Feelings on how a Deaf child should be taught

[shel90]

I've met with a hearing teacher that signed in SEE in a small-group setting special education classroom with a few deaf students during the first period course then was placed in mainstream with an interpreter for the rest school day. Only a very few of us were placed in the mainstreamed classrooms.

Thanks for clarifying

Ok..the TC programs that I spoke of are those that contained 10 plus students ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade who are lumped together in one class with one teacher for the majority of the day. I dont know how can one teacher use 5 different approaches and use 5 different grade levels in one lesson plan. It is impossible and that was what I witnessed in several of the TC programs I worked, volunteered or interned at. I couldnt do it and I wouldnt do it cuz it is not fair to the deaf students.

 

[Cheri]

Ok..the TC programs that I spoke of are those that contained 10 plus students ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade who are lumped together in one class with one teacher for the majority of the day. I dont know how can one teacher use 5 different approaches and use 5 different grade levels in one lesson plan. It is impossible and that was what I witnessed in several of the TC programs I worked, volunteered or interned at. I couldnt do it and I wouldnt do it cuz it is not fair to the deaf students.

 

[Cheri]

Shel;

Did this happened in a deaf resident school or public school?

 

[shel90]

Shel;

Did this happened in a deaf resident school or public school?

Public schools..4 of them..2 in AZ, 1 in MD and 1 in VA.

Like I said TC is probably better for one-on-one situations..I dont know about small groups like yours though. Have to see it before I make an opinion but I have seen it with interinant deaf ed teachers who travel to different schools to work with one deaf student at a time. In my opinion, if one wants to use the TC approach, then probably the most effective with the one-on-one basis. I have yet see it with small groups like yours but in my experience, it was always with big classes like the one I just described. I would go nuts. I think Deafbajagal is teaching in a TC class with 7 students and she is so stressed out trying to meet their needs with all the different communication modalities.

All the Deaf schools I have worked at used the BiBi approach. I did observe an oral Deaf school one time.

 

[Cheri]

It's hard to believe a public school district would go that routine, I thought they have separate schools for each grading students, like high school, middle school and elementary school.

 

[shel90]

It's hard to believe a public school district would go that routine, I thought they have separate schools for each grading students, like high school, middle school and elementary school.

That was what I believed before I started majoring in deaf education. I dont think they would do that to the hearing kids but why do that to the deaf kids? That just made and still makes me so angry. I dont know if these programs are still running..

It is a sad state of affairs and that's another reason why I dont trust mainstreaming programs cuz deaf children, by the IDEA law, are placed under the responsibility of the special education departments of the districts and usually the people running them have no training nor experience with deaf children. That's why there are so many stories told by deaf adults of how they were placed with other children with mental retardation, LD, emotional problems, austism and et...not that I am putting down those children but deaf children do not have those needs but yet many are still being placed in classes like those or in classes like the TC programs I saw.

 

[faire_jour]

ASL has a grammar that is different from English, but in our TC program they disregard it. They sign only the "important" words and in English word order. There are no directional verbs, classifiers, or other key ASL elements.

 

[Cheri]

I've never seen something like that Shel, not where I went to school at where they had a total communication program. I supposed they didn't have enough school funds to help aid the deaf programs at the public school districts where you witnessed this problem at.

 

[Deborah]

Also, in regards to bi-bi schools, ASL is the language of instruction at all times. Every student must be fluent in ASL, that is to be their first and primary language. English is taught as a second language. Speech, listening, and speechreading are taught outside the voice-off classroom. ASL is used by everyone on campus at all times for every exchange, so that all information is accessable at all times.

That is what my daughter's bi-bi classroom looks like.

In our local TC classes, a teacher would SIM-COM ASL signs in English word order. They would speak everything and sign what they could. For example, in preschool the teacher would say "Let's all go get our coats, line up, and go outside", and she would sign COAT, LINE, and OUTSIDE. Not a good ASL model at all. Also, there are no Deaf adults in our TC school, only hearing people. When a teacher is talking to another adult, they speak thus leaving the kids out.

