Change the future for a deaf child

[faire_jour]

Hmmmm..really? I was in avoice on only environment and I practically had no access to language, information, and communication at least 90% of the time.

Besides, many of my students, despite in an "voice off" environment as u called are able to use both languages effectively and successfully so I don't know how is that restrictive.


Besides..many of our students have good oral skills while others don't but at least EVERYONE has full and 100% access to everything regardless of their speech skills. That's the whole point of education.

Where did I say the enviroment should be voice only?

So, you have students who have been in 100% voice off educational settings from the beginning and have still developed fluency in spoken language as well as their fluency in ASL?

 

[Bottesini]

It depends what you term as successful?

A girl at the PHU was considered 'successful'. She was asked to give talks to the other kids about being deaf. They Exibited her as an oral success. The next I heard she was in prison for prostitution. Then I heard she was homeless. What a success?

I don't know any cases of oral only deaf people who I would consider successful. Only those who use sign language AND speech and some who use sign language and written english.

Despite my oral upbringing, I have not yet turned to prostitution. And I am living respectably in a little house with my working husband and my own parttime employment.

That said, I do believe it better to incorporate ASL in education.

 

[Daredevel7]

Despite my oral upbringing, I have not yet turned to prostitution. And I am living respectably in a little house with my working husband and my own parttime employment.

That said, I do believe it better to incorporate ASL in education.

Ditto.

Also I want to add, in my eyes, a deaf person who is successful (in the deaf sense) is not letting his/her deafness dedicate his/her life. Dreama's example of a person may be successful in not letting her deafness dedicate her life, but obviously she wasn't successful in terms of personal development.

 

[shel90]

Where did I say the enviroment should be voice only?

So, you have students who have been in 100% voice off educational settings from the beginning and have still developed fluency in spoken language as well as their fluency in ASL?

Oh yes.....even many of my deaf friends who grew up in those educational settings are fluent in spoken language along with ASL...but the most important of all, they have good literacy skills.

 

[faire_jour]

Oh yes.....even many of my deaf friends who grew up in those educational settings are fluent in spoken language along with ASL...but the most important of all, they have good literacy skills.

How? Can you tell me how they are so successful learning a language they have no (or at least very little) exposure to?

 

[Hear Again]

Ditto.

Also I want to add, in my eyes, a deaf person who is successful (in the deaf sense) is not letting his/her deafness dedicate his/her life. Dreama's example of a person may be successful in not letting her deafness dedicate her life, but obviously she wasn't successful in terms of personal development.

exactly -- which is why i asked what prostitution had to do with being raised in an oral-only environment.

 

[Hear Again]

Despite my oral upbringing, I have not yet turned to prostitution. And I am living respectably in a little house with my working husband and my own parttime employment.

That said, I do believe it better to incorporate ASL in education.

...but bott -- you're an exception to the rule, don't you realize that?

 

[Hear Again]

I love how people advocate "more tools" and bash on those who want to use primarily one approach AND YET they also bash on Total Communication, which has more tools than anything else. Talk about inconsistency there.

 

[Hear Again]

Sure it can be done, but why not offer blind people that other channel? What's the harm in giving blind people another tool to use?

i'm talking about blind people who cannot learn braille and the fact that they are successful despite being illiterate in braille.

 

[Nika]

i'm talking about blind people who cannot learn braille and the fact that they are successful despite being illiterate in braille.

Oh okay, that is another story. In that case, I agree completely.

 

[Hear Again]

Why not make life easier for the blind by teaching all of them braille? Why make things more difficult for blind and deaf people...give them all of the tools so they can grow up knowing and understanding all the tools that are available to them instead of suffering thinking that this one way is the "only" way.

shel,

let me make myself clear. i'm not opposed to legally blind children or blind adults learning braille. (in fact, i strongly advocate this.) my original point was that a blind person does not need braille in order to be successful.

