made by the parents. Thus, the parent, after having got the diagnosis from the competent state body regarding the proposed educational unit, can decide and enroll the student to the school he deems appropriate. In this context, during the recent years, there has been a tendency to prefer mainstream schools for the education of deaf / hard of hearing students and to close special educational units for the deaf / hard of hearing. After all, the international educational community presents inclusion as the new most ideal form of educational process and social inclusion of all students. When included, all students attend the same school, the school of their neighborhood, and depending on the difficulties and needs of each, there is a specialized way of teaching that is adjusted to the needs of each student, within the school. In the case of deaf / hard of hearing students, some conditions which are necessary for inclusion are: the existence of a parallel support teacher with excellent knowledge of the Greek Sign Language, the knowledge of some basic signs by class teachers and students, the use of them during teaching, the existence of specialized professional staff in the school environment, such as interpreters, speech therapists, psychologists, and other conditions for which, in addition to the school itself, the state should primarily take care of. Based on the above information, the education of the deaf / hard of hearing students was chosen as the topic of the present study. The main issue was whether the special school or the mainstream school is the most appropriate choice of school environment for the deaf / hard of hearing students.

This work deals with the context of provision of Specialized Educational Assistance – AEE Methodological and Functional Aspects of Specialized Educational Assistance for the Deaf in an Inclusive School. From this perspective, we assume the general objective of investigating how SEA is offered to the deaf in public schools in Uberlândia-MG. Specifically, we propose to: describe the physical structure and functioning of the AEE for the deaf in this school: pedagogical tools in the multifunctional resource rooms (MRR), assistive technologies, didactic-pedagogical resources and methodologies that consider the linguistic specificities of deaf students; analyze the School's internal and external legal documents regarding the way in which public policies for the inclusion of the deaf are established in the researched school; and to describe the functioning of the SEA offer for the deaf based on the application of a questionnaire to education professionals who work in the MRR. This research is justified by the stimulus to reflections and actions on knowledge and practices regarding the provision of SEA services for the deaf, its structure and functioning. To achieve our objectives, we elaborated the following question: What is the structure and functioning of the SEA offer for the deaf in public basic schools? The methodology adopted was based on the basic qualitative paradigm, on descriptive research as a methodological procedure, as well as on documentary research and case study. A survey of the literature on the researched area is part of the methodological theoretical framework, such as: bibliographic research (articles, chapters, books, theses and dissertations), a survey of the state of the art in theses and dissertations in the Capes database, as well as Public policies and legislation related to the education of deaf students enrolled in inclusive public schools, such as: Lei 10.436/2002, Decreto 5.626/2005, Decreto 7.611/2011, Lei 13.146/2015, and Lei 13.409/2016. The data obtained was analyzed in the light of studies pointed out by theorists such as: Ferreira (2010), Karnopp (2004), Lacerda (2006), Lopes (2017), Quadros and Karnopp (2004), Strobel (2008), Cruz (2016), which outlined the concepts of the structure and functioning of the AEE for the deaf. The data showed that the Public Policies for the inclusion of the deaf are established in the school, complying with what Decree 7.611/2011 determines, in terms of physical structure and human resources, as well as curricular accessibility. Within the scope of inclusive education for the deaf, we realize that much still needs to be conquered, learned, and implemented so that the deaf can enjoy Sign Language in different social contexts.

Considerable factual evidence is available pertaining to the education and psychology of children with impaired hearing. This is indicative of the pioneer work which has been accomplished. While much has been achieved, many urgent needs remain. The purpose of this article is to present some of the research findings and needs relative to these children who are auditorially handicapped. Reference cannot be made to all available material. The trend in the education of the deaf and hard of hearing is toward planning pro grams which meet the needs of individual children. This assumes the possi bility of obtaining accurate information with respect to a particular child. Unfortunately the extent of our knowledge and experimentation is such that this is not possible in many instances. However, much can be done in this regard provided the available information from research is effectually applied.