*Also, in regards to bi-bi schools, ASL is the language of instruction at all times. Every student must be fluent in ASL, that is to be their first and primary language. English is taught as a second language. Speech, listening, and speechreading are taught outside the voice-off classroom. ASL is used by everyone on campus at all times for every exchange.*--How does this work for the MANY deaf kids who are first fluent in English? My daughter, and many deaf kids her age, are the reverse of what is described--English is already their first language, they are fluent and literate in English, and they WANT to learn ASL. Is this possible?

Can people who naturally think and speak in English really learn to change their thinking/communicating to ASL format? Do any of you know hearing people or oral deaf people who didn't learn ASL until later in life who became very fluent in ASL, or is it more SEE? I am understanding what you are saying--learning sign language and learning signs to go along with English is not the same thing as learning the whole language structure of ASL. I do know that some languages, such as Spanish, are also quite differently structured than English--can an English speaker really become truly fluent in Spanish?--I think they can learn to change the English patterns into Spanish patterns and change back and forth between the two languages. In the case of English first and ASL second, how about interpreters who grow up with English and become fluent in ASL later in life? Are they truly fluent, or do they "think in English" and end up translating English into SEE instead of ASL? For those who were raised orally and then later learned ASL, do you feel fluent, or do you have a hard time changing formats? Since my daughter and others like her only know English right now, they think in English format. Can they learn to "switch language format and structure"--can they really learn true ASL or will it be too hard to make those changes now that they are fluent in English? Are most English speakers really learning SEE instead of ASL?

Based on the information that you gave me, I think my daughter would be completely lost at a Bi-Bi school. She is already fluent and literate in English--English is already her first and primary language--she wants to learn ASL as her second language. Her terminology would be that she wants to learn sign language--she REALLY is ready, willing, and able to do so, but she also thinks that it is kind of hard to learn. She may be able to make the changes needed in order to learn true ASL, or she may end up learning SEE based on her English language patterns that are already set. It seems that there are many kids like her--there do seem to be a lot of deaf kids who grow up in hearing families and are raised orally at first but then later want to learn ASL. Are these kids at a huge disadvantage at Bi-Bi schools?

It seems that the consensus on this thread had been that Bi-Bi is better than TC. Think of all of the kids who have already mastered the English language--many of them WANT to learn ASL, but HOW can they learn it? Please tell me that there is access for these kids in the Bi-Bi classrooms--if ASL is the language of instruction at all times, then how can they learn? I would imagine that there would need to be an interpreter for them, just as there should be an interpreter for a child who only knew ASL but was in a classroom where English was the instruction at all times. In other words--if a child is ASL only and the teacher is speaking English, the only way that the child can learn what the teacher is saying would be with an interpreter who takes the English and translates it into ASL. Same in reverse--if a child is currently English only(does not know ASL yet) and the teacher is using ASL only, the only way that the child can learn what the teacher is saying in ASL would be with an interpreter who takes the ASL and translates it into English. They would need a lot of time before they would be fluent enough in ASL (or SEE?) to understand the teacher without an interpreter. So that is what I am asking--do Bi-Bi programs help English speakers translate the ASL instruction until they DO become fluent? If not, they will surely be completely lost unless maybe everything is printed out in real time captioning, perhaps?

So, if these accommodations are there, then Bi-Bi could work for these kids IF there are interpreters helping them translate during the ASL only classes. If not, then the ONLY kids that Bi-Bi would work for would be those whose first language is already ASL. That would leave out a lot of deaf kids--hopefully Bi-Bi programs DO help kids who are NOT fluent in ASL until they become fluent. There seem to be a lot of teenagers who are doing as my daughter is doing--starting with English and wanting to add ASL--starting with English as a first language and wanting to add ASL as a second language. If deaf schools are Bi-Bi and aren't giving these kids interpreters and help in understanding during ASL only classes, then it just won't work for them. Are Bi-Bi schools accommodating to kids whose first language is already English, or are they shutting these kids out? Are they being told--too bad you aren't already fluent in ASL--you must already be fluent in order to do well at this school? OR--are these schools helping these kids in their attempts to become fluent--thus making accommodations during the process of learning?

