Inclusion in children's school life: are deaf parents forgotten?

ABSTRACT

Inclusive education is characterized by a positive culture that fosters collaboration and a welcoming environment for everyone, including parents from minority groups. This article explores the participation of deaf parents in their children's school life, to better understand what rights are still to be fulfilled and what political and practical measures need to be implemented, by means of Portuguese Sign Language Interpreters (PSLI), in school contexts in Portugal. A focus group with ten PSLI was developed to analyze the barriers and facilitators of deaf parents’ participation in the school life of their children, also seeking to evaluate how the PSLI can support the family-school relational dynamics. From the narratives of the participants, priority actions and lines of intervention stand out, which include political and organizational, practical, and attitudinal strategies aimed at greater sensitivity and knowledge of the school community about deaf culture.

Keywords:
Inclusive Education; Deaf Parentes; Participation; Portuguese Sign Language

RESUMO

A educação inclusiva é definida por uma cultura positiva de acolhimento e de colaboração entre todos, incluindo os pais de grupos minoritários. Neste artigo, procurou-se aprofundar a participação de pais surdos na vida escolar dos seus filhos, explorando que direitos estão ainda por cumprir e que medidas políticas e práticas são necessárias implementar, por meio da perspectiva de Tradutores e Intérpretes de Língua Gestual Portuguesa (TILGP), nos contextos escolares em Portugal. Desenvolveu-se um grupo focal com dez TILGP para analisar barreiras e facilitadores na participação de pais surdos na vida escolar dos seus filhos, procurando também avaliar de que modo o TILGP pode apoiar a dinâmica relacional família-escola. Com base nas narrativas dos participantes, destacam-se ações e linhas interventivas prioritárias, que incluem estratégias políticas e organizacionais, práticas e atitudinais para maior sensibilidade e conhecimento da comunidade escolar sobre a cultura surda.

Palavras-chave:
Educação Inclusiva; Pais Surdos; Participação; Língua Gestual Portuguesa

RESUMEN

La educación inclusiva se define por una cultura positiva de acogida y colaboración entre todos, incluyendo a los padres de grupos minoritarios. Este artículo buscó profundizar la participación de los padres sordos en la vida escolar de sus hijos, explorando qué derechos aún no se han cumplido y qué medidas políticas y prácticas son necesarias implementar, a través de la perspectiva de los Intérpretes de Lengua de Signos Portuguesa (ILSP) que trabajan en contextos escolares en Portugal. Se usó un grupo focal con 10 ILSP para analizar las barreras y facilitadores para la participación de los padres sordos en la vida escolar de sus hijos, evaluando cómo el ILSP puede apoyar la dinámica relacional familia-escuela. De las narrativas de los participantes se destacan acciones prioritarias y líneas de intervención, que incluyen estrategias: políticas y organizativas, prácticas, y actitudinales para una mayor sensibilidad y conocimiento de la comunidad escolar sobre la cultura sorda.

Palabras clave:
Educación Inclusiva; Padres Sordos; Participación; Lengua de Signos Portuguesa

INTRODUCTION

In 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities clarified the link between the use of sign languages and the human right to language. One of the priorities is the recognition, promotion and access to professional sign language translators and interpreters, to guarantee deaf people the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. This basic rhetoric aims to ensure that deaf families have access to and enjoy human rights such as language and education.

In the Portuguese school context, the right to use sign language finds political-legal continuity in Decree-Law 54/2018, which provides for the existence of Reference Schools for Bilingual Education (EREBs). EREBs aim to ensure access to information and the curriculum by developing bilingual environments (Article 15). As established in Decree-Law no. 54/2018, each school should set up a multidisciplinary support team for inclusive education, made up of permanent and variable members of the education team (teachers and specialised technicians) who, together, pursue the mobilisation of measures to support learning and the inclusion of all students (Article 12). In the specific case of EREBs, the same legislative act also stipulates the integration of teachers with specialised training in deafness education, Portuguese sign language (LGP) teachers, translators and interpreters (TILGPs) and speech therapists, in order to organise differentiated educational responses with the same general aim of promoting the inclusion of all students.

TILGP who make up these teams are essential for deaf students’ education, acting as communication mediators between deaf students and the surrounding community (Barbosa, Teixeira and Barbosa, 2016; Rodrigues and Coelho, 2019). In addition to their work in the classroom, TILGPs also perform a range of non-teaching activities, such as working collaboratively with the school team to develop learning resources, planning awareness-raising and training events for the school community, as well as mediating relationships with families (Barbosa, Teixeira and Barbosa, 2016).

The implementation of these teams in EREBs has made schools the main context in which TILGPs work, gathering the highest percentage of these professionals in active service (Barbosa de Sousa et al., 2022). According to data published by the Direção-Geral de Estatísticas da Educação e Ciência (DGEEC, 2024), between the 2020/2021 and 2022/2023 school years, the number of full-time professional LGP interpreters in schools increased by 34.58%, totalling around 83 TILGP in Portuguese schools in the last school year of reference.

However, this political-legal and practical framework regards only guaranteeing the essential conditions for a deaf child's participation in the general education system. However, it is also the right of all children to have a collaborative family-school relationship when their parents are deaf. There are still few or almost no studies analysing this right and exploring school community training in mediating the school-deaf parent relationship.

Taking as a motto the question: ‘How are deaf parents ensured their participation in their children's school life?’, this article explores the perspective of sign language translation and interpreting professionals on the participation of deaf parents in their children's school life, seeking to discuss priorities and lines of action for promoting the family-school relationship.

THE SCHOOL AS A DEMOCRATIC SPACE FOR FAMILY PARTICIPATION

Although the concepts of democracy and inclusion are not synonymous, their meanings have overlapping principles. By bringing back Dewey's (2008) idea of democracy and education, we realise that the creation of democratic and fair schools depends on the connection between students, teachers, families and the community, in order to provide a joint living experience, based on fairness between its members. This idea calls for schools to play a fundamental role in promoting equal opportunities for all, experiencing democracy on a daily basis and with equitable conditions. In line with this idea, the proposal for inclusive education is based on the aim of ensuring a school for all, as a human right and a moral imperative, and is therefore deeply related to democracy, participation and equity (Sanches-Ferreira et al., 2022).