Статья посвящена проблеме доступности высшего образования для инвалидов по слуху – глухих и слабослышащих людей. Показана ситуация с высшим образованием лиц с потерей слуха до введения инклюзивного образования и те изменения, которые произошли после введения закона об инклюзивном образовании. Эмпирическим материалом послужили результаты фокусированных групповых бесед с глухими и слабослышащими, опросов, экспертных интервью с работниками образования и общественных организаций глухих. Материал анализировался в измерении «возможностей и барьеров». До введения инклюзии образовательные возможности были ограничены по количеству принимающих вузов крайне узким набором специальностей и географически – 85 % мест для обучения были сосредоточены в Москве. Ключевым фактором доступности образования для лиц с потерей слуха выступает наличие перевода образовательного процесса на жестовый язык. После введения инклюзии открылись более широкие возможности для поступления абитуриентов-инвалидов, однако на текущий момент совсем небольшое чисто вузов готово обеспечивать перевод на жестовый язык в ходе получения образования. Для образовательного процесса важную роль играет квалификация переводчиков жестового языка и их специализация, но профессиональная подготовка переводчиков находится пока в начальной стадии. Дополнительными барьерами для глухих и слабо­слышащих людей являются: низкий уровень школьной подготовки и отсутствие довузовской подготовки; слабое информирование о наборе инвалидов по слуху в вуз; низкие шансы получить работу по специальности, снижающее мотивацию к обучению; неготовность вузов к работе с глухими и непонимание специфики восприятия такими студентами информации. Названные ограничения несут риск создания «формальной» инклюзии, исключающий инвалидов по слуху из практик получения высшего образования. По истечении шести лет законодательного введения инклюзии, ситуация с получением высшего образования глухими и слабослышащими изменилась незначительно и тяготеет к состоянию до введения инклюзивного законодательства.

In Honduras the need for teacher training and professional development opportunities to assist educators with the challenges associated with teaching is essential. This narrative research study examined the training and life experiences of four teachers of the Deaf located in central Honduras. The experiences of the Honduran teachers were explored and used to develop an understanding of their insights and perceptions of their personal training as educators and what they believe they need to grow as professional teachers of the Deaf. The theoretical framework utilized in this narrative study was Jean Lave's and Etienne Wenger's, Communities of Practice. Communities of Practice are groups of people who share a common concern or passion for something they do and as a group they want to learn how to improve. The central question to the Study was: "What are the lived experiences of Honduran teachers of the Deaf and how have these experiences impacted their present role as educators?" The purpose of this narrative study was to understand the lived experiences and educational backgrounds of four Honduran teachers of the Deaf and to further appreciate how these events have affected them as they prepared to become teachers of the Deaf. This understanding may help future teachers of the Deaf to develop their professional skills. The findings revealed that the teachers of the Deaf displayed varied pathways to teaching in Honduras and they were motivated to improve professionally. The teachers identified differentiated instruction and diagnosing learning disabilities in Deaf children as priorities. A university partnership and networking with other teachers of the Deaf is recommended to enhance the teachers' ability to teach students who are Deaf.

Finally! A Formula for Making Positive Changes in Deaf Education Leala Holcomb (bio) Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf Education. Linda R. Komesaroff. Gallaudet University Press, 2013. 154pp. $45.00 (hardcover). Discussions about power dynamics between the underprivileged and the privileged are crucial to making progress toward equity. Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf Education helps promote such dialogue by exploring Deaf and hearing people’s differing perspectives on the challenges to improving the quality of education for Deaf children. Linda R. Komesaroff, although not deaf herself, successfully captures the profound feelings many Deaf people have about the educational barriers they encounter growing up, in addition to their experiences of oppression in trying to enter the profession of deaf education. Her book includes information on power dynamics between dominant and marginalized groups, the history of Deaf education, studies related to the perspectives of Deaf and hearing people in education, and educational law relating to these topics. Although the author, a research fellow at Deakin University, in Melbourne, delves into the politics of Deaf education specifically in Australia, the experiences, perspectives, and barriers presented in the book are strikingly similar to what is happening in the United States. Komesaroff opens Disabling Pedagogy by placing Deaf identity on the same plane as identity based on gender, class, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. She describes how dominant groups hold beliefs based on their “knowledge and position in relation to ‘the other’” (p. x). After examining how power manifests itself in society through people and language, the author shares Deaf narratives that are often rendered invisible to the hearing community. By connecting important accounts in Deaf history, she guides hearing readers’ understanding and validates Deaf readers’ experiences of the oppression and struggles of Deaf people as informed by participants in her research. On the basis of the historical and current reality of Deaf education being run by nondeaf people, the author conducted a politically active research project to explore “the themes of power, politics, and the struggle for self-determination among Deaf people” (p. 11). To help readers better understand the dichotomy between Deaf and hearing views on deaf education, she categorizes these perspectives into two principal standpoints: “the Deaf worldview” and “the hearing worldview.” She presents the Deaf worldview as taking advantage of the richness of native signed language, Deaf culture, and Deaf role models in supporting students’ development in all academic areas, including English (spoken and written). In contrast, the hearing worldview is described as focusing on children’s deafness as the cause of their inability to speak, read, or write; therefore, more exposure to speech therapy is needed. The former places an emphasis on pedagogical causes for the difficulties Deaf students face in their educational quest, while the latter places the problem within the Deaf children’s bodies. Komesaroff describes her journey in supporting the transition of a school from being one with a hearing worldview to one based on the Deaf worldview. Her work with parents, teachers, and administrators provides a good model for people who are interested in helping Deaf schools adopt the bilingual approach. Strong leadership, teachers’ readiness for change, and parents’ support are identified as essential components of the transition. Educational leaders will find [End Page 398] strategies presented in this book beneficial to their effort to facilitate a smooth, healthy transition in their schools. In the subsequent chapters of the book, the author discusses laws on education that have shaped policies affecting Deaf education. Employing real-life scenarios, she provide an expanded picture of how laws can work either against or for the Deaf child’s access to quality education. Valuable information is shared about the reaches and limitations of parents’ power to hold the system accountable if their Deaf children are delayed in language and academic development. Therefore, this book is geared not only to teachers and administrators, but also to parents of Deaf children. As a Deaf educator and researcher heavily involved in Deaf education, I recommend Disabling Pedagogy: Power, Politics, and Deaf Education as a go-to book for anyone who wants to understand Deaf education through the contrasting lenses of Deaf people and hearing people. The author does a remarkable job of exploring...