And how are parents supposed to know, when looking at deaf schools, if they are TC or Bi-Bi? I am assuming by what I have read here that: if speech and sign are BOTH used in the classroom that it is TC, and if classes are ASL only that it is Bi-Bi. If Bi-Bi programs use ASL as the language of instruction at all times, how is that truly bilingual? If all speech is limited to outside the classroom--if all classes are voice off--how is that BI-lingual? It seems more like 80 to 90 percent ASL and only 10 to 20 percent English, if that. If I am correctly understanding the difference between TC and Bi-Bi, it seems that kids with English as a first language are completely left out of the loop in a Bi-Bi program. Just as it would be completely wrong to take a child who only knows ASL and expect that child to learn in an English only classroom with no ASL interpreter, it would be just as wrong to take a child who only knows English and expect that child to learn in an ASL only classroom with no English interpreter. If that is the case, than there are many kids who would not do well at all in a Bi-Bi program. It seems that a TC program would be MUCH better for kids who already know English and want to learn ASL, right?

If there is info I need to know about Bi-Bi that I am not getting, please let me know. It seems that: oral only schools are biased toward spoken English only and Bi-Bi schools are biased toward ASL only. If Bi-Bi schools are much more accommodating than what was described, then please help me to understand. I think FSDB is more TC than Bi-Bi, and that seems to be the right kind of deaf school for my daughter. For all of these kids who were mainstreamed and now would like to try deaf schools, it seems that TC programs would work better for them. If Bi-Bi is as described here, it would leave out anyone who is not already fluent in ASL--unless they DO have interpreters for these kids, then it might work as long as they are getting EVERYTHING translated while still learning to be fluent. Would you say that only kids who are already fluent in ASL would do well in Bi-Bi programs? If you think kids who are learning ASL would do well, can you explain how they can learn in Bi-Bi classrooms? Are there interpreters for them? Is everything written so that they can understand what is going on in the classroom? Or is it a case of--until they are fluent in ASL, they are just going to miss what is happening in class in the ASL only classes? Would these kids do better in TC programs?

Is there a way to know if a deaf school is TC or Bi-Bi? Both philosophies sound similar, but it seems that TC would be much more accommodating to kids who are already fluent in English as a first language, and Bi-Bi would be much more accommodating to kids who are already fluent in ASL as a first language. If these schools want parents to consider sending their kids there, they need to clarify this a bit more. Many of us are trying to expose our kids to Deaf culture and ASL, but the deaf schools need to help them make that transition instead of expecting them to already come to their school knowing it all. Many kids who started in the mainstream now want to try deaf schools--they need to feel welcome and they need help transitioning to this new environment. If Bi-Bi schools are helping kids who really want to learn ASL but need time to become fluent, then that is good--i just am wondering if they are or are not helping these kids make this transition. If not, then it seems that they need to be clear about that--basically, oral deaf kids who only know English and want to learn ASL would not do well at a school that expected them to come in already being fluent in ASL. Yes, immersion into ASL can be good, but not in the classroom--that would be a "sink or swim" approach--expecting them to learn through a language they do not know yet. There are many deaf kids that would not do well in that environment--they need accommodations as they make this transition.

Please understand that I am trying to be sincere in my questions--I am truly trying to understand our options as I try to help my daughter. From what I have learned here, it seems that TC is a much better program than Bi-Bi for kids like her--therefore, I need to find a deaf school that is TC. I think I have found this at FSDB--if anyone can clarify if this is true, please let me know. It seems to be a great fit for her--I hope it truly is. As others have described Bi-Bi programs, it seems that deaf schools that are Bi-Bi would NOT work well for her, but schools that are TC would. I have to understand these concepts in order to make the best choices for her--I have to truly grasp the ideas before I can advocate for something. For now, I think TC seems to be a better way to go than Bi-Bi for kids who already use English as their first language and want to learn ASL. And maybe Bi-Bi is a better way to go for kids who use ASL as their first language. Does this seem to be the case in your experiences?

