Feelings on how a Deaf child should be taught

jillo, don't forget about hoh kids and kids who may not even have a unilateral loss, but they use ASL as a primary language due to things like aprxia or tracheostomies.
 
deafdyke said:
jillo, don't forget about hoh kids and kids who may not even have a unilateral loss, but they use ASL as a primary language due to things like aprxia or tracheostomies.
Click to expand...


deafdyke - I do not agree. Considering the volumes of hearing parents that struggle to become fluent in ASL, I feel that you statement is misleading. This is not providing the language of ASL, it is simply using a sign.

This type of generalization is akin to stating that hearing babies are using ASL, when it is an ASL sign "plunked" into a spoken English sentence, providing very little as far as visual language. Pegion sign at its best.

The best language models for ASL are Deaf ASL users. The Deaf community is capable of providing this learning opportunity. Developing a successful program for such a service lies within the Deaf Community.

Once again though, having a child who most likely will have little to do with the Deaf community, (for a mulititude of reasons) and teaching them a language which they would have few peers or adults to converse with is not, imo, in everyones best interest. The likelyhood of the professionals in the rehab. institute; where some of these same children will go for speech, being fluent in ASL, is slim to none. IME
 
shel90 said:
Research has showed a majority of TC programs have failed which is why many programs are starting to drop TC programs. It is more appropriate for an one-on-one basis but not for a classroom setting. No offense or anything.
Click to expand...
Majority? I don't buy any of it. There were some failure and some successful strategies in TC. Not every child has the happy ending that they hoped for; which unable to function well on that chosen path. TC program is not for everyone because different children have different amounts of hearing loss, some are completely deaf that they can not hear at all. They just need different kinds of help, to learn in whatever way works best for them.

So I would not say TC is a majority failure. ;)
 
Last edited:
Cheri said:
Majority? I don't buy any of it. There were some failure and some successful strategies in TC. Not every child has the happy ending that they hoped for; which unable to function well on that chosen path. TC program is not for everyone because different children have different amounts of hearing loss, some are completely deaf that they can not hear at all. They just need different kinds of help, to learn in whatever way works best for them.

So I would not say TC is a majority failure. ;)
Click to expand...
right.. and even there should be no social promotions at all..

Schools promote students despite widespread failure: An Arizona Daily Star investigation. Tucson AZ

social promotion - Google Search
 
Cheri said:
Majority? I don't buy any of it. There were some failure and some successful strategies in TC. Not every child has the happy ending that they hoped for; which unable to function well on that chosen path. TC program is not for everyone because different children have different amounts of hearing loss, some are completely deaf that they can not hear at all. They just need different kinds of help, to learn in whatever way works best for them.

So I would not say TC is a majority failure. ;)
Click to expand...

Then why are schools moving away from this method and replacing it with bi-bi?
 
faire_jour said:
Then why are schools moving away from this method and replacing it with bi-bi?
Click to expand...

Exactly! It is being replaced because it has been shown much less than effective in the majority of cases. Like any other eclectic approach, it does not have a strong theoretical basis from which to operate, and therefore, is without direction and consistency.
 
loml said:
deafdyke - I do not agree. Considering the volumes of hearing parents that struggle to become fluent in ASL, I feel that you statement is misleading. This is not providing the language of ASL, it is simply using a sign.

This type of generalization is akin to stating that hearing babies are using ASL, when it is an ASL sign "plunked" into a spoken English sentence, providing very little as far as visual language. Pegion sign at its best.

The best language models for ASL are Deaf ASL users. The Deaf community is capable of providing this learning opportunity. Developing a successful program for such a service lies within the Deaf Community.

Once again though, having a child who most likely will have little to do with the Deaf community, (for a mulititude of reasons) and teaching them a language which they would have few peers or adults to converse with is not, imo, in everyones best interest. The likelyhood of the professionals in the rehab. institute; where some of these same children will go for speech, being fluent in ASL, is slim to none. IME
Click to expand...

The vast majority of hearing parents never attempt to learn ASL, much less become fluent. A child using CS would have very few peers or adults to communicate with. Your point is exactly what?
 
Pinky678 said:
My parent found it out. I was deaf. My old doctor sent us to other city to go Pre School for Hearing impaired. My old doctor told my parent to not use a sign language to communicate with me. I was so fit and angry. I was very smart when I was 2. I was a mischief and hide many things somewhere to get my mom's attention. My mom wanted to communicate with me so badly.

I moved to other city. I was first time to attend pre school when I was 3. I was first time to learn sign lannguages with SEE not ASL. I wore 2 hearing aids. I can't speak with oral because of my deaf is 90% and had a crooked teeth. I was so frustrated to learn speak. My old teacher grabbed my cheek to attention at read the lips. She was so mean! I transfered to Deaf School when I was 10. I was first time to learn ASL so fast.

For my future kids if they are deaf or hard of hearing. I would rather for them to use speak and sign both if they want to experience. I don't want to force them where they are go to school. I want my future kids to get best education. I prefer to send them to Private school.
Click to expand...

