deafskeptic - You state "it hasn't been effective for most deaf". Considering the wide range of familial backgrounds and childhood variables, what do you base this statement on?
I continuosly read statements implying that the resurgence of Cued Speech has something to do with oral only approaches. On its own CS it is not a speech tool, nor will using the system improve a deaf child/adults' speech . Considering the heirarchy and politics involved in the field of deaf rehab/education, where is this resurgence happening? How are people coming to this conclussion? It is not clear to me.
Look around you. The push toward oralism as tied to CI is obvious. And oralism does not apply to speech only, but orally based language as the only language for the deaf child, i.e. English as the L1 language because English is the langauge of the majority. As CS is an English mode, and you yourself, have stated that English should always be the L1 language, with ASL learned only as an L2 language, if at all, CS is directly tied to the oral English philosophy. You are attempting to use oralism as applied to speech only, and there is much more to the concept than than.
There have been numerous postings on this board stating that ASL/oral programs are successful with regards to literacy. I can only imagine adding CS to these programs to removing the ambiguity of speech reading.
If one is using ASL, one is not speech reading. Therefore, your remark would apply to the oral programs, and therefore, has supported the connection to oralism.
The deaf adults who oppose CS, in my experience, are the deaf children whose speech therapy sessions have let them imbittered. Perhaps these same adults would feel differently if they had had the opportunity to add CS to their tool box. It has also been my experience that these same deaf adults do not fully understand what CS and how it feels to use it. Some are willing to explore and learn and some are not, freedom of choice.
Which is it loml.....a tool for speech therapy or not? You continually waffle bacvk and forth. First you say it is not a tool to teach speech, and then you connect it to speech therapy. How would speech terapy have been made easier, if CS is not a tool for speech therapy.
And we have heard frommany deaf adults on this board that have been exposed to CS, know how it feels to use it, and say that it is limited in its usefulness and that it is confusing and cumbersome. You continually want to blame the umpopularity of the system, and the fact that it is not,nor has it ever been widely used on the deaf, rather than on the system itself. It is not the deaf perception that has failed CS......it is CS that has failed the deaf.
Like flip, my opinion is if you are unwilling to discuss the subject in a public forum, then you have created the distinct impression that there is something you are attempting to hide and that you are not being up front and above board.