With the issue of increasing concern deaf education, the special education people begin to focus on teaching quality. In this paper our aim is to design a distance education platform using VRML. Its main tasks including it analysis that the deaf education exists the problems and virtual reality technologies apply in the distance education, points out construction programmers and implementation process of the deaf distance education. Through introducing virtual reality technology-related knowledge, points out a B/ (W-A) /D system structure. The separations and functions of each module in the scalable modularization structure and the key technology of implement the system are expounded in detail finally. The virtual reality technology to improve the teaching of deaf education has an important significance.

This chapter discusses some of the language issues and challenges that deaf and hard of hearing students (DHH) face in the school environment and argues that successful bilingual and multilingual education programs are necessary for DHH students, including professional training in deaf education around of the world. The chapter includes subtitle topics such as the historical development of bilingual education, deaf learners and deaf bilingual education, multilingual and multicultural education. The author concludes the chapter by making recommendations regarding the effectiveness of bilingual and multilingual education for DHH students. The goal is to support educators and professionals in the deaf education field to pay attention to bilingual deaf education through teacher professional development based on the field needs.

International Journal of Language & Communication DisordersVolume 4, Issue 2 p. 176-196 THE RE-EDUCATION OF A DYSPHASIC ADULT: AN EXPERIMENT IN CO-OPERATION BETWEEN A SPEECH THERAPIST AND AN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST Betty Byers Brown M.C.S.T., Betty Byers Brown M.C.S.T. Department of Audiology and Education of the Deaf, University of ManchesterSearch for more papers by this authorLawrence Ives M.Ed., Dip.Ed. Psychol., A.B.Ps.S., Lawrence Ives M.Ed., Dip.Ed. Psychol., A.B.Ps.S. Department of Audiology and Education of the Deaf, University of ManchesterSearch for more papers by this author Betty Byers Brown M.C.S.T., Betty Byers Brown M.C.S.T. Department of Audiology and Education of the Deaf, University of ManchesterSearch for more papers by this authorLawrence Ives M.Ed., Dip.Ed. Psychol., A.B.Ps.S., Lawrence Ives M.Ed., Dip.Ed. Psychol., A.B.Ps.S. Department of Audiology and Education of the Deaf, University of ManchesterSearch for more papers by this author First published: October 1969 https://doi.org/10.3109/13682826909011486Citations: 6AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume4, Issue2October 1969Pages 176-196 RelatedInformation

