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

[jillio]

Did you even read #781?? Oh well, some purple just can't be satisfied.

Yeah, I read it. You still are failing to answer direct questions. You are posting explanations that talk around the questions. But everything you are posting supports what I am saying. There is no such thing as ASL ONLY, based on the examples you have provided. And ASL does not have a negative impact on literacy, as you so claim. You have the situation reversed. It is the school system failing to address the needs of the deaf ASL using student that creates literacy issues, not the ASL. You are assigning cause and effect erroneously.

 

[GrendelQ]

If you will scroll back, you will discover that I did, indeed, quote him exactly in more than one post. Now, you are paraphrasing what he said. The posts are still there. All you have to do is scroll back to see that he did indeed say that ASL hinders language development.

Here is the difference. ASL only does not exist. Oral only does. As in the use of an aurally based language such as English.

Yes, of course there are illiterate hearing people -- no one argues that. But like no one intentionally teaches someone to use sign language alone, no one intentionally teaches someone to use spoken English alone.

 

[KristinaB]

Did you even read #781?? Oh well, some purple just can't be satisfied.

purple or people?

 

[rolling7]

I read it the first time. Taxpayers money is state and federal funding. All public schools receive it. Local taxes as well, go to fund education. Again, that would be district funding. Maybe it is not my reading that is the issue, but the fact that you obviously don't know what you are saying.

No fact to that statement. The fact of the matter is, many children would never receive an education of any kind were it not for public schools and mandated attendance.

Nothing wrong with your post, just a another way of saying the same thing.
I've made it clear that the state and feds need to get their nose out of education because they have created a mess. Leave education to the parents and they will have total say about their child. This way they will keep close watch over their childs development. You don't think there is any apathy. So be your opinion. But I saw there is plenty of parents who send their child off to school with no breakfast after little sleep at night and don't pay the least attention totheir childs development. To me that is apathy.
You are right a child would not get an education without public school BUT only a public school controlled by parents participation. You think this mess of government-control school is a good thing? Get a clue.
You are right about mandatory attendance and coming from me, a person who could not wait to get to class, the parents need to enforce mandatory attendance of their child, even with a belt if necessary. Good bye to this, last page.

 

[rolling7]

purple or people?

I was upset and going too fast, thank you for the correction.

 

[sallylou]

The "destination" is success however a person defines it. It will be different for different people. In my family, academic success meant getting a college degree.

 

[jillio]

Yes, of course there are illiterate hearing people -- no one argues that. But like no one intentionally teaches someone to use sign language alone, no one intentionally teaches someone to use spoken English alone.

No one unintentionally teaches someone to use sign language alone, either. The situation just does not exist. Not in this world.

 

[jillio]

Nothing wrong with your post, just a another way of saying the same thing.
I've made it clear that the state and feds need to get their nose out of education because they have created a mess. Leave education to the parents and they will have total say about their child. This way they will keep close watch over their childs development. You don't think there is any apathy. So be your opinion. But I saw there is plenty of parents who send their child off to school with no breakfast after little sleep at night and don't pay the least attention totheir childs development. To me that is apathy.
You are right a child would not get an education without public school BUT only a public school controlled by parents participation. You think this mess of government-control school is a good thing? Get a clue.
You are right about mandatory attendance and coming from me, a person who could not wait to get to class, the parents need to enforce mandatory attendance of their child, even with a belt if necessary. Good bye to this, last page.

That isn't apathy. That is neglect.

Where is there a public school controlled by parental participation?

You are going around in circles. First you say it should be a criterion for funding, then you say it should not be a criterion for funding. We aren't saying the same thing at all. You aren't even saying the same thing in two subsequent posts.

Uh, mandatory attendance is a legal concept. Has nothing to do with parental discipline.

And I do not advocate the use of objects to strike a child under any circumstances.

 

[GrendelQ]

This is what Rolling7 said:

I took it as a matter of the way to teach a deaf child. Within the posts, there are many ADers who oppose teaching deaf children to speak. They also post of their disgust for those who are against ASL being taught. My bringing reading/writing into the equation is to show that communication in life goes beyond signing and beyond speaking. So both, oralism and ASL, are an oppression without reading/writing.

...
The way I see it is, the only folks oppressed are those who did not learn to read/write, be they hearing or deaf. Some have a serious problem learning, others choice not to pay attention in school and the last group is those who never got the chance to learn.
Regardless of the reason, these folks will always suffer until they are able to read/write.

You and DC can safely assume that ASL can NOT be spoken nor written. This alone hinders the complete language development in deaf children.
Case to point. I often get together with a bunch of deaf guys to watch sports. The C.C. is on the entire game but several of the guys are always asking "what was that call" because the ref/umpire uses general hand signs for calls. So I explain to the guys what the call is BUT if they could read the C.C. they would not need to ask.
Here in Houston we have an ABC broadcast of the news that uses ASL in a PIP and many deaf watch it because they can not read C.C. This short broadcast is usually all the news that these deaf get from television and, of course, the hearing get day long information. Don't get me started on how terrible ADA is went it comes to the news, there is a whole section elsewhere on AD about that.