A democratic and inclusive school implies the participation of everyone, including families and the community. Collet-Sabé (2018) suggests that the school-family relationship depends on four school management principles:

• inclusion, guaranteeing the presence, participation and involvement of families in the school;

• equity, overcoming barriers that arise from inequalities and limit the possibilities for vulnerable families to participate;

• empowerment, involving families in decision-making together with the school team;

• enhanced democracy, creating a non-judgemental school environment where all opinions are considered in the time and space dedicated to sharing.

In the specific case of deaf children and parents’ participation in school life, school management plays an imperative role in understanding the complex reality and barriers experienced by these families, as well as creating facilitating conditions — e.g., producing/ensuring resources and tools, supporting the creation of educational programmes (Klingner et al., 2005; Epstein, 2010).

PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION AT SCHOOL

Parents’ participation in their children's school life has been the subject of various conceptualisations over time, evolving from traditional and more limited participation to constructive and multiple participation (Baker et al., 2016). According to Park and Holloway (2016), this participation can be organised into three types: good private involvement; good public involvement; and parents networks. While private and public involvement are supported by the school, and activities are carried out with the participation of parents for the benefit of their children and the school, respectively, in the case of parents network it is the parents who initiate and promote contact between families and the school community. The same authors reveal that most parents tend to be more involved in private activities (such as helping their children study and attending meetings) than public activities (such as taking part in festive activities) — regularly more stratified by socio-economic status than private activities. We, therefore, return to the reflection shared by Collet-Sabé (2018) that schools’ investment in a single model ("one size fits all model") for promoting family participation is a significant obstacle to creating a democratic and fair environment for all.

With regard to the type of ‘parents networks’ involvement, Park and Holloway (2016) describe them as informal groups based on trust, commitment and a shared identity, which, arising from the parents’ own initiative, are an important source of information about events or issues in everyday institutional life. However, as with ‘good public involvement,’ this type of participation also has a tendency towards exclusive organisation, in which the level of parents’ involvement is largely defined by the degree of competence and influence they are able to exert over the school management.

Accepting and promoting families diversity — in this context of growing cultural and linguistic diversity — therefore, means enabling various forms of participation, including for parents who find themselves on the ‘margins of the system.’ Promoting a positive school environment, characterised by equity and inclusion conditions that extend to the whole community, is associated with positive results for everyone, but especially for students (Schachner, 2017).

DEAF PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL

In Portugal, parents’ participation in their children's school life is a right and a duty, enhanced by Decree-Law no. 54/2018, which establishes parents’ active cooperation in everything related to their children's education as a condition for inclusive education (Article 4). However, while the path to inclusion for deaf children is materialising through reference schools (EREBs) and teams that include TILGPs, the participation of deaf parents still faces a ‘void’ in terms of structured strategies capable of ensuring their right to accompany and participate in their children's school life.

In 2023, Barbosa et al. brought to light the barriers to deaf parents’ participation in Portuguese schools. A focus group with ten deaf mothers analysed their perspectives and experiences regarding their involvement and participation in their hearing children's school life. Analysing their narratives made it clear that their involvement was mainly restricted to actions strictly related to their child, helping them study and attending meetings. The actions immersed in the school community are mostly associated with negative experiences marked by communicational and attitudinal obstacles. Investigations with hearing children of deaf parents (Olkin et al., 2006; Hadjikakou et al., 2009; Fox, 2018; Mallory, Schein and Zingle, 2019) confirm the existence of a less positive attitude on the part of the school community in accepting linguistic difference, resulting in the need for these families to resort to third parties and/or their children to communicate with and at school. Among other less positive experiences lived by the deaf community, Witkoski (2009) reports similar attitudes in the school context, characterising them as usual in deaf people's daily lives.

To overcome the communication barrier between deaf parents and school staff, and enshrine their right to language through the presence of a TILGP, for the first time since the 2012/2013 school year in Portugal, Decree-Law no. 132/2012 redefines school recruitment and mobility to include TILGPs as an option in recruiting specialised technicians. Later, and since 2022:

the Government creates a flextime system for sign language interpreters in mandatory education, per school year, of no less than 12 hours per year, to be used by families with a deaf parent and a child of school age (Portugal, 2022, p. 71).

These decisions — separated by a decade, have not been implemented in practice. As documented in other countries (Streiechen, Cruz and Krause-Lemke, 2019; Sander and Martins, 2021), in Portugal the channels of communication with schools are maintained by private professional sign language translators and interpreters, family members or the children themselves, and by a set of generally insufficient strategies.

The widespread presence of translators and interpreters in schools, the training/capacity building of the school community and multilingual learning, including sign language, continue to be the strategies mentioned by deaf parents to fulfil their right to participate in their children's school life (Barbosa et al., 2023).

METHOD

As part of a participatory paradigm, this study used an exploratory approach to analyse and understand inequalities experienced by deaf parents in accessing and participating in their children's school life. In addition to listening to the parents themselves in the study The participation of deaf mothers in the school life of their hearing children (Barbosa et al., 2023), the analysis of TILGPs’ perspective on the current barriers and lines of intervention for deaf parents’ participation in their children's school life was carried out using a qualitative strategy based on the focus group method. This methodological choice was based on the flexibility and openness of focus groups, which are essentially defined as spaces for discussion, capable of instigating critical reflection and deepening opinions and perceptions through collective and collaborative dialogue (Myers, 1998).

PARTICIPANTS

The focus group was attended by ten TILGPs. They were recruited as experienced professionals working as TILGP in a school context, and having had contact with deaf parents to support and mediate their relationship with the school. The identification and invitation of potential participants came from the first author's contact network, a convenience sampling process that met not only the criteria mentioned above, but also the need for representation of the different regions of Portugal in the sample.

The invitation to take part in the study was sent by e-mail, explaining the objectives of the study, the method and the expected impact. This invitation was accompanied by an informed consent form that was signed by the ten professionals who agreed to take part in the study.

The participants were all women between 28 and 38 years old. Most of the professionals (n = 9) had more than ten years’ experience working in schools. All participants worked in EREB, between the 5^th and 9^th grade (n = 6), and in secondary education (n = 4). All of those schools had contact with families of students with deaf parents.

