Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

I very much agree that many public schools do not suck in themselves <and it's no fault of most of the teachers there>, I was in public schools all through and had many great individual teachers. Actually my high school experience was the best but - it was true that it was an arts specialty high school, where there were not the kind of cliques that are in place at many "mainstream" public schools. At my arts high school, I think the only competitive sport was tennis, which was just fine with me.
That said, the OVERALL trend in many typical public schools is an emphasis on conformity, "one-size-fits-all" as well as a continual battle to save programs that really appreciate/bring out student's self-expression, such as arts.
And. many times even in "non-standard" public schools, students who do not "fit the mold" for whatever reason are actually not served well, stereotyped into services and are faced with other situations.
Also, politics comes into play....

one of the things I've been musing on is, in general, this seeming basis of comparison of other languages to English, as if - English is the default "standard" and different languages - particularly non-Romance and signed languages - are "other".
I guess I don't know why it should be expected that other languages can actually be a comparison to English - since they're not English. They are themselves. Not sure I'm making myself clear....
 
dogmom said:
one of the things I've been musing on is, in general, this seeming basis of comparison of other languages to English, as if - English is the default "standard" and different languages - particularly non-Romance and signed languages - are "other".
I guess I don't know why it should be expected that other languages can actually be a comparison to English - since they're not English. They are themselves. Not sure I'm making myself clear....
Click to expand...

I think that's mostly because a large majority of the userbase here lives in the States and English is the de facto "standard" language, even if it's not technically official. If the majority of us were in France, then the comparisons would be to French. If we were in China, it'd be to Chinese, etc.
 
dogmom said:
I very much agree that many public schools do not suck in themselves <and it's no fault of most of the teachers there>, I was in public schools all through and had many great individual teachers. Actually my high school experience was the best but - it was true that it was an arts specialty high school, where there were not the kind of cliques that are in place at many "mainstream" public schools. At my arts high school, I think the only competitive sport was tennis, which was just fine with me.
That said, the OVERALL trend in many typical public schools is an emphasis on conformity, "one-size-fits-all" as well as a continual battle to save programs that really appreciate/bring out student's self-expression, such as arts.
And. many times even in "non-standard" public schools, students who do not "fit the mold" for whatever reason are actually not served well, stereotyped into services and are faced with other situations.
Also, politics comes into play....

one of the things I've been musing on is, in general, this seeming basis of comparison of other languages to English, as if - English is the default "standard" and different languages - particularly non-Romance and signed languages - are "other".
I guess I don't know why it should be expected that other languages can actually be a comparison to English - since they're not English. They are themselves. Not sure I'm making myself clear....
Click to expand...

I recall reading somewhere that of the many languages of the world those of a nationality who attempt to acquire a new language find English to be the hardest to learn.
 
rolling7 said:
The best use of the resources of CRR is to make sure the client is capable of using them. In the situation of job placement, it is necessary to not only evaluate the skill and ability that the client has but also educational and communication abilities. CRR has many business partners, some very well known companies, that require a certain level of knowledge and skill for the position and, obviously, CRR want the deaf client to be as prepared as possible. Don't y think I'm hating on the deaf because I do know hearing that do this same thing, the person feels that they just need to show up, fill out an application, maybe take a drug test and go to work for a pay check.
Click to expand...

Ok, I know a bit about adult literacy and I do know the older one gets, the harder it is for them to take the initiative to learn to read and write. Even their ability to learn slows down as they get older and the more they are pressured to learn, the more stubborn they get. It's a pride thing. I know this pride is not helping them but that's how it is.

I am wondering as far as CRR is concerned: those ASL only people, they willing show up CRR but unwilling to take advantage of the resources? And what percentage of those using CRR can't read and write?
 
rolling, yes, that is what I've heard of too, actually :ty: for reminding me of that.
When I was in college I was in the International Dorm and had roommates and dorm-mates from Japan, Singapore, Kenya, Spain, Indonesia... and many did discuss how difficult English was to learn. Several of the students from Singapore were discussing Mandarin also as being very hard to learn.
 
rolling7 said:
I recall reading somewhere that of the many languages of the world those of a nationality who attempt to acquire a new language find English to be the hardest to learn.
Click to expand...