 

[deafskeptic]

LOL but so many forget that despite deaf people acquiring speech skills, there is the issue of the receptive end. Despite having excellent speech skills, deaf people continue to miss out on a lot cuz lipreading doesnt not give 100% access to language or communication. I should know cuz I am one of them.

AMEN! I'm also one of them. There are times when I don't use my voice because it's MUCH easier to get the hearing to write notes or to attend to my receptive needs. They don't seem to understand there's more to deafness than good speech.

 

[deafdyke]

of how they were placed with other children with mental retardation, LD, emotional problems, austism and et...not that I am putting down those children but deaf children do not have those needs but yet many are still being placed in classes like those or in classes like the TC programs I saw.
__________________

YES!!!! We have COMPLETLY different needs from kids with LD/MR/autism etc. We CAN learn, on the same pace with hearing kids we just learn DIFFRENTLY/through different methodologies.

 

[jillio]

I am still trying to grasp exactly how different a TC program is from a Bi-Bi program. I get the bicultural aspect--it does seem true that the idea of Deaf culture is not always introduced in other types of deaf programs. But I am trying to understand the bilingual concept when comparing TC to Bi-Bi. From what I have learned so far, it seems that a TC program would always have both speech and sign, as well as printed materials. From what I have learned about Bi-Bi so far, it seems that there is more emphasis on ASL even though there is still some speech, too--and, of course, printed materials.

As I picture a TC environment, I see that the kids who rely on ASL definitely need someone who is fluent in ASL--a teacher, an interpreter, or both. I get that, for kids who need a full ASL language(not just signs), nothing less than a fluent ASL teacher/interpreter would do--they need the FULL language system. And, I also see that the kids in this same program who rely on spoken English need a teacher(and maybe an oral interpreter?) who is fluent in THEIR first language. They need someone who can speak to them fluently and communicate completely with them in English--if not, they are going to miss a lot--just as ASL only kids would miss a lot without someone fluent in ASL around at all times. In this situation, there would need to be BOTH at all times, right? I guess, from what I have seen, that often takes form by having both a teacher for the deaf and an interpreter in class at all times--or a teacher who is very fluent in both English and ASL who can use both according to who she is communicating with at the time. Example: teacher speaks to oral deaf students, interpreter signs to ASL students--both happening at the same time. Another example: teacher speaks to oral deaf students at times, teacher uses ASL with ASL students at other times, depending on who she is communicating with at the time. I have observed both of these situations--they seem to work because both groups are being presented all info in their language. When I observed classes at FSDB, it seemed to be the second example--I heard teachers speaking(including some oral deaf teachers), I saw the same teachers signing also--maybe a "double presentation" style where they often present the same info twice(once in each language). I know I am not describing it well--I am just trying to explain what I saw--some students were speaking to the teachers, some were signing--the teachers were speaking at times and signing at times--both going on during each class. While I understand how difficult it would be to follow BOTH languages at the EXACT same time--that would be hard to do if not impossible to do with ANY two languages being used at the exact same time--the staggering of two languages(use one and then the other back and forth) may work. Still, those fluent in one language are focusing on their language, and vice-versa. I don't know how much ASL the oral deaf kids are really picking up this way--they are busy concentrating on their own language--but they are being exposed to ASL, so they pick up some. And, some kids who use ASL more but lipread some may also be picking up some things from the spoken English--some may pick up more than others. This is all gathered from my observations of what I would say are TC programs.