The professionals were from different regions of the country, including: north region (n = 4), Lisbon Metropolitan Area (n = 2), centre region (n = 1), south region (n = 2) and the Madeira Autonomous Region (n = 1). In addition to a degree in LGP Translation and Interpreting, five of the participants had postgraduate and master's degrees in fields related to deaf education and LGP translation and interpreting.

DATA COLLECTION

The focus group was conducted via Zoom and had a duration of 2 hours and 45 minutes. The first author took on the role of moderator following a discussion script made up of open questions. The questions posed by the moderator triggered a discussion organised essentially around four topics:

• meaning and forms of parent participation;

• experiences in mediating the relationship between parents and school;

• facilitating factors and barriers to participation;

• changes needed at the political and practical level.

The discussion script was developed in line with the previous study (Barbosa et al., 2023), which was formulated based on other previous studies related to parents’ participation in their children's school life (Lara and Saracostti, 2019; Levinthal, Kuusisto and Tirri, 2021).

Some of the questions asked included:

• What defines a good school-family relationship?

• What's your experience in mediating the relationship between deaf parents and the school?

• What modalities and strategies are used in schools to promote deaf parents’ participation?

• What mechanisms or solutions can or should the school and parents adopt?

In line with the practical guidelines associated with conducting focus groups (Adler, Salantera e Zumstein-Shaha, 2019), during the session, the questions were posed in a flexible way and open to the remarks and experiences of all participants, in a fluid conversation and with minimal interference from the moderator.

The start of the focus group was preceded by the participants completing a short questionnaire to record demographic data such as age, academic qualifications, professional experience in the school context, region of residence, and the school levels in which they worked. At no time was data collected that would allow the personal or institutional identification of those involved.

DATA ANALYSIS

The focus group session was audio-recorded for later transcription. The transcribed text was analysed independently by two researchers. That analysis involved identifying units of meaning — defined at the sentence segment level — and grouping them into categories and subcategories that reflected the participants’ main ideas. This exercise of identifying categories and subcategories led to the development of a categorisation scheme, which was discussed and refined by the two researchers in debriefing sessions. The final categorisation scheme was thus arrived at by consensus and based on an inductive analysis, i.e. supported by the nature of the ideas and experiences shared by the participants.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The development of this study was based on the ethical guidelines for research in education published by the Ethics Committee of the Centre for Research and Innovation in Education (inED), including obtaining informed consent from all participants and anonymising data. The data collection and analysis protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of inED of the Higher School of Education of the Polytechnic of Porto.

RESULTS

The analysis of the TILGP discourses identified 18 categories that reflected the participants’ perspectives on the four thematic axes of the interviews: forms of parent participation; barriers; tools and facilitators; and necessary changes. Figure 1 shows the categorisation scheme resulting from the content analysis, with the categories identified in each theme.

Figure 1
Categorisation scheme.

THEME 1: FORMS OF PARENT PARTICIPATION

In the first theme, forms of parent participation, the participants discussed what it means to participate as guardians in their children's school life. That discussion described forms of involvement that include directly helping them study, and participating in formal and non-formal school activities.

Helping their child was emphasised as a form of participation that reflects parents’ commitment to helping in their children's learning activities at home and monitoring their progress at school:

Parent participation, therefore, means monitoring their children's progress in school, their academic career. Specifically, meeting with the head teacher, the teacher in charge, finding out what grades the child is achieving, receiving messages at home, whether it's about a school trip, whether there's a virus at school, or whether someone has chickenpox. Having the opportunity to receive other types of messages or information from the school or call the school and ask. Liaising with other parents, belonging to the parents’ association, for example (Focus group, PI8).

The importance of this role was discussed as a guiding factor in their children's school career:

Some kids are often completely lost, have no type of parental guidance (Focus group, PI2).

Involvement in formal meetings was also highlighted as one of the main ways in which parents participate in their children's school life. The formal nature was associated in the participants’ discourse with a tendency for information being transmitted unilaterally to:

Receive their grades (Focus group, PI5).

Any problem that happens inside the school (Focus group, PI1).

This definition inherently entails a sense of scarcity in the opportunities that parents are generally offered to participate in school life.

Participating in our children's school life isn't just about the teaching-learning process, it's about the entire school life: whether they go to the canteen or not, whether or not there are cases of bullying, in short, the relationship between teachers and students and, in my opinion, this participation is full when there is a good relationship with the class teacher — in the case of primary school, or the head teacher, i.e., this relationship and this participation depends also on who is on the other side. I see parents, often even, wanting to get involved, and the head teachers won't give them more… (Focus group, PI9).

Another element that, according to participants, defines parent participation in the school refers to their involvement in matters of school life and governance, to take part in organising and carrying out school events, namely:

Knowing the school's educational project (Focus group, PI1, PI4, PI5).

Knowing the annual activity plan (Focus group, PI4, PI5).

Cooperating as much as possible with the school, with everything that happens, with activities, with field trips, and trying to be flexible too, so that things can work out in the best possible way and their children can succeed at school (Focus group, PI1).

Cooperating with the school, parents’ association, school coordination, management and focusing on our participation with the other parents, and the needs that perhaps other students and parents also have (Focus group, PI3).

Involvement through parent networks was also explored, specifically the use of informal remote media:

WhatsApp groups (Focus group, PI7, PI8).

Social media (Focus group, PI7).

Groups that meet outside the school environment (Focus group, PI7).

Participating in parents networks also included joining formal networks such as the parents association.

Transversal to the discussion of these different forms of participation, there has always been the idea that parents play a central role in their children's success at school:

This closeness is very important even for the school success of a hearing child with deaf parents (Focus group, PI2).

Not just success at school, but also on an affective and emotional level, and feeling good about the school they're in and all the conditions, the teachers and everyone involved (Focus group, PI1).

I think that the family is fundamental to students’ educational success, and I notice that schools are increasingly awarding importance to this pyramid (Focus group, PI5).

THEME 2: BARRIERS TO DEAF PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION

As for the barriers experienced by deaf parents in participating in their children's school life, several factors at various levels of the family-school relationship were pointed out and discussed: from situational aspects that define the global challenges faced by schools, to attitudinal and financial aspects that specifically affect deaf people.