 

[Nika]

That's true. Some blind people, due to having diabetes or MS or some other condition, do not have enough sensory perception in their fingertips to read braille. Some people do not have effective use of their hands, etc. However, these blind people can be very successful by making full use of other technology, such as text-to-speech software, magnification systems, scanners with audio output, etc.

 

[Hear Again]

I dont...cuz in so many cases people are so in denieal to what is considered "effective" and they keep the children in the environment when it is just restricting them even more. I have seen tooo many cases like that and the childred end up with lasting negative effects. I would rather give both to all deaf children when they are small instead of later when it has been proved that oralism is no longer working for the child. It is just not worth destroying their future for.

i advocate starting a child in an oral-only environment, seeing how that goes and whether or not it proves successful, teaching him/her sign.

 

[Hear Again]

double post (deleted)

 

[Hear Again]

That's true. Some blind people, due to having diabetes or MS or some other condition, do not have enough sensory perception in their fingertips to read braille. Some people do not have effective use of their hands, etc. However, these blind people can be very successful by making full use of other technology, such as text-to-speech software, magnification systems, scanners with audio output, etc.

exactly. that was the point i was trying to make.

 

[Bottesini]

...but bott -- you're an exception to the rule, don't you realize that?

 

[Nika]

I think signing skills should either be taught simultaneously or before speech. A Deaf child needs to acquire an L1 language in order to be able to master an L2 language. I think it is only fair to a Deaf child to offer a language that is in the medium most natural for him/her--that is, a visual medium. (And in the case of a Deafblind child, a tactile medium.) It has been shown over and over that Deaf children that are exposed to sign language first are much more successful in acquiring spoken language. However I also don't think that Deaf people should ever be ashamed of using their voices, and should be encouraged to speak when they feel comfortable. If a Deaf person prefers not to use their voice, I think that should be fine too. After all, imagine if signing was enforcing on the hearing population. So voice shouldn't be enforced on the Deaf population, but at the same time it should be encouraged as another option (just as I think hearing people should make an effort to learn signed languages.)

 

[Hear Again]

what's the difference between someone encouraging a Deaf child or adult to use their voice vs. forcing them to? what i mean by that is, wouldn't a Deaf child or adult look at a hearing person's encouragement as being an effort to force them to do what they don't want to do?

 

[shel90]

I think signing skills should either be taught simultaneously or before speech. A Deaf child needs to acquire an L1 language in order to be able to master an L2 language. I think it is only fair to a Deaf child to offer a language that is in the medium most natural for him/her--that is, a visual medium. (And in the case of a Deafblind child, a tactile medium.) It has been shown over and over that Deaf children that are exposed to sign language first are much more successful in acquiring spoken language. However I also don't think that Deaf people should ever be ashamed of using their voices, and should be encouraged to speak when they feel comfortable. If a Deaf person prefers not to use their voice, I think that should be fine too. After all, imagine if signing was enforcing on the hearing population. So voice shouldn't be enforced on the Deaf population, but at the same time it should be encouraged as another option (just as I think hearing people should make an effort to learn signed languages.)

That's what I believe too...I do encourage all deaf children to learn oral skills but putting it first risking their education and language/literacy skills. Sorry but education comes first and moremost and every deaf child has the right to have full access to it using a language they have guaranteed full access to. Spoken language didn't give me full access to my education so I wasn't on par with my hearing peers as far as receiving education. Information, and communication even though I was in the same classroom as they were. That is just plain wrong to do that to children IMO.

 

[Nika]

what's the difference between someone encouraging a Deaf child or adult to use their voice vs. forcing them to? what i mean by that is, wouldn't a Deaf child or adult look at a hearing person's encouragement as being an effort to force them to do what they don't want to do?

There's a huge difference between the two. My parents encouraged me to learn music but never forced me to. If I made clear I didn't want to, they would have let me find another hobby. Likewise, parents can say "if you want to use your voice, go ahead. But if not that's okay too."