And that's different from how his statement was rephrased, not quoted:

I am objecting to his statement that ASL hinders a child's language development. That is a completely false statement.

We all know that but his sentence "ASL hinders the language development of Deaf children." is what I am objecting to because it is a very dangerous false statement.
" ...

He's just talking about the importance of literacy for both ASL-deaf and English-deaf. Why do you object?

 

[GrendelQ]

No one unintentionally teaches someone to use sign language alone, either. The situation just does not exist. Not in this world.

As I said.

 

[jillio]

This is what Rolling7 said:






And that's different from how his statement was rephrased, not quoted:

He is saying that because ASL is not spoken or written, it hinders the language development of children. It is right there in black and white. You are trying too hard to defend his statement and are not seeing what is right there in front of you.

Just as he phrased it, or paraphrased, it is still a false statement.

 

[jillio]

As I said.

Then why are we discussing the effects of such? As I said, the situation does not exist where a child is taught ASL only.

 

[GrendelQ]

He is saying that because ASL is not spoken or written, it hinders the language development of children. It is right there in black and white. You are trying too hard to defend his statement and are not seeing what is right there in front of you.

Just as he phrased it, or paraphrased, it is still a false statement.

I still see -- in black and white -- that he is saying that not learning reading and writing oppresses deaf people. That focusing on either oral-only or ASL-only, whether by choice or because of a poor academic environment, produces a child without full language development. That just speaking and hearing, or just signing is not enough in our society.

 

[GrendelQ]

Then why are we discussing the effects of such? As I said, the situation does not exist where a child is taught ASL only.

Not intentionally taught, but he has given examples of people who are functionally illiterate, whether by choice or circumstance. More than 50% of deaf 17-18 year olds don't have sufficient literacy to be considered fluent in written English. Having a handful of writing skills -- whether an ASL Deaf or Oral deaf isn't sufficient to avoid oppression. Going through life writing and reading lower than the level of a typical 9YO hearing child is not anyone's goal, but it's what we find happens to the majority of deaf kids.

 

[jillio]

I still see -- in black and white -- that he is saying that not learning reading and writing oppresses deaf people. That focusing on either oral-only or ASL-only, whether by choice or because of a poor academic environment, produces a child without full language development. That just speaking and hearing, or just signing is not enough in our society.

Even using your interpretation, it is an incorrect statement. And to arrive at your interpretation, you have to insert words and/or phrasing that is not in the original statement.

And again, since there is no such thing as ASL only, it cannot be attributed as a cause for anything. It does not exist.

 

[jillio]

Not intentionally taught, but he has given examples of people who are functionally illiterate, whether by choice or circumstance. More than 50% of deaf 17-18 year olds don't have sufficient literacy to be considered fluent in written English. Having a handful of writing skills -- whether an ASL Deaf or Oral deaf isn't sufficient to avoid oppression. Going through life writing and reading lower than the level of a 9YO child is not anyone's goal, but it's what we find happens to the majority of deaf kids.

That has nothing to do with ASL use, but with an educational system that is not addressing the students' needs.

 

[GrendelQ]

That has nothing to do with ASL use, but with an educational system that is not addressing the students' needs.

That's just it. Neither does rolling7's statement have anything to do with damning ASL use, or with damning spoken language use. It has to do with learning to read and write English.

 

[GrendelQ]

Even using your interpretation, it is an incorrect statement. And to arrive at your interpretation, you have to insert words and/or phrasing that is not in the original statement.

I have not changed or inserted words here at all, these are Rolling7's words, not mine:

My bringing reading/writing into the equation is to show that communication in life goes beyond signing and beyond speaking. So both, oralism and ASL, are an oppression without reading/writing.

...
The way I see it is, the only folks oppressed are those who did not learn to read/write, be they hearing or deaf. Some have a serious problem learning, others choice not to pay attention in school and the last group is those who never got the chance to learn.
Regardless of the reason, these folks will always suffer until they are able to read/write.

You and DC can safely assume that ASL can NOT be spoken nor written. This alone hinders the complete language development in deaf children.

 

[jillio]

That's just it. Neither does rolling7's statement have anything to do with damning ASL use, or with damning spoken language use. It has to do with learning to read and write English.

Even your interpretation of what he says implicates ASL usage. Seriously, Grendel, you are the only one that doesn't see it.:roll:

 

[jillio]

I have not changed or inserted words here at all, these are Rolling7's words, not mine:

And again, no one teaches ASL WITHOUT READING AND WRITING INCORPORATED INTO THE CURRICULUM.