At the situational level, some challenges were highlighted that currently define the family-school relationship — according to the participants, namely excessive interference from parents and the devaluation of teachers. The mention of teachers’ devaluation is, for the participants, associated with the phenomenon of the excessive use of WhatsApp groups, which have become a vehicle for continuous questioning of all teachers’ decisions and behaviour, and for a conditioning of educational decisions:

Parents’ participation in these social media, in these more informal contexts, is sometimes leading to excessive participation on the part of parents (Focus group, PI9).

It leads to certain activities and decisions not being taken for fear of what the parents will do, think, or say, and it's really going to extremes (Focus group, PI2).

Ageing of the teaching staff, failure of the school leadership to prioritise issues related to inclusion, and lack of resources were also mentioned as situational aspects that affect and limit deaf parents’ participation:

In other words, I notice a very big difference between the older teachers and the contract teachers who can easily even change parents’ minds (Focus group, PI9).

Even in reference schools, we often see that, despite having the resources available, the board has forgotten that there are parents… (Focus group, PI1).

They don't provide the interpreter, they don't provide the resources they have available (Focus group, PI7).

Specifically, the absence of interpreters at school was highlighted as the resource which, when lacking, most defines a distance between deaf parents and schools, particularly in the case of children whose schools are not those of reference:

Deaf parents with hearing children in non-reference schools, which have no support from a sign language interpreter, have no accessibility (Focus group, PI4).

To get round this difficulty they have to pay ‘out of pocket’ (Focus group, PI3, PI6).

Such distancing is exemplified in common routines/activities, such as parents’ participation in school activities, like storytelling, which will not be accessible without an interpreter. In addition, there are limitations in terms of access to general information/communications from teachers and all other trivial communication situations that successively lead to the exclusion of parents from communication circles and their relationship with the school:

Lack of support, lack of a sign language interpreter, lack of accessibility, lack of conditions, lack of communication, lack of information, lack of sensitivity and knowledge on the part of these schools to support these guardians lead to this lack of accountability (Focus group, PI3).

Another barrier lies, according to participants, in school-family communication practices that are based solely on mediation and holding children accountable, using the hearing child as an ‘interpreter’ (Focus group, PI1, PI3, PI6). This practice was described by the participants as having a negative impact on the parent-child relationship, as well as damaging children's socio-emotional development as a result of excessive responsibility in managing and mediating school-family matters:

This transfer of responsibility to the children reflects very negatively on the child-parent/children-parents relationship (Focus group, PI3).

Many of the parents — from the experiences I had, feel some frustration, especially in mainstream schools, so they feel some frustration and don't participate, so their children are grown up by force, in other words, so they take care of themselves (Focus group, PI6).

These hindering factors or practices have been defining school-parent communication as a last resort event — limited to events that tend to be negative or worrying. The TILGPs explained that deaf parents are only called in as a last resort:

When there is a negative evaluation, the child is ill or there has been a problem with the child. Other than that, they're not even called in (Focus group, PI8).

Preconceptions about difficulties in communicating with deaf parents are deeply linked to this narrowing of communication to the essential, in this case, the negative or the urgent:

At school they think, ‘Oh my God, we might as well not call them because then we won't know how to communicate with them, will we? Only as a last resort’ (Focus group, PI2).

This avoidance is also emphasised by the interpreter as being two-way, i.e. teachers only go to parents as a last resort, but the parents, similarly, only go to the school or teacher under extreme situations. This reduction to what is essential in the family-school relationship, justified by preconceptions, is naturally also related to practical and financial aspects:

They'll only pay for an interpreter when it's serious, it's serious ‘my child is going to fail’ (Focus group, PI8).

Still within the scope of preconceptions, there was a discussion about the social assumption that deaf parents necessarily have less responsibility/influence over their child's contact with the hearing world. The participants reveal this is a common feeling among deaf people, regarding not only society, but also their own families.

The family […], which is mostly hearing […], questions their ability as parents, ok? (Focus group, PI9).

They grew up thinking that maybe they weren't good at doing things, they weren't good at writing, they weren't good at reading, they weren't good at their school grades, so maybe they won't be good at school either (Focus group, PI7)..

In the words of the participants, there is a very strong presence of social stigma, considering the deaf person ‘an incapable being’ (Focus group, PI1), which predisposes educational agents to seek out or channel relationships to other close family members, namely the children's grandparents:

Because they are the ones [grandparents] who then take responsibility for their [children's] education (Focus group, PI3).

THEME 3: TOOLS AND FACILITATORS

As for the tools and facilitators for bringing parents closer to their children's school life, the participants emphasise the need for parents to be empowered in seeking and claiming their rights, which necessarily include access to interpreters in schools. This search and claim of rights is currently linked to the demand for EREB, as a context that guarantees access to communication:

They end up leaving the kids at the reference schools so that they can ensure an active participation in their children's education (Focus group, PI4).

This quest to guarantee the right to participation was discussed by the interpreters, highlighting the importance of parents knowing and fighting for their rights:

They have to fight (Focus group, PI9).

Going to school, demanding their rights, going to the Ministry of Education, going to Parliament (Focus group, PI9).

Today, EREBs are the only educational settings where the presence of interpreters is guaranteed (see Introduction). And in this context, the participants described the need for the interpreter to be close to the entire school community — and not just the deaf pupils they accompany. According to the participants, as a member of the school community, the interpreter plays a role in facilitating communication between everyone in the community, including deaf parents:

Communication facilitators in the surrounding, encompassing area (Focus group, PI5).

The interpreter is already there and belongs to the school (Focus group, PI8).

All meetings are translated, all team meetings, which are weekly (Focus group, PI7).

Therefore, the importance of the interpreter being and belonging — as a member, to the interdisciplinary team — is a necessary step towards involving them in all school processes related to inclusion, ensuring the participation of deaf parents. There are several collaborative problems in schools that seem to ignore this more active role for interpreters:

The interpreter is never there… […] we had a lot to contribute and we're not even listened to, and there's a lot of information that the special education teacher doesn't pass on to the parents (Focus group, PI10).

We are rarely called into this communication that exists between the parent and the special education teacher (Focus group, PI10).

