It is only an aid if hearing people use it to communicate. At the same time, SEE is more tiring to use than ASL. That has been empirically verified. In fact, I know one SEE intepreter who had to have 4 carpal tunnel surgeries because SEE caused so much wear and tear on her. It is really very difficult to sign true SEE and keep up with an English conversation.
Actually, in all reality, they can start with Chinese for all it matters. The key issue is that literacy depends on achieving reasonable fluency in the language such that you can understand the language enough to read it. Most deaf children begin to learn about English in elementary school unless they were hearing first and already acquired English or their parents were motivated enough to teach them ASL or English first. A great deal depends on parental involvement rather than student ability.
Au contraire! SEE is used far more than you realize. In Iowa, there is probably only 2 ASL programs and the rest are all SEE. And I have yet to see a successful SEE program.
And no, they are not stopping SEE because people use speech around them. I am talking about their signing. SEE children (even without ASL users around them) when left to themselves will sign more like ASL to each other. They will not keep the SEE style of signing. When they encounter ASL, they will tend to follow more ASL than keep the SEE style. The reason has been linguistically verified that SEE is inefficient in how it is set up. ASL and
natural sign languages have developed efficient methods of using 3D space, facial expressions, movements, etc. to create meaning that is just as sophisticated and meaningful as spoken languages.
It doesn't have anything to do with fears. It has everything to do with linguistic realities. SEE violates linguistic rules of how sign languages operate. It simply does not conform to linguistic realities. Therefore, it will not accomplish what is effective for deaf students. Cued Spech is more of a visual aid for English, but it is also sound based. Cued Speech will only be effective if hearing people are willing to use it. Otherwise, it will never be effective.
ASL has vocabulary and words. Just differently than English. And, no, it is not written in stone. Like I said before, they could learn Chinese if they wanted to. But the point is very simple. What language will deaf learn easily and without a great deal of stress ... an auditory language or a visual language? The obvious answer is: a visual language. I don't know if you have been to an ASL poetry reading or a person who tells a story in ASL or a person who sings in ASL. There is beauty there that touches deaf people like spoken languages just don't do.
Right. But let me turn your question back on you. Where is it written in stone that deaf people MUST learn English to be "normal" or "acceptable"? Why can't deaf people make English their second language ... after they have acquired ASL and have had basic education in a language they can easily acquire? Why must deaf people be monolingual in English? The only person who benefits from an English-only approach is the hearing ... not the deaf.
Active parental involvement can take the sting out of any situation. Some people are bright enough to find work arounds. But your friend is rare. The challenge with mainstreaming is that it isolates the deaf children. And that is part of what makes it not an ideal situation.
... see rest of post in my next post.
