Feelings on how a Deaf child should be taught

[jillio]

No, they didnt call it Bi-Bi because back then, I dont even think the concept of different cultures/languages was recognized. I think cultural studies started in the late 20th century.

Exactly. The concept was the same, just not the terminology. But if you look at deaf ed from that time period, it was most definately a bi-bi educational environment.

 

[jillio]

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:

And it would appear that history is going to have to repeat itself at the expense of these deaf kids.

 

[jillio]

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.

Great analogy.

 

[deafbajagal]

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.

Excellent examples, Shel!!

 

[Deborah]

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.

Right--I do understand what you are saying about learning a language in a pure form instead of a broken and jumbled form. I do understand how kids who are young and learning a first language need it given to them in a pure and unaltered form. When I think back, I would say that my daughter was first introduced to TC when she was diagnosed with a hearing loss at the age of one. Once she had hearing aids, she immediately began to listen to sounds and produce her first words orally--we also introduced some early signs to her. Looking back, I would definitely not call the signs that we gave her ASL--they were singular in nature and were basically our attempt to try to learn sign and teach her some sign(remember, this was a completely new concept to us as hearing parents). I think it was much more like "baby sign"--signs for eat, drink, sleep, dirty, clean, etc.--words that would be commonly used with toddlers to communicate concepts such as hungry, thirsty, diaper changing, bath time, etc. In the very early stages, her sign vocabulary and spoken word vocabulary were the same--about 30 words each. But once she began talking, she preferred just using words and dropped the signs. Her spoken English vocabulary grew on par with hearing toddlers--it seemed very similar to hearing kids who begin with baby signs and drop them once they learn to talk. Soon, she was switched from a TC approach to an oral approach--since she was understanding and using English, our language, we continued to build on that. As she began public school, she knew the language and learned to be literate right alongside hearing kids in the mainstream. I agree that literacy in schools can only be obtained by using a pure language, not a jumbled language. I see that, with young kids learning to become fluent in a language and literate in a language, that it needs to be a pure language--that I understand. So I see why your opinion is that TC doesn't work for young kids learning a first language.

All of that was based on children learning a first language and becoming literate in that language. Yes, a pure language is needed, not a jumbled or broken one. In America, if deaf kids are going to have English as a first language and become literate in English, the language needs to be presented to them in pure form. And if deaf kids are going to have ASL as a first language, that needs to be presented in pure form. I understand that a TC program for young kids learning the language and becoming literate would be confusing. Yes, it would be hard to get a solid grasp of EITHER language with this impure and broken version of both languages. So, some deaf kids are immersed in a completely English environment and some do quite well--my daughter is not alone in her mastery of the English language. She is very fluent and very literate in English--many kids who can hear well with hearing aids or CIs become fluent and literate in English through total immersion. And some deaf kids are immersed in a completely ASL environment and some also do quite well--they become very fluent in ASL and very literate in English through total immersion in ASL. I get why TC would not be the best environment for these young kids.

So, maybe Bi-Bi works for young deaf kids who are in the early stages of learning. And maybe mainstreaming in regular schools can work for young deaf kids who have mastered fluent English and can become literate in English. And, yes, young kids in a TC program may indeed fall behind if they aren't getting a good grasp of either language in a pure form. You must have seen many kids come to your program who did not have pure language in the beginning. You may be seeing the result of this broken language approach--the kids coming from TC to your Bi-Bi program are not fluent or literate in either language, right? So I can see where you would say that TC doesn't work based on those kids who never got a pure language.