Now, I have never really seen a Bi-Bi program in action--I am trying to grasp what a Bi-Bi program is really like for deaf kids. Once again, I get the cultural aspect--that is good--they are learning to love and accept themselves as deaf/Deaf and are getting comfortable with their "deaf identity." What I am wondering is, how does the bilingual aspect work in the classroom? If there are deaf kids whose first language is ASL and deaf kids whose first language is English in the same class, how does it work? If the teachers are ASL only sometimes, do the kids who aren't fluent in ASL get left out--or, would an oral interpreter be needed? As kids are learning ASL, how do they keep up(before they are fluent)--does the teacher present everything in print(like maybe with real time captioning), or does she also present things in spoken English, or is there someone always there to interpret the teacher's ASL into English for those who are not fluent in ASL? I am just wondering how Bi-Bi works for kids who are not yet fluent in ASL--I imagine there are accommodations, but I am wondering exactly how they "bridge the gap" while these kids are still learning ASL. I am assuming that Bi-Bi programs ALSO use spoken English, but I am wondering how much and in what way? I am trying to picture a child, whose first language is English, trying to learn in ASL only situations--in the reverse situations when an ASL only child is in a classroom where spoken English is used they usually have an interpreter who signs everything that is spoken so that they won't miss anything--I am wondering if a child whose first language is English would also get an interpreter to translate all ASL into English for them(in a Bi-Bi classroom). Does anyone know how this works in Bi-Bi programs?

Having said all of that, I am trying simply to truly understand the difference between TC and Bi-Bi. Once again, I understand that Bi-Bi means bicultural and bilingual. I understand the bicultural aspect--that is good and will be great for the self-esteem of deaf children. What I am trying to understand is how the bilingual aspect works in Bi-Bi programs--surely there are many students who are just learning ASL--I am wondering how Bi-Bi programs teach these kids. If there are interpreters or teachers who can help translate ASL into English so that they can keep up--just like in TC programs that have people translate English to ASL--then I can see how that would work. If not, then I can see a problem if kids who are not fluent in ASL are presented ASL only classes--surely there are accommodations to help them. Are teachers in Bi-Bi programs truly bilingual--do they present all of their lessons in BOTH languages--or are there interpreters making sure that English speaking kids get complete translations of all things presented in ASL? Once kids ARE fluent in ASL, then this translation may not be needed--but it can take a while to become fluent--and an English speaker may be more likely to learn SEE instead of ASL, right? I am just trying to understand how English speakers can learn to be fluent in ASL--and, until they are, how do Bi-Bi programs help them bridge the gap?

The main difference between a Bi-Bi program and TC is that one has a strong theoroetical base, and the other does not. A Bi-Bi program teaches English as a second language, using ASL as the L1 language. Research has consistently shown over the years that a strong foundation in an L1 language allows for better learning of a second language. A Bi-Bi program keeps English and ASL separate, as they should be, as they are 2 separate and complete languages. A TC program attempts to combine the 2 into one linguistic atmosphere, and it distorts both languages. In effect, a child ends up getting a distorted version of ASL and a distorted version of English, thus preventing the complete acquisition of any L1 language. This confusing linguistic environment is what is responsible for the numerous problems seen today in the reading and writing of English by Deaf/deaf students. The punctuation, grammar, and usage of English by deaf students in a TC environment show very typical errors.

 

[jillio]

You can catch deaf history on the movie "Through Deaf Eyes" and You could read books about Alexander Bell. It tells all about the deaf history. I did not read where it stated that deaf children did speak before A.G. Bell stepped in.

As I remembered A.G. Bell stated that deaf teachers should not teach deaf children, as they could not instruct during speech lessons. The term "deaf and dumb" and "deaf and mute" were applied to that class of individuals who didn't neither hear nor speak. That was the reason why AGBell's ideas were accepted. He was the one who invented visible speech so he can helped guide the deaf in learning to speak.

I have studied Deaf history extensively. I have a copy of Through Deaf Eyes and have read more books regarding Deaf history than I can count. Add to that the number of books on Deaf psychology and culture, not to mention deaf education and the development of deaf children, as well as 20+ years of personal experience, and I would consider myself to be well informed regarding the issues.

A.G. Bell did not invent anything, including the telephone. He simply promoted the idea of ethnocentricism and soft eugenics....better known today as audism.

 

[jillio]

NO. Those who had the skills to learn speech have always been instructed in that skill at deaf schools. It was Bell who decided that ALL deaf MUST learn through speech ONLY.