EDITORIAL The Seventeenth International Congress on Education of the Deaf (ICED) The 17th International Congress on Education of the Deaf, which was completed in August of this year in Rochester, New York, was simultaneously an indication of how far education of the deaf has progressed in the last century and of how far we have to go in the century to come. By all measures, the Congress was a resounding success. The program, organized around 12 major topics selected by the program committee, included 108 sessions, with a total of more than 400 individual presentations, panels, and symposia provided by in excess of 600 participants. Almost half of the estimated 1,300 attendees were presenters, panelists, co-authors, and chairpersons. The level of participation was unprecedented. The amount of international participation was high, with presenters from 56 countries and six continents. In addition to spoken English, Japanese, and Spanish, for the first time since the initial Congress in Paris in 1878, a sign language— American Sign Language—was one of the official languages of the Congress. The influence of deaf leaders was pervasive throughout the Congress and included members of the International Program Committee, the National Program Committee, and plenary speakers. The Grand Finale speaker was Dr. Robert Davila, a distinguished deaf professional who is Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the U.S. Department of Education, which may be the most important position in special education in the world. The spirit of international cooperation was demonstrated by an informal meeting of the editors of journals and other publications related to deafness from several countries , including the United States, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. The United States was represented by the editors of the Annals and the Volta Review. We were able to discuss our missions, share common problems, pose solutions, and explore possibilities for future collaboration and information sharing. The acceptance of sign communication and the participation of deaf leaders in the 17th Congress stands in stark contrast to the 2nd International Congress on Education in Milan, Italy, in 1880. At that Congress, more than half of the participants came from one country—Italy—and the United States was the only non-European country represented. None of the active participants was deaf. It was at the Milan Congress that formal resolutions agreeing on the superiority of oral instruction over the use of signs alone or the simultaneous use of signs and speech were approved. The first two resolutions adopted in Milan were: The Conference, considering the uncontestable superiority of speech over signs, (a) for restoring deaf mutes to social life, and (b) forgiving them greater facility for language, declares that the method of articulation should have preference over that of signs in instruction for education of the deaf and dumb. Considering that the simultaneous use of signs and speech has the disadvantage of injuring speech and lipreading and precision of ideas, the Convention declares that the oral method ought to be preferred. One can only speculate on what the authors of the Milan resolutions would have thought if they had attended the Rochester Congress of 1990 and observed the large number of deaf presenters using a variety of sign systems and sign languages as well as the ubiquitous presence of interpreters at all the gatherings. Certainly the field has come a long way in its acceptance of diversity of communication styles and modes. Still, deaf children continue to lag in academic achievement compared to hearing children, and deaf adults have not achieved economic parity with their hearing counterparts in any country. The problems faced in developing nations are enormous, and progress everywhere is measured in small increments. The task in education of the deaf remains formidable in spite of the impressive gains. The chairpersons of the 17th Congress, E. Ross Stuckless of the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Doin E. Hicks of Gallaudet University, should be applauded for their efforts and for the success of the Rochester Congress. There is every indication that the 18th Congress in Tel Aviv in 1995 will build and expand upon this success. Donald F. Moores Editor Vol. 135, No. 4 AAD 273 ...

This article presents a situational analysis of the use of sign language in the education of the Deaf in Zambia. It reports on research findings on the levels of training for teachers of the Deaf; challenges that teachers and pupils have to contend with; views of stakeholders on how sign language is used and ought to be used in the education of the Deaf; as well as their views on the significance of sign language in the education of the Deaf.

This PhD research is associated with the Post-Graduation Program in Education at the Federal University of Uberlândia, in the research line “Estado, Políticas e Gestão da Educação” (State, Policies and Education Management), and it takes part in the policies for the teacher’s formation issues with the theme: “TEACHER FORMATION POLICIES FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR THE DEAF”. In this sense, the main objective was to analyze the public policies and the orientation of the legal texts about teachers’ formation towards Education for the Deaf in the period from 2002 to 2022. The study’s specific objectives were: to discuss the policy of deaf education from the cultural studies’ perspective; to discourse about how Education for the Deaf was configured in Brazil; to explain how Deaf students teachers’ formation takes place in Brazil; to describe how teachers’ formation policies contemplate the teachers’ formation for Bilingual Education for the Deaf, to present guide principles to elaborate a new proposal for Deaf students teachers’ formation in a bilingual perspective. The methodology used in this research was configured as qualitative and exploratory, involving, mainly, documental analysis. In this context, the research’s main hypothesis was that the teachers’ formation policy for Education for the Deaf, as established in the Brazilian regulatory documents from 2002 to 2022, is inadequate since it does not prepare teachers in theory and practice to work effectively in the school modality of Bilingual Education for the Deaf. The results revealed that the graduation courses do not properly support the legal requirements for Bilingual Education for the Deaf. It is possible to observe an isolated interest in educational and linguistic issues related to the Deaf by teachers and researchers. Thereby, it is recommended to implement actions that include sign language analysis, cultural studies, dialogue with the Deaf community and reflection about the fundamentals of an education that values the Deaf language, identity and culture. It is important to promote the autonomy of the teachers, by means of formation that allows an integrative and less structured approach. The bilingual approach is crucial to reducing the linguistic gap and strengthening the Deaf students capacity to understand complex concepts and fully participate in the school curriculum. In face of it, it is suggested a continued and collaborative strategy between theory and practice and a reflection in the teacher's formation. The formation policy should include clear guidelines, the development of specific curricula, financial resources’ guarantee, institutional collaboration, continuous monitoring and research encouragement. The initial formation and the continued formation still need efficient State policies that, actually, prepare teachers for the reality of Bilingual Education for the Deaf. Moreover, this study concluded that Brazilian policies of teachers’ formation for Deaf education do not properly prepare teachers to act in the Bilingual Education for the Deaf modality, both theoretically and in practice. In the end, it is necessary to emphasize the necessity of a critical review of current policies and the implementation of clear guidelines, specific curriculum development and the encouragement to institutional collaboration in order to promote a more inclusive and efficient education for the Deaf community.