Skip to main content

Sign language planning and policy in Ontario teacher education


The Deaf Ontario Now movement of 1988 called for more hiring of deaf teachers and the full implementation of American Sign Language (ASL) across the curriculum in schools with deaf students. In 1989, the Review of Ontario Education Programs for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students recommended that ASL become a language of instruction at the Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf in Milton, Ontario. Subsequently, the school became the site of a pilot bilingual bicultural project that led to the ratification of a policy statement on bilingual bicultural education for deaf children at all three anglophone provincial schools with deaf students in Ontario. In 1993, Bill 4 was incorporated into the Ontario Education Act, sanctioning the use of ASL and Langue des signes québécoise as languages of instruction in all schools for deaf students in Ontario. Despite this seeming progress at the policy level in sign language planning in Ontario deaf education, there has been a marked pattern of resistance to systemic change at levels of government and teacher accreditation, the university teacher of the deaf preparation program established in 1991, and provincial school administration. This paper outlines the trajectory of deaf community activism, policy change, and subsequent resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • Advisory Committee on Deaf Education. (1990, January 23). Meeting with Minister Sean Conway. Toronto, ON: Canadian Hearing Society.

  • Bisson, G., et al. (1992, August). Second report of the Comite Consultatif Ministeriel sur l’Education des Sourds Francophones: Francophone equivalent to provincial schools. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Boyd, M. (1990, November 27). Statement to the Legislature on deaf education. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Branson, J., & Miller, D. (1993). Sign language, the deaf, and the epistemic violence of mainstreaming. Language and Education, 7(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruley, L., Kipp, B., & Pelletier, I. (1990). Enquête sur les programmes à l’intention des élèves sourds. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Association of Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. (2016, November). Revised CAEDHH certification standards. Retrieved March 26, 2018 from

  • Canadian Hearing Society. (2014). Canadian Hearing Society’s position paper on challenges and issues affecting access to post-secondary education for deaf and hard of hearing students. Retrieved April 11, 2018 from

  • Carbin, C. (1993). Ontario’s new ASL/LSQ law: PAH! Gallaudet Today, 24(2), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbin, C. (1994). Memorandum re: Draft recommendations for ASL competency evaluation policies and procedures for teachers in the provincial schools for deaf students. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbin, C. (1996). Deaf heritage in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbin, C. F., Small, A. R., & Smith, D. (1993, November 19). Memorandum re: Review of “Regulation for use of ASL as a language of instruction”. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. (2008). American Sign Language syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled readers: Bilingual and bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(3), 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, J. B., & Barnartt, S. N. (1995). Deaf President Now!: The 1988 revolution at Gallaudet University. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, S. E. (2014). American Sign Language as a heritage language. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and Native American languages in the United States (p. 272). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, S. (1990, June 13). Statement to the Legislature by the Honourable Sean Conway, Minister of Education on deaf education. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Council of Canadians with Disabilities. (2016, December 23). Canada to ratify CRPD’s Optional Protocol. Retrieved February 14, 2018

  • Council on Education of the Deaf. (2018, February). CED standards for programs preparing teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Retrieved March 26, 2018 from

  • Cowan, M. R., & Rebick, J. (1990). What’s happening with the Ontario Education review? Vibrations, 1990, 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crume, P. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of promoting American Sign Language phonological awareness in an ASL/English bilingual program. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(4), 464–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

  • Cummins, J. (1990). Denial of voice: The suppression of deaf children’s language in Canadian schools. In J. Cummins & M. Danesi (Eds.), Heritage languages: The development and denial of Canada’s linguistic resources (pp. 81–97). Toronto, ON: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2006). The relationship between American Sign Language proficiency and English academic development: A review of the research. Retrieved March 9, 2018 from

  • Czubek, T. A., & Snoddon, K. (2016). Bilingualism, philosophy and models of. In G. Gertz & P. Boudreault (Eds.), The deaf studies encyclopedia (Vol. I, pp. 79–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meulder, M., Murray, J. J., & McKee, R. L. (Eds.). (2019). The legal recognition of sign languages: Advocacy and outcomes around the world. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Centre for Modern Languages. (2018). Sign languages and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Descriptors and approaches to assessment. Retrieved April 11, 2018 from

  • Faculty of Education. (2018). Admission requirements and application: Residents of Ontario. Retrieved April 11, 2018 from

  • Faculty of Education. (n.d.) Courses. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from

  • French, O. (1989, December 16). Seeking better education for deaf, activists occupy Conway’s office. The Globe and Mail, p. A9.