Another fundamental facilitating condition is the school's sensitivity and knowledge of the family and deaf culture. Knowing and getting closer to deaf culture is an element highlighted by the participants as a best practice to be developed by schools. Examples of practices already implemented were given:

My school does lots of things to get parents to come (Focus group, PI9).

Since it's a reference school and the teachers see that there are deaf people in the school, they are more aware (Focus group, PI8).

We call the parents, we call these relatives; we invite the guardians to many of the activities, such as meetings with deaf adults, the conferences and the EREB day, which is something more specific for deaf people (Focus group, PI3).

This awareness and closeness to deaf culture is described, above all, via the deaf student, and in the case of hearing students, closeness to the deaf family is still a distant reality.

Finally, the education of the school community in LGP was also emphasised as a necessary condition. By showcasing the idea that inclusion involves the entire community, not just the support technicians, the TILGPs stressed everyone's involvement in bringing about change:

We can only make change happen if those who know both languages and both cultures are willing to share and are generous and humble enough to do so without any vested interests on either side (Focus group, PI5).

THEME 4: CHANGE

The last thematic axis focused on the priority changes to include deaf parents in their children's school life. One of the first points highlighted — given the organisational context of Portuguese schools — was the need to expand priority enrolment in EREBs to hearing children with deaf parents, not just to deaf students, as is currently established. The participants revealed that it should be the right of parents as well as of hearing children to be close to and recognise deaf culture:

As a choice of the parents, they can feel better, their children are also more integrated, they can even be in a community where there is sign language, which is sometimes the mother tongue of those children even though they are hearing children, and even the deaf parents are better integrated in activities (Focus group, PI8).

Providing more support time for parents (by the teacher and the interpreter) is another critical change from the interpreters’ perspective. Such availability of time would make it easier for deaf parents to share the difficulties and challenges they face in monitoring their child's school life:

The teacher must be honest and tell the deaf parent ‘look, we're giving this, this and this’, in the presence of someone who knows sign language, an interpreter naturally, and for the deaf parent to say ‘look, I don't have the skills to work on this — right? — because I can't hear, I don't speak" (Focus group, PI8).

In fact, since Portuguese is not the parents’ mother tongue, there is an understandable need to provide them with more support so that they can effectively follow their child's studies, and there is a need to structure the relationship/communication moments in such a way as to guarantee full accessibility for the parents. Inherently, an attitude of power-sharing and mutual understanding is added to time:

This honesty must exist, because otherwise neither the teacher realises why the father isn't accompanying, nor does the child, in fact, because at some point he's going to be left behind, nor can you let other people, grandparents and uncles, take all the initiatives (Focus group, PI8).

Acceptance, respect, truth and trust is valid […], so that inclusion is not a transient thing (Focus group, PI5).

Less judgement and more empathy, because I'm in the meetings and it gives me the creeps: people are judged for anything and everything, don't put themselves in their position, they simply make serious accusations without knowing the context (Focus group, PI9).

Making time to spend with parents (Focus group, PI4, PI8).

The creation of helplines and translation of materials along with access to interpreting services is another necessary development:

An organised service […], like 24-hour healthcare¹ — isn't it? (Focus group, PI9).

The interpretation of school websites […] the most crucial and important information, because we often see deaf parents who don't even know what day school starts and also because they don't have this contact with other parents, which makes everything difficult (Focus group, PI3).

Access to translation services in formal and informal settings is seen as an unfulfilled right:

Having a translation and interpreting service so they can keep up with their children's school life (Focus group, PI8).

In this relationship between guardians and the school with deaf parents, in meetings […], extracurricular activities,² parties, activities and in our school, even in the classroom in Portuguese, math and environmental studies classes (Focus group, PI3).

DISCUSSION

This study is part of a wider project, which first involved listening to deaf mothers about their participation in their children's school life (Barbosa et al., 2023). The aim of this study was to further analyse, from a participatory perspective, which rights are still unfulfilled and which policy and practical measures need to be implemented from the perspective of the TILGPs. With this mission in mind, a focus group was held with ten TILGPs to analyse the barriers and facilitators to deaf parents’ participation in their children's school life, and also to assess how TILGPs can support the family-school relationship dynamic.

From the TILGPs narratives, this study enhances the concept (Park and Holloway, 2016; Barbosa et al., 2023) that parent participation in school life is multidimensional in nature and takes place: at home, monitoring their child's studies and school career; in the school, in individual and collective activities and decision-making; and around the school, in communication and relationships with other parents.

Despite this general notion of parent participation, this study reaffirms that deaf parents’ relationship with the school is limited by various barriers. Parents are sought out and come to the school as a last resort and out of concern for their children. This poor relationship, which is constantly dominated by negative topics, is also documented from the mothers’ perspective. In the study by Barbosa et al. (2023), they reported that communication with the school was often limited to problematic situations, such as negative grades or disciplinary issues, and that they rarely felt invited to participate in school events or in their children's teaching-learning process.

Other studies, such as those by Olkin et al. (2006) and Hadjikakou et al. (2009), corroborate this reality by showing that deaf parents are often marginalised in the education system, the language barrier being one of the biggest obstacles to their participation. These investigations show that, in many contexts, communication between the school and deaf parents is mediated by the children, which can jeopardise parents’ autonomy and create an inappropriate responsibility dynamic for the children, as observed by Streiechen, Cruz and Krause-Lemke (2019).

This limitation in the family-school relationship is not only the result of a lack of sign language interpreters, but also of an attitudinal culture that continues to underestimate deaf parents’ ability to participate actively and effectively. As documented by Sander and Martins (2021), lack of recognition of deafness as a linguistic and cultural difference results in preconceptions that perpetuate deaf parents’ distance, preventing them from fully assuming their role in their children's school life. As a result, the relationship with the school often ends up being reactive and occasional, rather than an ongoing, collaborative partnership.

This study also reaffirms that deaf parents’ current relationship with the school is very restricted and limited by various barriers, one of which is the lack of interpreters, as emphasised by Barbosa et al. (2023). In the Portuguese context, despite Decree-Law no. 54/2018 guaranteeing access to inclusive education through EREBs, reality shows that the role of TILGPs is often undervalued and limited to students, not extending to their families (Barbosa et al., 2023). This exclusion jeopardises effective communication between deaf parents and schools, as also pointed out by Streiechen, Cruz and Krause-Lemke (2019), who note that lack of linguistic accessibility translates into an exaggerated dependence on hearing children to mediate communication.