Also, Bell had no great grand method to suddenly make speech visible. It was plain old lipreading.

Exactly!

 

[shel90]

*Also, in regards to bi-bi schools, ASL is the language of instruction at all times. Every student must be fluent in ASL, that is to be their first and primary language. English is taught as a second language. Speech, listening, and speechreading are taught outside the voice-off classroom. ASL is used by everyone on campus at all times for every exchange.*--How does this work for the MANY deaf kids who are first fluent in English? My daughter, and many deaf kids her age, are the reverse of what is described--English is already their first language, they are fluent and literate in English, and they WANT to learn ASL. Is this possible?

Can people who naturally think and speak in English really learn to change their thinking/communicating to ASL format? Do any of you know hearing people or oral deaf people who didn't learn ASL until later in life who became very fluent in ASL, or is it more SEE? I am understanding what you are saying--learning sign language and learning signs to go along with English is not the same thing as learning the whole language structure of ASL. I do know that some languages, such as Spanish, are also quite differently structured than English--can an English speaker really become truly fluent in Spanish?--I think they can learn to change the English patterns into Spanish patterns and change back and forth between the two languages. In the case of English first and ASL second, how about interpreters who grow up with English and become fluent in ASL later in life? Are they truly fluent, or do they "think in English" and end up translating English into SEE instead of ASL? For those who were raised orally and then later learned ASL, do you feel fluent, or do you have a hard time changing formats? Since my daughter and others like her only know English right now, they think in English format. Can they learn to "switch language format and structure"--can they really learn true ASL or will it be too hard to make those changes now that they are fluent in English? Are most English speakers really learning SEE instead of ASL?

Based on the information that you gave me, I think my daughter would be completely lost at a Bi-Bi school. She is already fluent and literate in English--English is already her first and primary language--she wants to learn ASL as her second language. Her terminology would be that she wants to learn sign language--she REALLY is ready, willing, and able to do so, but she also thinks that it is kind of hard to learn. She may be able to make the changes needed in order to learn true ASL, or she may end up learning SEE based on her English language patterns that are already set. It seems that there are many kids like her--there do seem to be a lot of deaf kids who grow up in hearing families and are raised orally at first but then later want to learn ASL. Are these kids at a huge disadvantage at Bi-Bi schools?

It seems that the consensus on this thread had been that Bi-Bi is better than TC. Think of all of the kids who have already mastered the English language--many of them WANT to learn ASL, but HOW can they learn it? Please tell me that there is access for these kids in the Bi-Bi classrooms--if ASL is the language of instruction at all times, then how can they learn? I would imagine that there would need to be an interpreter for them, just as there should be an interpreter for a child who only knew ASL but was in a classroom where English was the instruction at all times. In other words--if a child is ASL only and the teacher is speaking English, the only way that the child can learn what the teacher is saying would be with an interpreter who takes the English and translates it into ASL. Same in reverse--if a child is currently English only(does not know ASL yet) and the teacher is using ASL only, the only way that the child can learn what the teacher is saying in ASL would be with an interpreter who takes the ASL and translates it into English. They would need a lot of time before they would be fluent enough in ASL (or SEE?) to understand the teacher without an interpreter. So that is what I am asking--do Bi-Bi programs help English speakers translate the ASL instruction until they DO become fluent? If not, they will surely be completely lost unless maybe everything is printed out in real time captioning, perhaps?

So, if these accommodations are there, then Bi-Bi could work for these kids IF there are interpreters helping them translate during the ASL only classes. If not, then the ONLY kids that Bi-Bi would work for would be those whose first language is already ASL. That would leave out a lot of deaf kids--hopefully Bi-Bi programs DO help kids who are NOT fluent in ASL until they become fluent. There seem to be a lot of teenagers who are doing as my daughter is doing--starting with English and wanting to add ASL--starting with English as a first language and wanting to add ASL as a second language. If deaf schools are Bi-Bi and aren't giving these kids interpreters and help in understanding during ASL only classes, then it just won't work for them. Are Bi-Bi schools accommodating to kids whose first language is already English, or are they shutting these kids out? Are they being told--too bad you aren't already fluent in ASL--you must already be fluent in order to do well at this school? OR--are these schools helping these kids in their attempts to become fluent--thus making accommodations during the process of learning?