  • Gallaudet University. (n.d.) American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI). Retrieved April 9, 2018 from

  • Gibson, H., Small, A., & Mason, D. (1997). Deaf bilingual bicultural education. In J. Cummins & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Bilingual education (Vol. 5, pp. 231–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister, R. (2007). Language and the Deaf World: Difference not disability. In M. E. Brisk (Ed.), Language, culture, and community in teacher education. New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, I., & Schönström, K. (2017). Resources for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in mainstream schools in Sweden: A survey. Deafness and Education International, 19(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, F., & Compton, S. (2012). Deaf education policy as language policy: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 602–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, F. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Re-visiting orientations to language planning: Problem, right, and resource as an analytical heuristic. Bilingual Review, 33(3), 30-49.

  • Humphries, T. (2013). Schooling in American Sign Language: A paradigm shift from a deficit model to a bilingual model in deaf education. Berkeley Review of Education, 4(1), 7–33. Retrieved March 23, 2018 from

  • Israelite, N., Ewoldt, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (1992). Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students: A review of the literature on the effects of native sign language on majority language acquisition. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. & Snoddon, K. (2005, January 16). Proposed regulations to Bill 4: Amendement to the Education Act, 1993. Presentation to the Ontario Ministry of Education, Toronto, ON.

  • Jessen, L. (1994, April 15). Memorandum: Development of a regulation on the use of ASL/LSQ. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

  • Johnson, R. E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education. Gallaudet Research Institute Working Paper 89-3. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

  • Johnston, T., Leigh, G., & Foreman, P. (2002). The implementation of the principles of sign bilingualism in a self-described sign bilingual program: Implications for the evaluation of language outcomes. Australian Journal of Education of the Deaf, 8, 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppinen, L., & Jokinen, M. (2014). Deaf culture and linguistic rights. In M. Sabatello & M. Schulze (Eds.), Human rights and disability advocacy (pp. 131–145). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayess, R., & Green, J. (2017). Today’s lesson is on diversity. In P. D. Blanck & E. Flynn (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of disability law and human rights (pp. 53–71). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komesaroff, L. (2008). Disabling pedagogy: Power, politics, and Deaf education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalonde, M. (1989, May 11). Deaf Canadians to march in dozen cities for American Sign Language in schools. The Globe and Mail, p. A19.

  • Legislative Assembly of Ontario. (1988, May 5). Hansard. Retrieved March 25, 2018 from

  • LoBianco, J. (2001). From policy to anti-policy: How fear of language rights took policy-making out of community hands. In J. LoBianco & R. Wickert (Eds.), Australian policy activism in language and literacy (pp. 13–44). Melbourne: Language Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahshie, S. N. (1995). Educating Deaf children bilingually: With insights and applications from Sweden and Denmark. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkowski, G. (2005, April 29). Response of the Canadian Hearing Society to the Ontario College of Teachers’ Preparing Teachers for Tomorrow Initial Teacher Education in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Canadian Hearing Society.

  • Malkowski, G. (2006, May 7). Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy with respect to Bill 78: An Act to amend the Education Act, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and Certain Other Statutes Relating to Education. Toronto, ON: Canadian Hearing Society.

  • Marchand, M. (1994, June 9). Memorandum: ASL/LSQ teacher certification. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training.

  • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). ESE announces acceptable test for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing: American Sign Language/Total Communication license. Retrieved April 7, 2018 from

  • Mauldin, L. (2016). Made to hear: Cochlear implants and raising deaf children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayberry, R., Del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maychak, M. (1990, June 14). Deaf students insulted on schools, group says. Toronto Star.

  • Mayer, C. (2017). Written forms of signed language: A route to literacy for deaf learners? American Annals of the Deaf, 161(5), 552–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, R. (2017). Assessing the vitality of New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 17(3), 322–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Education. (2017). American Sign Language. Retrieved April 7, 2018 from

  • Murray, J., De Meulder, M., & le Maire, D. (2018). An education in sign language as a human right? The sensory exception in the legislative history and on-going interpretation of Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Human Rights Quarterly, 40(1), 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. J., Snoddon, K., De Meulder, M., & Underwood, K. (2020). Intersectional inclusion for deaf learners: Moving beyond General Comment No 4 on Article 24 of the UNCRPD. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 691–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mycek, A. (2015). International language teaching: An exploration of the successes and challenges of the International Language Elementary (ILE) Program in Ontario (master’s thesis). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

  • Nover, S. (1995). Politics and language: American Sign Language and English in deaf education. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 109–161). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. (2017). Bilingual deaf education: Language policies, linguistic approaches, and education models in Europe. In K. Reuter (Ed.), UNCRPD implementation in Europe: A deaf perspective—Article 24: Education (pp. 86–109). Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. (2018). Optional protocol to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved March 21, 2018 from

  • Ontario College of Teachers. (2006). Preparing teachers for tomorrow: The final report. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Teachers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario College of Teachers. (2008, February 18). Defining an ASL prerequisite for the Teaching Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Program. Unpublished report to the Ontario College of Teachers, Toronto, ON.