My mother got a BA in ESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) and my sister is also an ESL teacher. The feedback they got was that English is one of the easiest languages for foreigners to learn...compared to for instance, Polish or Mandarin or Thai (one would have to not only learn the language but also how to read the characters of their written language). My mother used to have her students come over for dinner all the time and this was much discussed, the acquisition of a second (or third) language.
 
shel90 said:
Studies have shown that deaf children of Deaf families achieve higher literacy rates due to having full access to language during their formative years while deaf children of hearing parents usually dont.
Click to expand...

You are right in that children with full access to language during those pre-3-4 years achieve higher literacy, but most recent research actually counters the finding that the small 5% of deaf children born of deaf parents outperform deaf children born of hearing parents. It seems to have little or no bearing when the studies consider the education and language fluency (whether spoken or signed) of parents. Early language is so critical. That's why we moved to develop ASL use in the home as quickly as possible -- it was the fastest and most certain way to ensure my daughter had language which she was lacking during her first year in the orphanage.
 
GrendelQ said:
You are right in that children with full access to language during those pre-3-4 years achieve higher literacy, but most recent research actually counters the finding that the small 5% of deaf children born of deaf parents outperform deaf children born of hearing parents. It seems to have little or no bearing when the studies consider the education and language fluency (whether spoken or signed) of parents. Early language is so critical. That's why we moved to develop ASL use in the home as quickly as possible -- it was the fastest and most certain way to ensure my daughter had language which she was lacking during her first year in the orphanage.
Click to expand...

I think that's kind of the point, that Deaf of Deaf are far far more likely to be fluent in a fully accessible language to their child, not that Deaf parents are inherently better at raising Deaf children. If you learn ASL fluently and raise a Deaf child, then you're effectively allowing them to be Deaf of Deaf, even if you're not actually deaf.

So, that sounds like basically the same thing Shel was saying, as far as the actual reasons for it.
 
StSapphire said:
I think that's kind of the point, that Deaf of Deaf are far far more likely to be fluent in a fully accessible language to their child, not that Deaf parents are inherently better at raising Deaf children. If you learn ASL fluently and raise a Deaf child, then you're effectively allowing them to be Deaf of Deaf, even if you're not actually deaf.

So, that sounds like basically the same thing Shel was saying, as far as the actual reasons for it.
Click to expand...

No StSapphire, that's my point. Greater fluency early on IS linked to literacy. BUT, recent studies have found that Deaf children of Deaf parents are not more literate than deaf children of hearing parents..
 
GrendelQ said:
No StSapphire, that's my point. Greater fluency early on IS linked to literacy. BUT, recent studies have found that Deaf children of Deaf parents are not more literate than deaf children of hearing parents..
Click to expand...

Is that when ASL fluency and literacy is held stable?

For example, do the numbers look something like this:

Hearing parents: 85
Deaf parents: 15
% of Hearing parents who are ASL fluent: 17.5%
% of Deaf parents who are ASL fluent: 93.3%
Literacy rate of deaf children whose parents are ASL fluent: 90% (Note: I have no clue how "literacy" is actually measured, so we'll just pretend like it's a percentage)
Literacy rate of deaf children whose parents are not ASL fluent: 60%

Or do the "literacy rate of deaf children" not take into account ASL fluency at all? (Side note - if it's easier and you just have a link to the study itself so I could read it, that would work too.)
 
StSapphire said:
Is that when ASL fluency and literacy is held stable?

For example, do the numbers look something like this:

Hearing parents: 85
Deaf parents: 15
% of Hearing parents who are ASL fluent: 17.5%
% of Deaf parents who are ASL fluent: 93.3%
Literacy rate of deaf children whose parents are ASL fluent: 90% (Note: I have no clue how "literacy" is actually measured, so we'll just pretend like it's a percentage)
Literacy rate of deaf children whose parents are not ASL fluent: 60%

Or do the "literacy rate of deaf children" not take into account ASL fluency at all? (Side note - if it's easier and you just have a link to the study itself so I could read it, that would work too.)
Click to expand...

