Response to interpellation 2023/24:760 on the design of sign language training for parents
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the design of sign language training for parents (TUFF) to promote equal language development for children with hearing impairment or deafness 1. S considers that the training must be more flexible to meet families' individual needs, as children's needs vary depending on whether they are completely dependent on sign language or can use spoken language via cochlear implants 2 3 4. S emphasizes that insufficient training can lead to isolation and hindered development for the children 2 4. L argues that it is important for parents to learn sign language as well as possible 5 6 and that the government is now preparing proposals to extend the training period 5 6 7. L shares S's opinion on the importance of training for parents 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Jessica Rodén has asked Education Minister Mats Persson what measures the Minister intends to take to ensure that all parents of children with hearing impairment or deafness are given the opportunity to learn and teach their children sign language throughout their upbringing in order to thereby promote equal language development and participation in society. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
All people need language to be able to communicate with their surroundings. Knowledge of Swedish Sign Language increases an individual's opportunities to participate in various social and cultural contexts. It is valuable for a person with a hearing impairment or deafness to master both Swedish Sign Language and Swedish in order to be able to participate actively in social and work life. Parents who have children who need sign language for their communication and who want to learn sign language to be able to support their child's development can attend sign language training for parents, TUFF. From Section 3 of the Ordinance (1997:1158) on state grants for sign language training for certain parents, it appears that TUFF shall consist of stackable courses totaling 240 hours. The National Agency for Special Needs Education, SPSM, decides on state grants to educational providers who organize sign language training for parents of children who are dependent on sign language. It is important that TUFF meets the needs that exist.
There are today parents who request more than the 240 hours that are possible according to the current ordinance on state grants for sign language training for parents. SPSM has, among other things against this background, submitted proposals for amendments to the ordinance. The proposal is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
Post-secondary education in sign language is also offered at universities and by other educational providers. Some folk high schools have courses in sign language, and some study associations offer study circles in sign language.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also want to thank for the answer.
Today I want to speak about the importance of making the sign language training for parents more flexible in order to better meet the different needs that exist among families with children who are hard of hearing and deaf. For us Social Democrats, it is important that every child, regardless of hearing ability, is given the best possible conditions to develop and flourish. For this to be possible, the support for the families needs to be adapted to their individual needs.
As I wrote in my interpellation, 200 children are born every year with deafness or hearing impairment. Approximately the same number receive such a diagnosis during their upbringing. The majority of the families where these children live are otherwise hearing and lack previous experience or knowledge of sign language. The parents then need to learn sign language to be able to support their child in its linguistic development but also to be able to communicate with their child.
As a parent, one has the right to 240 hours of sign language training for parents, also called TUFF, as the Minister mentioned. These 240 hours are intended to support the child's language development, strengthen family relationships, and promote equality and inclusion throughout the child's upbringing.
Madam Speaker! We know that many children with hearing impairment or deafness receive cochlear implants that help them develop their hearing and thus also their spoken language. For these families, spoken language often becomes the primary means of communication.
At the same time, there are families where children are completely dependent on sign language to communicate. For these children, sign language is not just an alternative but a necessity for their cognitive, social, and emotional development. If these families do not receive sufficient education in sign language, the children risk falling behind a communication barrier that hinders their opportunity to participate fully in society.
It is important to realize how the lack of sufficient sign language training affects families' participation in society. Parents who cannot communicate effectively with their children may feel isolated and insecure. This can lead to a reduced ability to support the child's development and social life, which in turn can negatively affect the child's self-confidence and development.
For the hearing-impaired or deaf child, insufficient sign language training for the parents means that they may miss important developmental opportunities. Language is the foundation for learning, and without strong linguistic skills, these children risk falling behind their hearing peers.
The Minister states in his answer that SPSM has submitted proposals for changes to the ordinance and that these proposals are being prepared at the Government Offices. Will the government proceed with any of the proposals that SPSM has submitted? Can the Minister tell us a bit about what measures the government, in that case, intends to take?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the interesting interpellation from Jessica Rodén.
It is important that TUFF corresponds to the needs that exist. In order to be able to support their children, it is important that one learns sign language as far as it is possible.