Such dependence on hearing children, who often take on the role of interpreters for their parents, is reflected in various studies (Streiechen, Cruz and Krause-Lemke, 2019; Sander and Martins, 2021). In fact, the parentification of children — a term that designates the attribution of parental responsibilities to under-age children — has significant consequences for their emotional and academic development, as discussed by Klimentová and Dočekal (2020). This study corroborates such reality, as deaf parents often turn to their children to mediate communication, leading to early maturity and unwanted emotional stress. In line with this, Sander and Martins (2021) emphasise that such practice can disrupt the family environment, generating tensions that affect not only the parent-child relationship but also children's educational achievement.

Besides the communication issue, the results show a persistent preconception as to deaf parents’ ability to fulfil their role as guardians efficiently. This idea has already been discussed by Barbosa et al. (2023), who emphasise that deaf parents often face discriminatory attitudes from schools, preferring to channel communication to hearing family members, such as grandparents, or directly to their children. This attitude is deeply damaging, as pointed out by Olkin et al. (2006), as it perpetuates an idea of incapacity and prevents deaf parents from actively participating in their children's education journey.

Another critical aspect to consider is attitudinal barriers. As Lacerda (2005) and Mendes (2012) argue, for deaf parents to participate effectively, the school community needs to change its attitude. However, this study and the results of Barbosa et al. (2023) show that Portuguese schools still face significant challenges in this area, with many teachers and school staff unaware of deaf families’ specific needs. Klingner et al. (2005) also mention that lack of training and cultural sensitivity in schools prevents the creation of a truly inclusive environment, alienating families from active participation.

Also, the discussion on facilitators highlights the essential role of TILGPs in mediating not only the school-student but also the school-parent relationship. As pointed out by Rodrigues and Coelho (2019), interpreters play a crucial role in building communication bridges and eliminating linguistic barriers. However, this study shows that their role is still very much focused on the students and is not being used in a comprehensive way to include families. To achieve true inclusion, as Epstein (2010) and Collet-Sabé (2018) emphasise, schools need not only to guarantee the presence of interpreters, but also to create structures that facilitate the collaborative and equitable participation of deaf parents.

It is therefore clear that, despite political and legal progress, there is still a long way to go to ensure that deaf parents can fully and meaningfully participate in their children's school life. In addition to guaranteeing the presence of interpreters, as proposed by Barbosa et al. (2023), it is necessary to promote the education of the school community regarding deaf culture, create more inclusive policies and explore the use of more advanced communication technology (Heyerick, 2023; Yeratziotis et al., 2023) that allows deaf families greater autonomy.

Indeed, communication between deaf and hearing people who do not speak sign language is much more complex than it seems at first sight. As Young, Oram and Napier (2019) emphasise, this is a linguistic and cultural disparity that goes beyond a mere difference in languages; it is a gap between worlds that requires innovative communication solutions. In everyday life, deaf people often resort to a combination of gestures, writing, notes or other visual forms of communication to make themselves understood, as discussed by Kusters (2017). However, while these strategies can be effective in simple or informal situations, they become inadequate when communication needs to be deeper, such as in formal school contexts, where precision and clarity are essential (Young, Oram and Napier, 2019).

In the educational field, where interactions between deaf parents and schools involve the exchange of critical information about students’ development and well-being, lack of access to qualified interpreters severely limits such exchange. As Groat (2018) argues, the solution is to raise awareness of the hearing population about the need to interact with deaf people without letting the language difference become an insurmountable barrier, especially when there are TILGPs available.

Besides the fundamental presence of TILGPs in EREBs, as pointed out in the study by Barbosa et al. (2023), there is a growing need to expand the role of those professionals beyond the classroom. Rodrigues and Coelho (2019) emphasise that TILGPs should be more than communication mediators between students and teachers, and should also actively participate in meetings between parents and the school. This proposal is particularly relevant in a scenario where communication with deaf parents tends to be channelled to third parties (children or hearing relatives), resulting in a loss of autonomy and involuntary distancing of parents from their children's school life. The LGP interpreter, as a bilingual and bicultural specialist, plays a crucial role in overcoming those barriers, ensuring that deaf people's linguistic rights are respected in all spheres of school life (Rodrigues and Coelho, 2019).

Complementing this view, Groat (2018) argues that cultural understanding is essential for building bridges and enabling more meaningful interaction between deaf and hearing people. In the school context, that understanding can be facilitated by actions to raise awareness and educate the school community about deaf culture, something that both Klingner et al. (2005) and Collet-Sabé (2018) consider essential for truly democratic and participatory inclusion.

Another barrier highlighted by TILGPs regards situational aspects, such as the growing devaluation of teachers and the impact of social media, which often become platforms for negative and confrontational approaches. Leiria and Bastos (2022), referring to the use of tools such as WhatsApp, stress the idea that these media have become a ‘permanent digital meeting,’ where conflict and uninterrupted debate undermine teachers’ authority and trust in school management. This phenomenon reflects the greater complexity of school-family relationships in the present context.

As far as the deaf community is concerned, the barriers are not limited to technological matters. As highlighted by Calgaro et al. (2021), the vulnerability and resilience of this community are shaped by a reality where access to quality education, information in accessible formats and specialised resources remains limited. The absence of interpreters in educational contexts, as we saw in the results of this study, illustrates this limited access.

Another factor that restricts resilience and the overcoming of the barriers faced by deaf families is the lack of clear guidelines and adequate funding to support long-term, sustainable change. Implementing inclusive and supportive strategies for these families requires a strong organisational structure and robust public policies. Failure to understand and overcome the cultural divide between the deaf community and the hearing world, as highlighted in the study by Streiechen, Cruz and Krause-Lemke (2019), also significantly limits the building of bridges between these realities. These aspects reveal that, in addition to attitudinal barriers, there is a structural mismatch that prevents a real school and the social inclusion of deaf families, something that both the Portuguese and international contexts have documented (Fox, 2018; Barbosa et al., 2023).

In this context, intervention should focus on educational policies that promote deaf families’ empowerment and guarantee the implementation of more effective and inclusive communication strategies that go beyond simple recourse to digital networks.