However, let's look at older kids, teenagers, and adults who DO have a fluent first language. Let's assume that they are completely literate in their first language. If they are totally immersed in another language, it will be overwhelming at first. Until they can get a good grasp of this second language, they are going to be lost. There are some cases where this could help people learn a second language, but putting them in a classroom where no one speaks their language and the only way to learn is to hurry up and learn the second language--this could definitely be overwhelming. Wouldn't they definitely need interpreters to translate the second language into their first language until they have a good grasp of the second language? I am hoping that Bi-Bi schools are taking this into consideration--I am hoping that deaf kids like my daughter, who are English first and would like to learn ASL as a second language, are given complete interpretations instead of just being immersed and told to learn it or be lost. Students like this cannot learn anything beyond a second language if they have to completely concentrate on simply understanding the language--the concepts being taught in the second language will be lost if they cannot understand the language. Hopefully, they are being given complete interpretations--through an interpreter, through printed materials, etc. How can they learn social studies and science if it is presented in a language they do not know yet?

So, you are apparently coming from the perspective of teaching young children to grasp a complete and pure first language and becoming literate in that language. Yes, in that case, TC would be confusing and not presenting a pure language base. But what about all of the older students who already have mastered English as a first language and are literate in English only? I don't know how to label it--maybe it isn't really TC--but they need to have both English and ASL presented in order to learn ASL--or is that possible? Outside of the classroom, total immersion could work. But IN the classroom, when there is much more to learn beyond learning language, total immersion in a second language won't work unless they are getting complete translations into their first language--until they are fluent in the second language, they cannot learn through that language. Whether it is called TC or not, it seems that these kids definitely need BOTH languages in order to learn a second language--if not, they will be lost in an environment that doesn't translate the second language into the first language.

So, when looking at kids who already have English as a first language--older kids, teenagers, adults who are TRULY fluent and literate in English--what method works for them? Learning a second language is hard as we get older, but it can be done--many people do learn a second language and even a third, fourth, or beyond. In some cases, total immersion can work--but not in the classroom--not in high school--not when these kids are trying to learn a new language and are also trying to grasp the new concepts not related to the language in which they are presented. For adults who are completely fluent and literate in English--what is the best way to learn a new language? Is it total immersion? Do they need interpreters and translators first before they are completely fluent in the second language? Won't they be lost for a while in the "sink or swim" environment of total immersion?

It just seems that those who are fluent in ASL and are completely behind the concept of Bi-Bi are not thinking about those who are NOT fluent in ASL, at least not yet. Some have described Bi-Bi as expecting ASL to be the first language and English the second language. For young children just learning language, that could work. For those who are older and already have English as their first language, there is no going back. They can't "unlearn" their first language--they cannot change the fact that English is already their first language--it can never become their second language if they have mastered it for years already. So, are proponents of Bi-Bi saying that this only works for young kids still learning a first language? Wouldn't it be wrong to say Bi-Bi works wonderfully for those who are older and already have English as their first language? If it is truly a bilingual environment, then wouldn't Bi-Bi schools provide access to both English speakers and ASL users? Wouldn't that make it truly bilingual? Otherwise, if EVERYTHING is ASL with only a little bit of English, isn't that a singular language environment instead of a bilingual (2 equal languages) environment? Or maybe there is more bilingualism going on than someone has described--but if ASL is the MAJOR language used and English is just sometimes used, then that is not truly BI-lingual, right?

It is hard to find the right environment for each deaf child--we definitely need to consider each individual child's needs. For students whose first language is ASL, Bi-Bi programs could work. For students whose first language is English, what is best? In the mainstream, they learn through English--this works for some. There are also kids whose first language is ASL who do okay in the mainstream with interpreters taking everything in English and translating it into ASL. If these kids from the mainstream want to try a deaf school environment, that can be good for them socially. Academically, students who already are fluent in ASL can do well in deaf schools that present all information through their language--ASL. Academically, students who are fluent in English but not yet fluent in ASL will need to be in deaf schools that take this into consideration--they will need lots of interpretation at first. For a while, they will need all ASL translated into English so that they can understand it. If this is happening at all deaf schools, then that is good. However, if Bi-Bi schools are NOT translating everything for these English speaking students, then these students are in the wrong environment. So, can we agree that English speaking and English literate students will need BOTH English and ASL(or would it have to be SEE?) for a while until they are completely fluent in a second language? Are Bi-Bi schools helping these kids make these translations? Or are these kids better off in a different kind of deaf school(TC or other)?

