Best way to develop oral skills?

[AlleyCat]

I never went to a deaf school so I can't answer to that part, but I never once thought speech therapy was a waste of time. I think it's evident by the members here on AD that everyone has responded to speech therapy in different ways - that it worked really well for some, and not so well for others.

 

[AlleyCat]

It isn't necessarily about the schools - deaf schools or otherwise - that creates the outcome a deaf child has with speech therapy. Some (maybe a lot?) also has to do with home speech therapy -- for example, daily interaction, as has been mentioned. I will never think that speech therapy is "just not worth it."

 

[jillio]

If you're talking about asking the child questions, elicting thoughtful and long responses (e.g. "Uh oh, what happened to your knee?"), yes that's what I mean by daily interaction. But if you're talking about them saying stuff like "Hello! How are you? You're big today!" with exaggerated hand gestures (which happens more often than you'd think)....

Here's another question for everyone. This is a genuine question because I really don't know much about the environment of deaf schools. For deaf people who went to a deaf school (surrounded in ASL), do most of them get a good chance to develop speech therapy? Yes I know they have speech therapy programs, but what I'm asking is, if the schools did more to support speech therapy, would it make a difference? Or maybe it would make a difference, but it would be just a waste of time because it's not worth it?

This question has already been answered numerous times. In fact, I answered it just last night. My son went to a deaf school, my son had excellent speech therapy. However, a school's priority should never be speech therapy. It is a school's function to teach the curriculum. Speech is not a part of the curriculum. It is an adjunct service. Any parent that is not satisfied with the level of speech therapy provided in a deaf school or a mainstream placement is perfectly free to seek additional therapy on their own. It is absurd to expect that a school will sacrifice a child's time exposed to learning the curriculum for speech therapy.

 

[jillio]

It isn't necessarily about the schools - deaf schools or otherwise - that creates the outcome a deaf child has with speech therapy. Some (maybe a lot?) also has to do with home speech therapy -- for example, daily interaction, as has been mentioned. I will never think that speech therapy is "just not worth it."

Exactly. You can take two students with the same loss, one in a school that provideds speech therapy once a week, and one that focuses on speech daily. The chances are just as good for the once a week student to develop excellent speech skills, while the one receiving daily therapy doesn't. There are too many extraneous variables that are involved. Oh, if it were only as simple just providing speech therapy.

 

[jillio]

If you're talking about asking the child questions, elicting thoughtful and long responses (e.g. "Uh oh, what happened to your knee?"), yes that's what I mean by daily interaction. But if you're talking about them saying stuff like "Hello! How are you? You're big today!" with exaggerated hand gestures (which happens more often than you'd think)....

Here's another question for everyone. This is a genuine question because I really don't know much about the environment of deaf schools. For deaf people who went to a deaf school (surrounded in ASL), do most of them get a good chance to develop speech therapy? Yes I know they have speech therapy programs, but what I'm asking is, if the schools did more to support speech therapy, would it make a difference? Or maybe it would make a difference, but it would be just a waste of time because it's not worth it?

If you expect a child to communicate with long, thoughtful answers, you have to provide them with the environment that allows for proper, developmentally appropriate language acquisition. Without it, they are not capable of using language in a sophisticated manner. That is what you don't seem to grasp. Delays in language acquisition result in delays in cognitive processes. The concern is that the child has sufficient language to engage in thoughtful and in depth conversation. The concern is that the child is acquiring language on an age appropriate schedule that allows for the cognitive development necessary for fluid and abstract thought.

 

[Hear Again]

The best form. And I brought it up because you mentioned "daily interaction with speaking people" just a couple of posts ago.

"Is intense speech therapy (or daily interaction with speaking people) not worth it at all due to wasting the child's time?"

This may be a little different since I wasn't deaf, but I didn't talk until I was 3 due to my blindness and mild hearing loss. According to my mother, the doctor I saw at the time (sorry, I don't remember exactly what she was trained in -- only that I saw her once a week when I was very, very young) said that making small talk would encourage me to speak and develop spoken language. As you can tell, this not only helps deaf children, it also helps hearing children who are language delayed for other reasons as well.

 

[jillio]

This may be a little different since I wasn't deaf, but I didn't talk until I was 3 due to my blindness and mild hearing loss. According to my mother, the doctor I saw at the time (sorry, I don't remember exactly what she was trained in -- only that I saw her once a week when I was very, very young) said that making small talk would encourage me to speak and develop spoken language. As you can tell, this not only helps deaf children, it also helps hearing children who are language delayed for other reasons as well.

Absolutely. The more natural the language learning environment, and the more applicable to the child's daily existence, the more solid the learning.

 

[Hear Again]

Absolutely. The more natural the language learning environment, and the more applicable to the child's daily existence, the more solid the learning.

I don't know the specifics, but I assume that making small talk must have worked since I was caught up in terms of language by the time I entered kindergarten.

 

[Daredevel7]

This question has already been answered numerous times. In fact, I answered it just last night. My son went to a deaf school, my son had excellent speech therapy. However, a school's priority should never be speech therapy. It is a school's function to teach the curriculum. Speech is not a part of the curriculum. It is an adjunct service. Any parent that is not satisfied with the level of speech therapy provided in a deaf school or a mainstream placement is perfectly free to seek additional therapy on their own. It is absurd to expect that a school will sacrifice a child's time exposed to learning the curriculum for speech therapy.

Does this need to happen a lot? Or are the services at deaf school generally good enough?

