8. Deaf survivors including tāngata Turi Māori comprised 6 percent of the 2,329 survivors who registered with the Inquiry. Many Deaf people do not identify as disabled. They are part of a cultural and linguistic group and Sign Language is part of their identity.

9. During the Inquiry period, audist societal attitudes in Aotearoa New Zealand were influenced by arrival of European settlers and the adoption of Christianity as the predominant religious faith. New Zealanders were expected to fit in and conform to a narrow definition of what was considered ‘normal’. Deaf people and many other marginalised groups were seen as ‘abnormal’ and less valuable than others.

10. Audism, ableism and other discriminatory attitudes created pathways for Deaf children, young people and adults to enter care. Many Deaf children were sent to special schools at a very young age on the advice of educators, medical and health professionals. Parents of Deaf children were told that an institution was the best place for their children, so they could be taught to adapt to the hearing world. Parents generally did not have the knowledge to teach their children to lipread or speak and were not offered the option to use Sign Language.

11. A lack of support at mainstream schools often led to Deaf children failing at school, being bullied by hearing children and punished by teachers for not understanding oral teaching. Some mainstream schools had Deaf units within the school, which provided some support for Deaf children.

12. Aotearoa New Zealand, like many countries, chose to follow a 19th century recommendation to stop teaching any form of sign language in schools [1] and the practice continued until the mid-1970s. Up until 1979, the Department of Education (now the Ministry of Education) banned Sign Language from the classroom. In some schools, it was also banned in the playground and in boarding residences. [2]

13. Deaf survivors including tāngata Turi Māori were frequently punished and abused for using Sign Language. Deaf culture was neglected and actively discouraged in special schools and in mainstream education settings. Deaf survivors were not supported to communicate as they wished to, were forced to adopt oralist methods of communication, and were ridiculed for signing with facial expressions. They were denied knowledge and access to Sign Language and Deaf culture.

14. Deaf survivors including tāngata Turi Māori were subjected to serious psychological, physical and sexual abuse in special schools. The lack of support for Deaf culture and identity contributed to linguistic and educational neglect. For tāngata Turi Māori, these experiences were compounded with racism and cultural neglect that denied them access to, and an understanding of, te reo Māori and their Māori identities.

15. Deaf survivors including tāngata Turi Māori were separated from their whānau, denied their culture, had their education neglected and were denied the right to communicate in the manner of their choosing. This has resulted in a loss of  confidence, difficulty in connecting and communicating with whānau and friends, and has impacted relationships and employment. Educational neglect and a lack of signing skills are a significant barrier to finding meaningful employment or working in high-earning environments for Deaf survivors.

16. At the heart of the factors that caused and contributed to Deaf children, young people and adults suffering abuse and neglect in care was audism and other discriminatory societal attitudes. For decades, oralism was seen as the superior approach to education, which meant Deaf people had to adapt to a hearing world rather than hearing people adapting to a Deaf world. The governance, management, teachers and staff of Deaf schools were predominantly hearing Pākehā with no lived experience of being Deaf, knowledge of Deaf culture, or awareness of te ao Māori or Pacific cultures.

17. From the records received by the Inquiry, critical oversight and monitoring of the schools created and funded by the Government appears to have been minimal. The little monitoring and review that did occur was more concerned with funding, administration and logistics rather than the educational achievement, safety and wellbeing of Deaf children and young people.

Footnotes

[1] Powell, D & Hyde, M, “Deaf Education in New Zealand: Where we have been and where we are going,” Deafness & Education International, Volume 16, No 3 (2014, page 130).

[2]Hopkins, R, Listening eyes, speaking hands: The story of Deaf education in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2018).