How are parents supposed to know which schools embrace which philosophy? All I know is to visit schools you are considering--if the staff welcomes your child and can communicate with your child in your child's first language--if they put your child at ease and tell them that they will help them learn a second language--whatever philosophy this is called, it may work for your child. I know that it seems to be the right philosophy for my daughter. When she visited FSDB, everyone spoke to her in her language, English, and they also put her at ease and said that they will help her learn ASL(actually I think they said "sign language"--so does that mean that she will learn SEE instead of ASL?). If we had encountered a school where no one spoke to my daughter in English, if everyone was silent and did not welcome her in her language, if everyone was communicating in a different language only and without interpreters helping her to understand--then we would know that that kind of school would not be a good fit for her. When we visited classrooms at FSDB, we heard teachers and students speaking in English and we saw teachers and students signing. We saw both languages being used (unless it was SEE and not ASL--not sure about that). If we had visited a school where the classrooms were silent--where ONLY ASL is used and no spoken English was used in the classroom, we would have known that my daughter would not fit in well at that kind of school--they would be communicating in a language that is totally foreign to her and she would need interpreters constantly to help her understand. So, is that the only way to truly understand which philosophy a deaf school embraces? Do you just need to go visit and check it out in person to get the idea of the true language environment? What if your local state school for the deaf embraces a different philosophy than what your child needs? For us, our state school for the deaf seems completely silent and ASL only--my daughter would be completely lost in that environment. That is why we are trying to move to Florida for FSDB--whatever philosophy they have--whether it is labeled TC or something else--it seems to be a much better fit for my daughter. She can talk to people in English and they can talk to her--she can learn to sign to people and they can sign to her--in the classroom the info will be presented in both English and ASL(or SEE?)--she will have the signs translated into English so that she can understand and she can learn sign through being exposed to it--and maybe she also can take classes to learn more sign and to become fluent. If this is TC, then so be it--it works for students like my daughter who already have English as a first language. Students who already have mastered English might be completely lost in a Bi-Bi environment if there is not complete translation happening for English speakers. It is so hard to find the right educational environment for deaf students--obviously there is no such thing as "one size fits all." I just hope that all parents can find the right individual fit for their child--it is a tough process but it is well worth it!

 

[jillio]

Right--I do understand what you are saying about learning a language in a pure form instead of a broken and jumbled form. I do understand how kids who are young and learning a first language need it given to them in a pure and unaltered form. When I think back, I would say that my daughter was first introduced to TC when she was diagnosed with a hearing loss at the age of one. Once she had hearing aids, she immediately began to listen to sounds and produce her first words orally--we also introduced some early signs to her. Looking back, I would definitely not call the signs that we gave her ASL--they were singular in nature and were basically our attempt to try to learn sign and teach her some sign(remember, this was a completely new concept to us as hearing parents). I think it was much more like "baby sign"--signs for eat, drink, sleep, dirty, clean, etc.--words that would be commonly used with toddlers to communicate concepts such as hungry, thirsty, diaper changing, bath time, etc. In the very early stages, her sign vocabulary and spoken word vocabulary were the same--about 30 words each. But once she began talking, she preferred just using words and dropped the signs. Her spoken English vocabulary grew on par with hearing toddlers--it seemed very similar to hearing kids who begin with baby signs and drop them once they learn to talk. Soon, she was switched from a TC approach to an oral approach--since she was understanding and using English, our language, we continued to build on that. As she began public school, she knew the language and learned to be literate right alongside hearing kids in the mainstream. I agree that literacy in schools can only be obtained by using a pure language, not a jumbled language. I see that, with young kids learning to become fluent in a language and literate in a language, that it needs to be a pure language--that I understand. So I see why your opinion is that TC doesn't work for young kids learning a first language.