From the TILGP's perspective, we highlight five action priorities that seem critical in adapting the family-school relationship to ensure deaf parents’ right to participate:

• recognising EREBs as contexts that facilitate deaf parents’ participation;

• establishing processes/routines to bring families closer to schools, especially in terms of linguistic and cultural diversity;

• educating the school community about deaf culture/community, dismantling attitudinal barriers in particular;

• recognising the role of TILGPs:

  • promoting access to TILGPs that serve everyone in a school context, including the relationship between professionals and the family;

  • opening up their action to the entire school community — as communication mediators between the various elements belonging to the school community;

  • identifying TILGPs as specialists in the inclusion of deaf students and people who must necessarily participate actively in solving school and interdisciplinary teams problems;

• using and expanding the use of communication and relationship strategies with deaf parents, in particular promoting face-to-face, individual or small group meetings, using digital platforms for written communication and video calls.

Finally, it is important to highlight some of the limitations of this study. The first relates to characteristics that derive from the very nature of the methodology used. The small number of participants and the fact that only one focus group was conducted is a constraint that we are trying to overcome by complementing these results with those presented in the previous study, where the perspective of deaf mothers was analysed. Another aspect that can be presented as a limiting factor was the fact that the focus group was held remotely, preventing a more complete analysis of the participants’ narratives (including non-verbal language) and any possible greater closeness and depth in the discussions.

• 1
  National Health Service Contact Centre in Portugal.
• 2
  Curriculum Enrichment Activities.
• Funding:
  Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. within the scope of Project UID/05198 2025 (Research and Innovation Centre in Education, inED).

Data availability statement:

Research data is only available upon request.