Some of the most respected researchers in deaf ed say that there don't exist valid studies supporting the claim that Deaf of Deaf outperform Deaf of Hearing in reading comprehension or other indicators of literacy. In "Psychological development of deaf children" Marschark reviewed the conflicting studies conducted on deaf of deaf vs. deaf of hearing and conducted an assessment of the results, and an answer. There are studies that "show" that deaf of hearing outperform, and studies that "show" that deaf of deaf outperform. But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

What's critical, though, is that 50% of 18YO Deaf & HOH students read below the 4th grade level (equiv. to a 9YO), compared with 1% of their hearing peers. Think about this -- these adults with low literacy are not good reading models for their children -- deaf or hearing. This cycle is what affects literacy -- it's so very complex, but in general, deaf children who read better had their hearing losses diagnosed earlier, had early access to fluent language (usually via sign language), and were exposed to English.

If you are interested in the subject, take a look at Marschark's Raising and educating a deaf child: a comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators -- 2nd edition, the Learning to Read and Write section.
 
GrendelQ said:
Some of the most respected researchers in deaf ed claim that there don't exist valid studies supporting the claim that Deaf of Deaf outperform Deaf of Hearing in reading comprehension or other indicators of literacy. In "Psychological development of deaf children" Marschark reviewed the conflicting studies conducted on deaf of deaf vs. deaf of hearing to try to discover an assessment of the results, and an answer. There are studies that "show" that deaf of hearing outperform, and studies that "show" that deaf of deaf outperform. But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

What's critical, though, is that 50% of 18YO Deaf & HOH students read below the 4th grade level (equiv. to a 9YO), compared with 1% of their hearing peers. Think about this -- these adults with low literacy are not good reading models for their children -- deaf or hearing. This cycle is what affects literacy -- it's so very complex, but in general, deaf children who read better had their hearing losses diagnosed earlier, had early access to fluent language (usually via sign language), and were exposed to English.

If you are interested in the subject, take a look at Marschark's Raising and educating a deaf child: a comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators -- 2nd edition, the Learning to Read and Write section.
Click to expand...

Wait, okay, what?

You said that there were newer studies indicating one thing (that either deaf of hearing has equal to or greater literacy rates than deaf of deaf), now you're saying that no valid studies exist?

I'm actually interested in the subject, but we're going in circles here. From both considering the subject and looking over things that people have said, I've developed a working hypothesis:

Literacy rates among deaf children are impacted by the rate of fluency and literacy among their parents.
  • Deaf children whose parents are fully fluent in ASL as well as [fully literate]* in English would have equal or higher than average literacy rates as compared to a similar hearing sample where the parents are fully fluent and [fully literate]* in English.
  • Deaf children whose parents are not fully fluent in ASL but are fully fluent in spoken English and are [fully literate]* in English would have lower literacy rates than those in the first group.
  • Deaf children whose parents are fully fluent in ASL but are not [fully literate]* in English would have lower literacy rates than those in the first group. (I don't make any predictions as to how the second and third groups would compare.)
  • Deaf children whose parents are not fully fluent in ASL but are fully fluent in spoken English and are not [fully literate]* in English would have lower literacy rates than those in any other group.

Given these settings, the deaf of deaf vs deaf of hearing literacy rates would strongly be affected by the percentage of parents in a deaf of deaf family who are [fully literate]* in English, as well as the percentage of parents in a deaf of hearing family who are fully fluent in ASL.

*Again, I'm still unsure how "fully literate" would translate to an actual research parameter. As a working variable, subject to later change, I'd go with something like reading comprehension at or above the national average for an adult, or any other accepted form of literacy measurement. Regardless of the method of measuring literacy, my hypothesis above stays the same.

I'm unsure if you've said that there are studies which affirm my hypothesis, just in different terms, if you've said there are studies which contradict my hypothesis, or if there are no valid studies which address my hypothesis in any manner at all.
 
GrendelQ said:
Some of the most respected researchers in deaf ed say that there don't exist valid studies supporting the claim that Deaf of Deaf outperform Deaf of Hearing in reading comprehension or other indicators of literacy. In "Psychological development of deaf children" Marschark reviewed the conflicting studies conducted on deaf of deaf vs. deaf of hearing and conducted an assessment of the results, and an answer. There are studies that "show" that deaf of hearing outperform, and studies that "show" that deaf of deaf outperform. But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

What's critical, though, is that 50% of 18YO Deaf & HOH students read below the 4th grade level (equiv. to a 9YO), compared with 1% of their hearing peers. Think about this -- these adults with low literacy are not good reading models for their children -- deaf or hearing. This cycle is what affects literacy -- it's so very complex, but in general, deaf children who read better had their hearing losses diagnosed earlier, had early access to fluent language (usually via sign language), and were exposed to English.

