Local links,local knowledge: Choosing care settings and schools

This article draws on data from two recently completed Economic and Social Research Council funded projects in order to examine class differences and similarities in choice of school and choice of childcare. The authors argue that there is every reason to believe that in many circumstances, within its particular mechanisms and practices, choice produces specific and pervasive forms of inequity. The processes by which working‐class parents in one study chose care settings and schools could be seen as less skilled, less informed, less careful than the decision making of many of the middle‐class respondents. However, this is not an argument that the authors advance, noting instead that the practices and meanings of choice are subject to significant social, cultural and economic variations in terms of who gets to choose, who gets their choices, and what, how and why people choose when they are able to. The authors argue that there are alternative sets of priorities in play for the working‐class respondents, involving attachments to the communal and the local.     

Between the estate and the state: struggling to be a ‘good’ mother

The paper draws on an ESRC‐funded study of 70 families in two London locations. It focuses on a set of contemporary and contradictory political discourses that work on and through the lives of working‐class mothers and thereby create tensions and impossibilities within their lives. We illustrate the ways in which these women are positioned by and within these discourses in ways that leave them vulnerable to political and media criticisms.     

Teaching manual communication to preservice teachers of the deaf in an accredited comprehensive undergraduate teacher preparation program

NOTING THAT there are no standardized manual communication curricula or proficiency assessments available to teacher preparation programs, the author used a case study to describe how preservice teachers of the deaf are taught to incorporate American Sign Language and various forms of signed English as effective communication tools for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. An accredited undergraduate teacher preparation program located in a rural area was selected for the study. Eight curricular components were examined, and data were triangulated from observations, interviews, and document analyses. The author found (a) that manual communication was taught in three required courses making up 6.57% of the overall curriculum, (b) direct application to the classroom was limited, and (c) there was minor misalignment across the eight curricular components examined. The program did not require an exit-level proficiency exam.     

Benefits of sign language interpreting and text alternatives for deaf students' classroom learning

Four experiments examined the utility of real-time text in supporting deaf students' learning from lectures in postsecondary (Experiments 1 and 2) and secondary classrooms (Experiments 3 and 4). Experiment 1 compared the effects on learning of sign language interpreting, real-time text (C-Print), and both. Real-time text alone led to significantly higher performance by deaf students than the other two conditions, but performance by deaf students in all conditions was significantly below that of hearing peers who saw lectures without any support services. Experiment 2 compared interpreting and two forms of real-time text, C-Print and Communication Access Real-Time Translation, at immediate testing and after a 1-week delay (with study notes). No significant differences among support services were obtained at either testing. Experiment 3 also failed to reveal significant effects at immediate or delayed testing in a comparison of real-time text, direct (signed) instruction, and both. Experiment 4 found no significant differences between interpreting and interpreting plus real-time text on the learning of either new words or the content of television programs. Alternative accounts of the observed pattern of results are considered, but it is concluded that neither sign language interpreting nor real-time text have any inherent, generalized advantage over the other in supporting deaf students in secondary or postsecondary settings. Providing deaf students with both services simultaneously does not appear to provide any generalized benefit, at least for the kinds of materials utilized here.