Good Observations and Bad Conclusions
I have been working with my hearing kids on CS for about 2 weeks now.
While I must say I am against an oral only approach, and that aquiring
the ability to speak should never be forced on anyone, I am seeing that
CS has many potentially valuable places in education. It appears to have
originally been designed to "replace signing". That seems to be what was
in mind. BUT, it was the wrong conclusion! Just because a tool is designed
for one use and doesn't work well for that use, doesn't mean it won't work
wonderfully for another use. I am hoping that by the years end, my dyslexic
son will see a major improvement in his reading level and that his reading
level will finally come close to reaching where he is in all other areas. My
son is brilliant but would not test so, unless you had a trained proctor
skilled in different learning modalities and was able to compensate. We
all know how the system is set up. In many ways I am in the same
position as a parent with a Deaf child. The child is bright, I know, every
one who talks to him knows, but the standard tests would fail to show it.
Do I let him go technical rather than college because he wouldn't be able
to prove his abilities on paper? No, I am going to do whatever I can to
make it so he can pass the tests that get the money to send him to school.
What ever I do with him and for him in the long run will probably benifit him.
CS appears to have the ability to provide his brain with a tool that will
enable him to activate those areas that are not now activated. Literacy
in reading is what I see as this tools ultimate use. And in this country
we have gotten academically lazy. Everyone should be able to at least read two or more languages minimum! And it is a crying shame that we deprive
our children of that. All children can benifit from CS, from what I can
tell, Hearing and Deaf.