References

• ADLER, Kristin; SALANTERA, Sanna; ZUMSTEIN-SHAHA, Maya. Focus group interviews in child, youth, and parent research: an integrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, v. 18, p. 1-15, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919887274
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919887274
• BAKER, Timberly L.; WISE, Jillian; KELLEY, Gwendolyn; SKIBA, Russell. Identifying barriers: Creating solutions to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, v. 26, n. 2, p. 161-184, 2016. Disponível em: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124003.pdf Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124003.pdf
• BARBOSA, Susana; SILVEIRA-MAIA, Mónica; SANCHES-FERREIRA, Manuela; SANTOS, Miguel; ALVES, Silvia. A participação de mães surdas na vida escolar dos filhos ouvintes. Educação e Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 49, e258881, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349258881por
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349258881por
• BARBOSA, Susana; TEIXEIRA, Fernanda; BARBOSA, Sara. A contratação do intérprete de língua gestual portuguesa nas escolas públicas. Indagatio Didactica, Aveiro, v. 7, n. 4, p. 25-37, 2016. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v7i4.2884
  » https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v7i4.2884
• BARBOSA DE SOUSA, Susana; BRANCO, Susana; OLIVEIRA, Ana; SERRÃO, Carla Sónia. Trajetória sociopolítica do intérprete de língua gestual portuguesa: progressos e retrocessos. Cadernos de Tradução, Florianópolis, v. 42, n. 1, p. 1-26, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2022.e85435
  » https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2022.e85435
• CALGARO, Emma; CRAIG, Nick; CRAIG, Leyla; DOMINEY-HOWES, Dale; ALLEN, Julia. Silent no more: Identifying and breaking through the barriers that d/Deaf people face in responding to hazards and disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, v. 57, 102156, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102156
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102156
• COLLET-SABÉ, Jordi. Democracy and participation of families and community at school. In: FEU, Jordi; PRIETO-FLORES, Óscar (org.). Democracy and education in the 21st century: the articulation of new democratic discourses and practices. Berlim: Peter Lang, 2018. p. 99-118.
• DEWEY, John. Democracy and education. In: BOYDSTON, Jo Ann (org.). The collected works of John Dewey Carbondale e Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. p. 7-24.
• DIREÇÃO-GERAL DE ESTATÍSTICAS DA EDUCAÇÃO E CIÊNCIA (DGEEC). Educação inclusiva Portugal: DGEEC, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/p/educacao-pre-escolar-basico-e-secundario/estatisticas/educacao-inclusiva Acesso em: 11 jun. 2024.
  » https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/p/educacao-pre-escolar-basico-e-secundario/estatisticas/educacao-inclusiva
• EPSTEIN, Joyce L. School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, v. 92, n. 3, p. 81-96, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
• FOX, Meghan. A place to belong: a support group curriculum for hearing adolescents of deaf parents (Kodas). Jadara, Flórida, v. 52, n. 1, p. 2-15, 2018. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc6953970/ Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc6953970/
• GROAT, Madison. American sign language interpreters and their influence on the hearing world 2018. Teses de Honra de Conclusão de Curso – Faculdade de Artes e Ciências, Universidade Liberty, Lynchburg, 2018. Disponível em: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/814 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/814
• HADJIKAKOU, Kika; CHRISTODOULOU, Despina; HADJIDEMETRI, Eleni; KONIDARI, Maria; NICOLAOU, Nicoletta. The experiences of Cypriot hearing adults with Deaf parents in family, school, and society. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Oxford, v. 14, n. 4, p. 486-502, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp011
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp011
• HEYERICK, Isabelle. Barrier-free and interpreter-free. Translation and Interpreting Studies, v. 17, n. 3, p. 406-428, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.21025.hey
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.21025.hey
• KLIMENTOVÁ, Eva; DOČEKAL, Vít. Specific needs of families of deaf parents and hearing children. Central European Journal of Educational Research, v. 2, n. 3, p. 39-45, 2020. https://doi.org/10.37441/CEJER/2020/2/3/8528
  » https://doi.org/10.37441/CEJER/2020/2/3/8528
• KLINGNER, Janette K.; ARTILES, Alfredo J.; KOZLESKI, Elizabeth; HARRY, Beth; ZION, Shelley; TATE, William; ZAMORA DURÁN, Grace; RILEY, David. Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 13, p. 38, 2005. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005
  » https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005
• KUSTERS, Annelies. Gesture-based customer interactions: deaf and hearing Mumbaikars’ multimodal and metrolingual practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, v. 14, n. 3, p. 283-302, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315811
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315811
• LACERDA, Cristina. O intérprete de língua de sinais em sala de aula: experiência de atuação no ensino fundamental. Contrapontos, Itajaí, v. 5, n. 3, p. 353-367, 2005. Disponível em: https://periodicos.univali.br/index.php/rc/article/view/833 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://periodicos.univali.br/index.php/rc/article/view/833
• LARA, Laura; SARACOSTTI, Mahia. Effect of parental involvement on children's academic achievement in Chile. Frontiers in Psychology, v. 10, 01464, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2019.01464
  » https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2019.01464
• LEIRIA, Isabel; BASTOS, Joana. O WhatsApp é a nova arma dos pais (e está a agitar as escolas). Jornal Expresso, 2022. Disponível em: https://expresso.pt/revista/2022-05-22-O-WhatsApp-e-a-nova-arma-dos-pais--e-esta-a-agitar-as-escolas--7c006ebb Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://expresso.pt/revista/2022-05-22-O-WhatsApp-e-a-nova-arma-dos-pais--e-esta-a-agitar-as-escolas--7c006ebb
• LEVINTHAL, Cristiana; KUUSISTO, Elina; TIRRI, Kirsi. Finnish and Portuguese parents’ perspectives on the role of teachers in parent-teacher partnerships and parental engagement. Education Sciences, Basel, v. 11, n. 6, p. 306, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060306
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060306
• MALLORY, Barbara; SCHEIN, Jerome; ZINGLE, Harvey. Parenting resources of deaf parents with hearing children. Jadara, Flórida, v. 25, n. 3, p. 16-30, 2019. Disponível em: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/jadara/vol25/iss3/7/ Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://nsuworks.nova.edu/jadara/vol25/iss3/7/
• MENDES, Regina Maria Russiano. Afinal: intérprete de língua de sinais, intérprete educacional, professor-intérprete ou auxiliar? O trabalho de intérpretes na lógica inclusive. In: ALBRES, Neiva de Aquino; SANTIAGO, Vânia de Aquino Albres (org.). Libras em estudo: tradução/interpretação. São Paulo: Feneis-SP, 2012. p. 75-107.
• MYERS, Greg. Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, v. 27, n. 1, p. 85-111, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019734
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019734
• OLKIN, Rhoda; ABRAMS, Kelley; PRESTON, Paul; KIRSHBAUM, Megan. Comparison of parents with and without disabilities raising teens: information from the NHIS and two national surveys. Rehabilitation Psychology, Washington, D.C., v. 51, n. 1, p. 43-49, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.51.1.43
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.51.1.43
• ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS (ONU). Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência Doc. A/61/611. Nova York: ONU, 2006.
• PARK, Sira; HOLLOWAY, Susan D. The effects of school-based parental involvement on academic achievement at the child and elementary school level: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, v. 110, n. 1, p. 1-16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1016600
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1016600
• PORTUGAL. Decreto-lei n. 132/2012, de 27 de junho de 2012. Estabelece o novo regime de recrutamento e mobilidade do pessoal docente dos ensinos básico e secundário e de formadores e técnicos especializados. Diário da República, Lisboa, Série I, n. 123, 2012. Disponível em: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/132-2012-178492 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/132-2012-178492
• PORTUGAL. Decreto-Lei n. 54/2018, de 6 de julho. Estabelece o regime jurídico da educação inclusiva. Diário da República, Lisboa, Série I, n. 129, 2018. Disponível em: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/54-2018-115652961 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/54-2018-115652961
• PORTUGAL. Lei n. 12, de 27 de junho de 2022. Orçamento do Estado para 2022. Diário da República, Lisboa, série I, n. 122, 2022. Disponível em: https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/12-2022-185224662 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/12-2022-185224662
• RODRIGUES, Ana; COELHO, Orquídea. A profissão de intérprete de língua gestual: estudo sobre avaliação. Mediações, Setúbal, v. 7, n. 1, p. 75-89, 2019. Disponível em: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/127582/2/403088.pdf Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/127582/2/403088.pdf
• SANCHES-FERREIRA, Manuela; GONÇALVES, Joana L.; ARAÚJO, Sara Barros; ALVES, Silvia; BARROS, Silvia. Building inclusive preschool classrooms: How desirable and feasible is a set of strategies that facilitate teacher-child relationships? Frontiers in Education, v. 7, 944822, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.944822
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.944822
• SANDER, Ricardo Ernani; MARTINS, Sandra Eli Sartoreto. O crescer bilíngue de Codas: memórias da infância na passagem pela escola. Revista Educação Especial, v. 34, e70, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686X67637
  » https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686X67637
• SCHACHNER, Maja K. From equality and inclusion to cultural pluralism – Evolution and effects of cultural diversity perspectives in schools. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, v. 16, n. 1, p. 1-17, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1326378
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1326378
• STREIECHEN, Eliziane; CRUZ, Gilmar; KRAUSE-LEMKE, Cibele. Filhos ouvintes de pais surdos: linguagem, identidade(s) e escolaridade. Revista X, Curitiba, v. 14, n. 49, p. 256-276, 2019. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/revistax/article/view/66076/39468 Acesso em: 27 set. 2024.
  » https://revistas.ufpr.br/revistax/article/view/66076/39468
• WITKOSKI, Sílvia Andreis. Surdez e preconceito: a norma da fala e o mito da leitura da palavra falada. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 14, n. 42, p. 565-575, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782009000300012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782009000300012
• YERATZIOTIS, Alexandros; ACHILLEOS, Achilleas; KOUMOU, Stavroulla; ZAMPAS, George; THIBODEAU, Regan A.; GERATZIOTIS, George; PAPADOPOULOS, George; IASONAS, Iasonos; KRONIS, Christophorus. Making social media applications inclusive for deaf end-users with access to sign language. Multimedia Tools and Applications, v. 82, p. 46185-46215, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17196-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17196-7
• YOUNG, Alys; ORAM, Rosemary; NAPIER, Jemina. Hearing people perceiving deaf people through sign language interpreters at work: on the loss of self through interpreted communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, v. 47, n. 1, p. 90-110, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1574018
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1574018

Edited by

• Editor:
  Andressa Santos Rebelo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1873-5622

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  01 Oct 2024
• Reviewed
  23 Apr 2025
• Accepted
  09 May 2025