All of that was based on children learning a first language and becoming literate in that language. Yes, a pure language is needed, not a jumbled or broken one. In America, if deaf kids are going to have English as a first language and become literate in English, the language needs to be presented to them in pure form. And if deaf kids are going to have ASL as a first language, that needs to be presented in pure form. I understand that a TC program for young kids learning the language and becoming literate would be confusing. Yes, it would be hard to get a solid grasp of EITHER language with this impure and broken version of both languages. So, some deaf kids are immersed in a completely English environment and some do quite well--my daughter is not alone in her mastery of the English language. She is very fluent and very literate in English--many kids who can hear well with hearing aids or CIs become fluent and literate in English through total immersion. And some deaf kids are immersed in a completely ASL environment and some also do quite well--they become very fluent in ASL and very literate in English through total immersion in ASL. I get why TC would not be the best environment for these young kids.

So, maybe Bi-Bi works for young deaf kids who are in the early stages of learning. And maybe mainstreaming in regular schools can work for young deaf kids who have mastered fluent English and can become literate in English. And, yes, young kids in a TC program may indeed fall behind if they aren't getting a good grasp of either language in a pure form. You must have seen many kids come to your program who did not have pure language in the beginning. You may be seeing the result of this broken language approach--the kids coming from TC to your Bi-Bi program are not fluent or literate in either language, right? So I can see where you would say that TC doesn't work based on those kids who never got a pure language.

However, let's look at older kids, teenagers, and adults who DO have a fluent first language. Let's assume that they are completely literate in their first language. If they are totally immersed in another language, it will be overwhelming at first. Until they can get a good grasp of this second language, they are going to be lost. There are some cases where this could help people learn a second language, but putting them in a classroom where no one speaks their language and the only way to learn is to hurry up and learn the second language--this could definitely be overwhelming. Wouldn't they definitely need interpreters to translate the second language into their first language until they have a good grasp of the second language? I am hoping that Bi-Bi schools are taking this into consideration--I am hoping that deaf kids like my daughter, who are English first and would like to learn ASL as a second language, are given complete interpretations instead of just being immersed and told to learn it or be lost. Students like this cannot learn anything beyond a second language if they have to completely concentrate on simply understanding the language--the concepts being taught in the second language will be lost if they cannot understand the language. Hopefully, they are being given complete interpretations--through an interpreter, through printed materials, etc. How can they learn social studies and science if it is presented in a language they do not know yet?

So, you are apparently coming from the perspective of teaching young children to grasp a complete and pure first language and becoming literate in that language. Yes, in that case, TC would be confusing and not presenting a pure language base. But what about all of the older students who already have mastered English as a first language and are literate in English only? I don't know how to label it--maybe it isn't really TC--but they need to have both English and ASL presented in order to learn ASL--or is that possible? Outside of the classroom, total immersion could work. But IN the classroom, when there is much more to learn beyond learning language, total immersion in a second language won't work unless they are getting complete translations into their first language--until they are fluent in the second language, they cannot learn through that language. Whether it is called TC or not, it seems that these kids definitely need BOTH languages in order to learn a second language--if not, they will be lost in an environment that doesn't translate the second language into the first language.

So, when looking at kids who already have English as a first language--older kids, teenagers, adults who are TRULY fluent and literate in English--what method works for them? Learning a second language is hard as we get older, but it can be done--many people do learn a second language and even a third, fourth, or beyond. In some cases, total immersion can work--but not in the classroom--not in high school--not when these kids are trying to learn a new language and are also trying to grasp the new concepts not related to the language in which they are presented. For adults who are completely fluent and literate in English--what is the best way to learn a new language? Is it total immersion? Do they need interpreters and translators first before they are completely fluent in the second language? Won't they be lost for a while in the "sink or swim" environment of total immersion?