Regarding your first paragraph, a mere medical doctor told your parents all this? My word!
 
faire_jour said:
Then why are schools moving away from this method and replacing it with bi-bi?
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, Not all schools had replaced TC to Bi-Bi approach. When TC came in during the 70's, some oral method had been replaced to TC approach. Bi-Bi doesn't have a long history yet to report any failures. Just give it time. ;)
 
This is not providing the language of ASL, it is simply using a sign.
Click to expand...
loml, WRONG. I'm not talking about the severely MR kids who use a handful of signs. I'm talking about the kids who have cerebal palsy, apraxia (there is actually a program at St. Rita's which caters to kids with apraxia. Actually apraxia is very common overall in the dhh population)) or tracheostomies, who have normal intelligence, but cannot speak.
 
Cheri said:
I beg to differ, Not all schools had replaced TC to Bi-Bi approach. When TC came in during the 70's, some oral method had been replaced to TC approach. Bi-Bi doesn't have a long history yet to report any failures. Just give it time. ;)
Click to expand...

But it does have a long history. The original residential schools used a bi-bi approach, and at the time, students were testing out with literacy scores on par with hearing peers. It is only after the oralists took over that the residential schools began to experience difficulties with the education of their students and deaf teachers started loosing their jobs.
 
jillio said:
But it does have a long history.
Click to expand...
Not that long, For years the only options were oral, cued speech, or total communication. Then had add a fourth option, the bilingual-bicultural. :ty:
 
jillio said:
But it does have a long history. The original residential schools used a bi-bi approach, and at the time, students were testing out with literacy scores on par with hearing peers. It is only after the oralists took over that the residential schools began to experience difficulties with the education of their students and deaf teachers started loosing their jobs.
Click to expand...

History speaks for itself so what's up with the resistant in using the very approach that had been proved to be successful back then? I guess I just want all children to get an equal and fair chance when it comes to education.
 
Cheri said:
Majority? I don't buy any of it. There were some failure and some successful strategies in TC. Not every child has the happy ending that they hoped for; which unable to function well on that chosen path. TC program is not for everyone because different children have different amounts of hearing loss, some are completely deaf that they can not hear at all. They just need different kinds of help, to learn in whatever way works best for them.

So I would not say TC is a majority failure. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I read and studied several research at both major universities (Arizona State University and Gallaudet University)..they all point to the same conclusions and then there is my professional experience in the teaching field for 10 years..what I saw in the TC programs are just what research stated.

Here is a link to one qualitative research..I dont think it is peer reviewed though.

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/nabe/brj/v18/18_34_gutierrez.pdf
 
shel90 said:
Well, I read and studied several research at both major universities (Arizona State University and Gallaudet University)..they all point to the same conclusions and then there is my professional experience in the teaching field for 10 years..what I saw in the TC programs are just what research stated.

Here is a link to one qualitative research..I dont think it is peer reviewed though.
Click to expand...

It says "They believe" and it also stated it wasn't completely successful, of course there is always a negative aspect on all methodologies, hearing aids and cochlear implants. Does it means we should all boycott hearing aids, cochlear implants, cued speech, oral and total communication because it has some negative aspect? :roll:
 
deafdyke said:
loml, WRONG. I'm not talking about the severely MR kids who use a handful of signs. I'm talking about the kids who have cerebal palsy, apraxia (there is actually a program at St. Rita's which caters to kids with apraxia. Actually apraxia is very common overall in the dhh population)) or tracheostomies, who have normal intelligence, but cannot speak.
Click to expand...

deafdyke - Nor am I speaking of globally delayed individuals. I cannot speak to the quality of St. Ritas "catering" to the children that you speak of. I do not agree with your suggestion that deaf/hoh children from hearing families, as we all know the majority are, are using true ASL as their primary form of communication. Your statements imply large numbers of your described individuals, which frankly, I have great difficulty believing.

IME, children model what they see. Being Deaf with fluent ASL without and education degree does not mean employment in the educational system, nor should it. It is an atrocity that hearing/hoh people, with education degrees and not fluent in ASL are permitted to teach these same children.
Unfortunately, the "system" as it stands today, does not understand nor in some cases have a vested interest in the quality of education for deaf/hoh children.
 
Cheri said:
Not that long, For years the only options were oral, cued speech, or total communication. Then had add a fourth option, the bilingual-bicultural. :ty:
Click to expand...

You have misunderstood. Like I said, the original residential schools in the 1800's were bilingual/biculutral. Then along came people like A.G. Bell, and oralism came into the picture. In the 1800's, under the tutledge of people who truly knew what they were talking about when it came to the education of deaf children, rather than those operating from an ethnocentric perspective and proposing eugenics, deaf children were educated on par with hearing children.
 
Cheri said:
It says "They believe" and it also stated it wasn't completely successful, of course there is always a negative aspect on all methodologies, hearing aids and cochlear implants. Does it means we should all boycott hearing aids, cochlear implants, cued speech, oral and total communication because it has some negative aspect? :roll:
Click to expand...

When those negative aspects provide an atmosphere that continues to undereducate and underemploy the deaf population as a whole, yes. And the teaching methodologies that are currently being used in the majority of educational settings are doing just that.
 
Back
Top