And how are parents supposed to know, when looking at deaf schools, if they are TC or Bi-Bi? I am assuming by what I have read here that: if speech and sign are BOTH used in the classroom that it is TC, and if classes are ASL only that it is Bi-Bi. If Bi-Bi programs use ASL as the language of instruction at all times, how is that truly bilingual? If all speech is limited to outside the classroom--if all classes are voice off--how is that BI-lingual? It seems more like 80 to 90 percent ASL and only 10 to 20 percent English, if that. If I am correctly understanding the difference between TC and Bi-Bi, it seems that kids with English as a first language are completely left out of the loop in a Bi-Bi program. Just as it would be completely wrong to take a child who only knows ASL and expect that child to learn in an English only classroom with no ASL interpreter, it would be just as wrong to take a child who only knows English and expect that child to learn in an ASL only classroom with no English interpreter. If that is the case, than there are many kids who would not do well at all in a Bi-Bi program. It seems that a TC program would be MUCH better for kids who already know English and want to learn ASL, right?

If there is info I need to know about Bi-Bi that I am not getting, please let me know. It seems that: oral only schools are biased toward spoken English only and Bi-Bi schools are biased toward ASL only. If Bi-Bi schools are much more accommodating than what was described, then please help me to understand. I think FSDB is more TC than Bi-Bi, and that seems to be the right kind of deaf school for my daughter. For all of these kids who were mainstreamed and now would like to try deaf schools, it seems that TC programs would work better for them. If Bi-Bi is as described here, it would leave out anyone who is not already fluent in ASL--unless they DO have interpreters for these kids, then it might work as long as they are getting EVERYTHING translated while still learning to be fluent. Would you say that only kids who are already fluent in ASL would do well in Bi-Bi programs? If you think kids who are learning ASL would do well, can you explain how they can learn in Bi-Bi classrooms? Are there interpreters for them? Is everything written so that they can understand what is going on in the classroom? Or is it a case of--until they are fluent in ASL, they are just going to miss what is happening in class in the ASL only classes? Would these kids do better in TC programs?

Is there a way to know if a deaf school is TC or Bi-Bi? Both philosophies sound similar, but it seems that TC would be much more accommodating to kids who are already fluent in English as a first language, and Bi-Bi would be much more accommodating to kids who are already fluent in ASL as a first language. If these schools want parents to consider sending their kids there, they need to clarify this a bit more. Many of us are trying to expose our kids to Deaf culture and ASL, but the deaf schools need to help them make that transition instead of expecting them to already come to their school knowing it all. Many kids who started in the mainstream now want to try deaf schools--they need to feel welcome and they need help transitioning to this new environment. If Bi-Bi schools are helping kids who really want to learn ASL but need time to become fluent, then that is good--i just am wondering if they are or are not helping these kids make this transition. If not, then it seems that they need to be clear about that--basically, oral deaf kids who only know English and want to learn ASL would not do well at a school that expected them to come in already being fluent in ASL. Yes, immersion into ASL can be good, but not in the classroom--that would be a "sink or swim" approach--expecting them to learn through a language they do not know yet. There are many deaf kids that would not do well in that environment--they need accommodations as they make this transition.

Please understand that I am trying to be sincere in my questions--I am truly trying to understand our options as I try to help my daughter. From what I have learned here, it seems that TC is a much better program than Bi-Bi for kids like her--therefore, I need to find a deaf school that is TC. I think I have found this at FSDB--if anyone can clarify if this is true, please let me know. It seems to be a great fit for her--I hope it truly is. As others have described Bi-Bi programs, it seems that deaf schools that are Bi-Bi would NOT work well for her, but schools that are TC would. I have to understand these concepts in order to make the best choices for her--I have to truly grasp the ideas before I can advocate for something. For now, I think TC seems to be a better way to go than Bi-Bi for kids who already use English as their first language and want to learn ASL. And maybe Bi-Bi is a better way to go for kids who use ASL as their first language. Does this seem to be the case in your experiences?