It just seems that those who are fluent in ASL and are completely behind the concept of Bi-Bi are not thinking about those who are NOT fluent in ASL, at least not yet. Some have described Bi-Bi as expecting ASL to be the first language and English the second language. For young children just learning language, that could work. For those who are older and already have English as their first language, there is no going back. They can't "unlearn" their first language--they cannot change the fact that English is already their first language--it can never become their second language if they have mastered it for years already. So, are proponents of Bi-Bi saying that this only works for young kids still learning a first language? Wouldn't it be wrong to say Bi-Bi works wonderfully for those who are older and already have English as their first language? If it is truly a bilingual environment, then wouldn't Bi-Bi schools provide access to both English speakers and ASL users? Wouldn't that make it truly bilingual? Otherwise, if EVERYTHING is ASL with only a little bit of English, isn't that a singular language environment instead of a bilingual (2 equal languages) environment? Or maybe there is more bilingualism going on than someone has described--but if ASL is the MAJOR language used and English is just sometimes used, then that is not truly BI-lingual, right?

It is hard to find the right environment for each deaf child--we definitely need to consider each individual child's needs. For students whose first language is ASL, Bi-Bi programs could work. For students whose first language is English, what is best? In the mainstream, they learn through English--this works for some. There are also kids whose first language is ASL who do okay in the mainstream with interpreters taking everything in English and translating it into ASL. If these kids from the mainstream want to try a deaf school environment, that can be good for them socially. Academically, students who already are fluent in ASL can do well in deaf schools that present all information through their language--ASL. Academically, students who are fluent in English but not yet fluent in ASL will need to be in deaf schools that take this into consideration--they will need lots of interpretation at first. For a while, they will need all ASL translated into English so that they can understand it. If this is happening at all deaf schools, then that is good. However, if Bi-Bi schools are NOT translating everything for these English speaking students, then these students are in the wrong environment. So, can we agree that English speaking and English literate students will need BOTH English and ASL(or would it have to be SEE?) for a while until they are completely fluent in a second language? Are Bi-Bi schools helping these kids make these translations? Or are these kids better off in a different kind of deaf school(TC or other)?

How are parents supposed to know which schools embrace which philosophy? All I know is to visit schools you are considering--if the staff welcomes your child and can communicate with your child in your child's first language--if they put your child at ease and tell them that they will help them learn a second language--whatever philosophy this is called, it may work for your child. I know that it seems to be the right philosophy for my daughter. When she visited FSDB, everyone spoke to her in her language, English, and they also put her at ease and said that they will help her learn ASL(actually I think they said "sign language"--so does that mean that she will learn SEE instead of ASL?). If we had encountered a school where no one spoke to my daughter in English, if everyone was silent and did not welcome her in her language, if everyone was communicating in a different language only and without interpreters helping her to understand--then we would know that that kind of school would not be a good fit for her. When we visited classrooms at FSDB, we heard teachers and students speaking in English and we saw teachers and students signing. We saw both languages being used (unless it was SEE and not ASL--not sure about that). If we had visited a school where the classrooms were silent--where ONLY ASL is used and no spoken English was used in the classroom, we would have known that my daughter would not fit in well at that kind of school--they would be communicating in a language that is totally foreign to her and she would need interpreters constantly to help her understand. So, is that the only way to truly understand which philosophy a deaf school embraces? Do you just need to go visit and check it out in person to get the idea of the true language environment? What if your local state school for the deaf embraces a different philosophy than what your child needs? For us, our state school for the deaf seems completely silent and ASL only--my daughter would be completely lost in that environment. That is why we are trying to move to Florida for FSDB--whatever philosophy they have--whether it is labeled TC or something else--it seems to be a much better fit for my daughter. She can talk to people in English and they can talk to her--she can learn to sign to people and they can sign to her--in the classroom the info will be presented in both English and ASL(or SEE?)--she will have the signs translated into English so that she can understand and she can learn sign through being exposed to it--and maybe she also can take classes to learn more sign and to become fluent. If this is TC, then so be it--it works for students like my daughter who already have English as a first language. Students who already have mastered English might be completely lost in a Bi-Bi environment if there is not complete translation happening for English speakers. It is so hard to find the right educational environment for deaf students--obviously there is no such thing as "one size fits all." I just hope that all parents can find the right individual fit for their child--it is a tough process but it is well worth it!