 

[Daredevel7]

Man, I really need to start clarifying myself. When I say small talk, I am saying the other person talks most of the time and the child only responds with yea or no. Not really indicating if the child even understands or not. "What do you do today?" is interaction to me. "Did you enjoy school?" while nodding up and down is not.

 

[Daredevel7]

If you expect a child to communicate with long, thoughtful answers, you have to provide them with the environment that allows for proper, developmentally appropriate language acquisition. Without it, they are not capable of using language in a sophisticated manner. That is what you don't seem to grasp. Delays in language acquisition result in delays in cognitive processes. The concern is that the child has sufficient language to engage in thoughtful and in depth conversation. The concern is that the child is acquiring language on an age appropriate schedule that allows for the cognitive development necessary for fluid and abstract thought.

Sigh..
Again, I am not talking about ORALISM. I am talking about getting practice communicating via spoken language REGARDLESS of your L1 language, assuming you have a strong L1 foundation. From now on, let's assume I am talking about deaf children who are fluent in ASL, thus having a strong L1 foundation.

 

[jillio]

Sigh..
Again, I am not talking about ORALISM. I am talking about getting practice communicating via spoken language REGARDLESS of your L1 language, assuming you have a strong L1 foundation. From now on, let's assume I am talking about deaf children who are fluent in ASL, thus having a strong L1 foundation.

Then despite different methodologies for teaching speech, despite the differing therapy schedules used, some deaf children will be able to speak, and some will not. It is a continuum. There are many variables involved, post of them things that cannot be controlled for.

 

[Daredevel7]

Then despite different methodologies for teaching speech, despite the differing therapy schedules used, some deaf children will be able to speak, and some will not. It is a continuum. There are many variables involved, post of them things that cannot be controlled for.

Okay I guess you're satisfied with the general level of quality of speech therapy services offered in deaf schools, then?

 

[Hear Again]

Man, I really need to start clarifying myself. When I say small talk, I am saying the other person talks most of the time and the child only responds with yea or no. Not really indicating if the child even understands or not. "What do you do today?" is interaction to me. "Did you enjoy school?" while nodding up and down is not.

Small talk doesn't have to be limited to yes or no answers. It can be more expansive than that which in turn encourages a child to express themselves in complete sentences. I know this was the case for me since I was able to get all caught up in language by the time I was in kindergarten.

 

[Daredevel7]

Small talk doesn't have to be limited to yes or no answers. It can be more expansive than that which in turn encourages a child to express themselves in complete sentences. I know this was the case for me since I was able to get all caught up in language by the time I was in kindergarten.

Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify myself. When I said "Repetitive small talk is a form of speech therapy?" I was thinking that kind of talk with yes and no answers. I see it all the time even with hearing kids. Whenever people talk to my little cousins, it's usually a yes or no question. Or even if you asked "How are you?", it's usually in a form of one word answers.

KIDS!

 

[jillio]

Okay I guess you're satisfied with the general level of quality of speech therapy services offered in deaf schools, then?

Yes, I am. My concern is the level of education moreso than the level of speech therapy. Education is the primary purpose of a school.

 

[Hear Again]

Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify myself. When I said "Repetitive small talk is a form of speech therapy?" I was thinking that kind of talk with yes and no answers. I see it all the time even with hearing kids. Whenever people talk to my little cousins, it's usually a yes or no question. Or even if you asked "How are you?", it's usually in a form of one word answers.

KIDS!

for the clarification.

 

[Daredevel7]

Yes, I am. My concern is the level of education moreso than the level of speech therapy. Education is the primary purpose of a school.

Great.

Did you have to do extra speech therapy for your son? Or used the schools service?

 

[jillio]

Great.

Did you have to do extra speech therapy for your son? Or used the schools service?

No, I did not. He received early intervention services, and then received speech therapy as an adjunct service through his school. But again, I will stress that my primary concern was language and education. He was able to develop speech skills with the services provided. Wonderful. But if he hadn't of been able to develop speech skills at all, it would not have been of great concern to me. He had language, and he had communication. How he communicated was the least of the picture. The important issue was that he could communicate.

 

[deafskeptic]

That's exactly why I made this thread. It's not that deaf school don't have speech therapy. It's the difference in intensity. I want to know if people think intensity makes a difference or not. Or perhaps a better wording is "Is minimum speech therapy enough?" or "Is intense speech therapy (or daily interaction with speaking people) not worth it at all due to wasting the child's time?"

I've gone to both oral programs and deaf school. I don't recall speech ever being intensive but then I was considered a success in speech class. When I went to the oral program, I had speech for like 15 mintues 3x a week. When I went to mainstream, it was reduced to 2 classes per week and it was also 15 mintues. Then as I got older (around 6th grade and still in mainstream), my speech classes were reduced to once per month then I stopped taking any speech class when I was 15.

When I attended VSDB, they had speech classes for all the grades. I'm certain that speech classes was more intensive for the lower grades than in the upper grades. No amount of speech is going to help some deaf speak. I remember oddball saying his mother tried to give him speech therapy 8 hours a day when he was 3. That wasn't successful. If he can't speak as an adult, no amount of speech is going to help much. Sounds have to be relatively undistorted for you to learn speech. My speech class got reduced to once a month mainly because my speech was considered good. The other kids had to take speech more often than I did.

Even at deaf school, deaf interact with hearing who barely know sign especially in the dorms. I remember reading about one former VSDB s(Virgina school for the deaf and the blind) student's complainant about hearing dorm supervisors who barely knew sign in a blog on deafread about the plot of two VSDB students' plot to murder some people at VSDB. She's right to complain about it. So deaf are hardly isolated from the hearing.