  • Ontario College of Teachers. (2008, September 25-26). Report to Council on ASL/LSQ standard-setting. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Teachers.

  • Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2004). Guidelines on accessible education. Retrieved March 11, 2018 from

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (1989). Review of Ontario education programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Toronto, ON: Program Implementation and Review Branch, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007, July 12). McGuinty government delivering more support for students who are deaf: Teachers can use American Sign Language in Ontario’s schools. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017, October 12). Centre Jules-Léger to be governed by and for francophones. Retrieved April 2, 2018 from

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018a). The identification, placement, and review committee: Identifying the needs of exceptional pupils. Retrieved April 8, 2018 from

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018b). Provincial and demonstration schools in Ontario: Moving forward. Retrieved April 9, 2018 from

  • Paul, J. J., & Snoddon, K. (2017). Framing deaf children’s right to sign language in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1).

  • Picard, A. (1988, May 6). Deaf community hails education review bill. The Globe and Mail, p. A10.

  • Proulx, M. (2000a, November 30). Memorandum: Regulation mandating that teacher training, in service training and additional qualifications on American Sign Language/Lingue des signes quebecois curriculum be provided. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Proulx, M. (2000b, December 4). Memorandum: Regulation on American Sign Language/Lingue des signes quebecois curriculum as a policy document. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Proulx, M. (2000c, December 9). Memorandum: Regulation mandating ASL/LSQ competency staff evaluation and accompanying teacher training in ASL/LSQ linguistics. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Proulx, M. (2000d, December 18). Memorandum: Language of instruction regulations American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes quebecois (LSQ). Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

  • Reagan, T. (2011). Ideological barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking linguistic resistance. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 606–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebick, J. (1988, July). Major overhaul needed. Vibrations, p. 5.

  • Rebick, J. (1989, December). Deaf education review: The waiting game. Vibrations, p. 15.

  • Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. A., & Hoffmeister, R. J. (2017). American Sign Language and academic English: Factors influencing the reading of bilingual secondary school deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 22(1), 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Marvelous human rights rhetoric and grim realities: Language rights in education. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(3), 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slee, R., & Allan, J. (2001). Excluding the included: A reconsideration of inclusive education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, A., & Mason, D. (2008). American Sign Language (ASL) bilingual bicultural education. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Bilingual education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 133–149). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (2008). Signing naturally units 1-6 Teacher’s curriculum. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early intervention. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 581–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoddon, K. (2015). Using the Common European framework of reference for Languages to teach sign language to parents of deaf children. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(3), 270–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoddon, K., & Wilkinson, E. (2019). Problematizing the legal recognition of sign languages in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(2), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, P. (2007, July 4). New ASL/LSQ regulation. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved March 9, 2018 from

  • Supalla, T., & Clark, P. (2015). Sign language archaeology: Understanding the historical roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tancock, M. (2002, January 23). Getting a sound education. York Communications, 32(11). Retrieved April 11, 2018 from

  • Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. W. (2015). Historical-structural analysis. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 140–151). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Ottawa Faculty of Education. (n.d.) Professional development. Retrieved April 12, 2018 from

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Deaf students education services. Retrieved March 11, 2018 from

  • Van Cleve, J. V., & Crouch, B. A. (1989). A place of their own: Creating the deaf community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Coillie, D. (1990, January 9). Deaf teacher protests hiring at Robarts. London Free Press.

  • Weber, J. (2020). Interrogating sign language ideologies in the Saskatchewan deaf community: An autoethnography. In A. Kusters, M. Green, E. MoriartyHarrelson, & K. Snoddon (Eds.), Sign language ideologies in practice (pp. 23–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Federation of the Deaf. (2018). WFD position paper on inclusive education. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Snoddon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Snoddon, K. Sign language planning and policy in Ontario teacher education. Lang Policy 20, 577–598 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Deaf education
  • Sign language policy
  • Ontario Education Act
  • Teacher education
  • American Sign Language
  • Langue des signes québécoise