If you are interested in the subject, take a look at Marschark's Raising and educating a deaf child: a comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators -- 2nd edition, the Learning to Read and Write section.
Click to expand...

If it is so true, then why do so many deaf children of hearing parents who do not use ASL at home but use spoken language have language delays and deficits?
 
StSapphire said:
Wait, okay, what?

You said that there were newer studies indicating one thing (that either deaf of hearing has equal to or greater literacy rates than deaf of deaf), now you're saying that no valid studies exist?
Click to expand...
Some studies conducted in the 70s proposed that DOD outperform DOH presuming DOD had more fluency in the home. Some studies conducted in the 90s and 00s indicated that DOH outperform DOD, presuming that speech and speechreading skills were linked to literacy. Marschark has assessed the discrepancy and in both books I recommended, concluded that neither is the case, that there is not a consistent link between DOD and greater literacy (or between DOH and greater literacy).

As a start, if you are interested in coming up with a working hypothesis, take a look at the educatingdeafchildren.com site, read the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and the books I mentioned:

  • Evidence-Based Practice in Educating Deaf and HOH Students 2011
  • "Psychological development of deaf children" Marschark
  • "Raising and educating a deaf child: a comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators -- 2nd edition"
 
shel90 said:
If it is so true, then why do so many deaf children of hearing parents who do not use ASL at home but use spoken language have language delays and deficits?
Click to expand...

Where do you see a conflict in what I wrote and that issue?
 
GrendelQ said:
Where do you see a conflict in what I wrote and that issue?
Click to expand...

But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

If there was no advantage either way, then why have I seen differently in real life? Strange.
 
GrendelQ said:
Some studies conducted in the 70s proposed that DOD outperform DOH presuming DOD had more fluency in the home. Some studies conducted in the 90s and 00s indicated that DOH outperform DOD, presuming that speech and speechreading skills were linked to literacy. Marschark has assessed the discrepancy and in both books I recommended, concluded that neither is the case, that there is not a consistent link between DOD and greater literacy (or between DOH and greater literacy).
Click to expand...

I'm still confused with your statements, since they're not directly talking about the hypothesis I mentioned above. The reason I outlined it as I did was because I was separating the issues of literacy in English and fluency in ASL further from the flawed starting point of "Who's a better parent for a deaf child, Deafies or Hearies?" and moved it instead to "Who's a better parent for a deaf child, ASL/English bilinguals, or monolinguals?"

(As a side note - I'm at work, so I can look at individual articles, but don't have time right now to download an entire book and read it, or to peruse an entire website to see if I can find relevant information on it, since I don't personally need generic information regarding parenting, due to having no interest in raising children whatsoever for a very long time.)
 
shel90 said:
But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

If there was no advantage either way, then why have I seen differently in real life? Strange.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Shel. If you see that an individual Deaf of Hearing kid is more literate than a Deaf of Deaf kid, maybe the DOH kid's parents are more educated than the DOD kid's parents. Maybe the DOH kid's parent is at home working with the child and the DOD'd dad or mom is at work and can't help with reading or homework. Maybe the DOH kid had greater cognitive advantages unrelated to deafness. Or maybe the DOH kids are thriving in the academic environment in which you see them. Or you can flip DOD and DOH and say the same thing either way.
 
GrendelQ said:
I don't know, Shel. If you see that an individual Deaf of Hearing kid is more literate than a Deaf of Deaf kid, maybe the DOH kid's parents are more educated than the DOD kid's parents. Maybe the DOH kid's parent is at home working with the child and the DOD'd dad or mom is at work and can't help with reading or homework. Maybe the DOH kid had greater cognitive advantages unrelated to deafness. Or maybe the DOH kids are thriving in the academic environment in which you see them. Or you can flip DOD and DOH and say the same thing either way.
Click to expand...

In 13 years in the field, I have consistently seen Deaf children of Deaf parents or of hearing parents who use ASL outperform deaf children who diidnt have ASL exposure when they were young or no ASL being used at home with mastering written English. I cant deny what I have seen in the past 13 years.

I am not just talking about reading fluency but the ability to think critically as well.
 
Back
Top