ASL doesnt have to be the kids' first language for them to be accepted in the BIBI programs. In my program, the majority of students have been referred from other programs where their ASL is weak or nonexistent and within two years after being referred, they become fluent in ASL. Kids pick up language much much faster than adults.

How do the kids learn it? Simple. By being immersed in it daily.

Question.,.would you put your child in a French program where the teachers instruct mixing French and English up in each sentence? Or would you put your child in a French program in which the teachers use it but dont follow the French syntax or grammatical rules but follow the English's using the French words instead? Or would you put your child in a program where the teachers use broken French contantly?

My bet your answer would probably would be no. That's what usually happens in the majority of TC programs.

Now, for people with a strong first language, they have a hard time understanding someone who is not using the proper model of a language so can you imagine for children who do not have a strong first language being educated using poor models of language.

Oral deaf ed is another story.

We have had completely oral deaf children come to our program not knowing any sign language and we do make accodomations to meet their oral needs in the academic setting until they become fluent in ASL. Most of the time the oral kids' English is very weak to begin with making it hard for them to develop literacy skills ..ASL is not responsible for that. When a child doesnt have a strong first language, literacy development is very difficult for them. Not because of spoken English, and not because of ASL.

 

[jillio]

Also, in regards to bi-bi schools, ASL is the language of instruction at all times. Every student must be fluent in ASL, that is to be their first and primary language. English is taught as a second language. Speech, listening, and speechreading are taught outside the voice-off classroom. ASL is used by everyone on campus at all times for every exchange, so that all information is accessable at all times.

That is what my daughter's bi-bi classroom looks like.

In our local TC classes, a teacher would SIM-COM ASL signs in English word order. They would speak everything and sign what they could. For example, in preschool the teacher would say "Let's all go get our coats, line up, and go outside", and she would sign COAT, LINE, and OUTSIDE. Not a good ASL model at all. Also, there are no Deaf adults in our TC school, only hearing people. When a teacher is talking to another adult, they speak thus leaving the kids out.

I should have read your reply before answering Deborah's question myself. Very well said, and much more concise than my answer!

 

[jillio]

Ah! In the days of Laurent Clerc, they didn't called it Bi-Bi education but that is what it was. I would love to see those literacy scores from that time. Where do they keep those records???

Some of the records are stored at Gallaudet, some are stored at U.C. Berkeley, and I'm sure there are other institutions with records, as well. And from what I have seen, Deaf children at that time were testing out equal to or above their hearing peers, and Deaf graduates were gainfully employed and self supporting. It's a danged shame we can't get back to that. Seems we only move backwards as far as a return to complete oralism.

 

[jillio]

Back then Deaf people would learn to read and write several languages. They didn't have "4th grade reading levels". They were well educated. I have read some of Clerc's writings, he was a brillant man.

Likewise. And his motivation was pure...he was concerned with the education of the deaf, not political concerns as are seen in education today.

 

[shel90]

Some of the records are stored at Gallaudet, some are stored at U.C. Berkeley, and I'm sure there are other institutions with records, as well. And from what I have seen, Deaf children at that time were testing out equal to or above their hearing peers, and Deaf graduates were gainfully employed and self supporting. It's a danged shame we can't get back to that. Seems we only move backwards as far as a return to complete oralism.

I know and again many deaf children will grow up without Deaf role models. Just when we were making progress, the audists seized the opportunity of the FDA's approval of implanting young children as a justification to bring back complete oralism. :roll:

 

[jillio]

I wonder if I was played to put on one of those "shows"? I wouldnt be surprised.

I wouldn't be surprised, either, shel. The oralists have always been guilty of making "poster children" out of their "successes". I find the practice offensive. Its like, "Look at this poor little deaf child that we wonderful hearing teachers have taught to speak so well and saved from the world of deafness!" Give me a freakin' break!