Today, very few of the parents are making maximum use of the 240 hours they are entitled to - I believe it is eleven people. There is likely both a need for parents to utilize more of the hours they are entitled to and a number of parents who would like a bit more time. That is also why SPSM has proposed that we should expand this possibility.
One has the right to 240 hours, but on average, parents utilize approximately 30 hours of these 240.
I personally believe that it would be good if one could increase that number of hours. It is important for these children and for communication between children and parents that one tries to learn sign language as well as possible. The Government is now preparing the proposal that SPSM has submitted. I do not dare to say today exactly how it will be designed.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! The purpose of this debate is, as I have said, that I want to highlight the importance of making sign language training for parents more flexible in order to better meet the individual needs of families.
To illustrate this, I would like to share two concrete examples that clearly show how varied the needs can be.
A few months ago, I met the parents of a girl who is five years old. They received an early notification that the girl is deaf and is one of those who cannot be helped by cochlear implants. The girl uses sign language exclusively in her communication with both her parents and in other contexts.
The 240 hours of TUFF were finished when the girl was four years old, exactly according to the recommendations that the hours should be completed quickly. But what is the idea after the TUFF hours are finished, the parents wonder? Should the parents stay at a level for a four-year-old in the language without being able to either support or follow their child in her language development?
In another family, a deaf boy was born 19 years ago. He was operated on with a cochlear implant when he was 15 months old. Thanks to the fact that the cochlear implant helps the boy so well, his parents did not need to complete the sign language training.
These two examples clearly show how different needs can exist among families with children who are hearing impaired or deaf. Parents of a child who is completely dependent on sign language need more support and education in sign language than those who have children who can acquire spoken language with the help of, for example, cochlear implants or hearing aids.
By offering more hours of sign language training to those who truly need it, it increases the possibility for those families to feel fully included in society.
Therefore, I wonder if the Minister and the Government see that there is an opportunity to make sign language education more flexible in order to be able to meet the different needs that exist in different families?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! As I have said, I think the question is very important. Even though there are quite few parents who utilize the total amount of 240 hours, there are parents who are in need of more. It is important to have greater flexibility than what we have today. But I do not dare to promise exactly how it will be designed.
The Government Offices are now working on the issue to ensure that parents receive the education needed to be able to communicate in a reasonable and good way with their children. It is important that one learns sign language and that one receives as much support as possible in their ambitions to do so for the children's sake. It is important.
Jessica Rodén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for a cautiously positive announcement, which we can perhaps agree on.
In my previous post, I gave two examples of how the need for sign language training for parents can vary greatly. I now want to clarify that the second example concerns my own son. It is not often that one is personal in this speaker's chair. But I chose to be personal precisely to highlight this issue.
Language is something we develop and refine throughout our entire lives. To believe that one can master a language, whether it is spoken or signed, after only 240 hours of training is a misconception. Language development is an ongoing process that requires continuous practice and adaptation. I could have demonstrated that by trying to have this debate in sign language. However, that would have taken significantly longer than the time I have, Madam Speaker, so I will save that for another time.
In Sweden, the norm is the spoken language, which often results in sign language being overshadowed. Despite sign language being recognized as an official language in 1981, it is still not as accessible and integrated into society as the spoken language. This creates significant challenges for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and their families.
The limited status of sign language means that there are fewer opportunities for natural language learning and use in everyday life. This can lead to social isolation, minority stress, and barriers to full participation in society for those who depend on sign language for their communication.
To truly support our deaf and hard of hearing children and their families, I believe we need to offer an education that is flexible enough to be adapted to each family's unique needs and situation. I would like to thank the Minister for the debate.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I completely share Jessica Rodén's views on this issue. It is important that parents receive education. This applies, of course, in particular to those parents who are themselves hearing and who have a deaf child or a child with a hearing impairment.
It is also important that one tries to utilize as many of the hours as possible. Today, it is only about an average of eleven people who have taken part of the maximum number of hours. But that does not exclude that there are parents who would like to have even more than the 240 hours. The Government is currently looking into that possibility.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.