You must keep in mind that even though an older deaf child might have English as their first and only language, it does not necessarily translate to fluency or nativity in usage. Therein lies the problem with the stilted and restricted use of language in deaf children raised in an environment where their only language exposure is oral language.

 

[faire_jour]

I would say that the best way for someone who wants to learn ASL as second language because they think it is interesting or fun, is through classes given in their first language. If they want to use it to truely communicate, then they need to be immersed. All my ASL classes and interpreting courses are solely in ASL. We are learning new information and concepts through our second language and we all do just fine.

 

[jillio]

I would say that the best way for someone who wants to learn ASL as second language because they think it is interesting or fun, is through classes given in their first language. If they want to use it to truely communicate, then they need to be immersed. All my ASL classes and interpreting courses are solely in ASL. We are learning new information and concepts through our second language and we all do just fine.

I would have to agree with you on that. But we also should understand, that even in the immersion process, we use those principles of our L1 language that we internalized as toddlers and small children to unconsciously facillitate the learning of the L2 language.

 

[faire_jour]

Also, Deborah, as an native English speaker I can use and understand ASL easily. Will my ASL ever be poetic and beautiful like some people who grew up using it....probably not, but can I think in ASL and use it fluently, of course. I have been learning ASL for 3 years, and only formally for 1 1/2, and I think I am doing pretty darn good. Our local interpreter training program is 2 years and they train so that you are fluent enough to interpret, and classes are only 2 or 3 hour a day, imagine if you used it for all communication! Fluency is possible, even as a second language is a relativly short period of time

Also, I have no idea what kinds of accomedations would be given to an oral deaf kid if they wanted to join my daughter's school. It has never happen, but the school is new. I know, however, that we have a few hearing students, and they are required to use ASL. If a student wants to attend an ASL school, they need to learn the language.

 

[shel90]

Deborah..why do u keep talking about kids unlearning their first language? Nobody is proposing that nor want that.

I dont propose BiBi for only young kids. I support it for all ages because every deaf child will have full access to language because ASL is a visual language.There is no risk for anyone missing out because they have to use lipreading or less than perfect hearing.

 

[jillio]

Deborah..why do u keep talking about kids unlearning their first language? Nobody is proposing that nor want that.

I dont propose BiBi for only young kids. I support it for all ages because every deaf child will have full access to language because ASL is a visual language.There is no risk for anyone missing out because they have to use lipreading or less than perfect hearing.

I'm glad you asked that. I was puzzled by the "unlearning" references as well. Bilingual means fluency in 2 languages, not sacrificing one for the other.

 

[DURAY]

There are three options in deaf education. the following are geared towards deaf students who used sign. the hard-of-hearing students will be fine wuith #3.

1) the deaf schools . most states have them, some have more than 1 (NY, CA, NC, PA, and ?). All have teachers (deaf or hearing) who signed. all students are deaf. Social life are great. Most are residentials, meaning deaf students board Sunday to Friday and go home on the weekends to parents who may or still know sign language. The only negative about deaf schools are the sexual, physical and/or mental abuses by/on/of deaf staff, who will tell "ratting" to law enforcement is "hearing" and that abuse is deaf behavior. And is segregation like Judith Heuman from the Clinton/Gore years complained when she visited MSSD.

2. the mainstreamed school. Most counties (and large cities) in the U.S. have a one central elementary school, middle school and high school where all the deaf students are bused. The teachers know sign language. Some kids are mainstreamed, taking regular classes with sign language interpreters. Social life is good with the other deaf kids. Negative? Not much. Is segregation like Judith Heuman from the Clinton/Gore years complained.

3. the local neighborhood schools. Favored by most leaders of people with disabilities who want integration and no treatment. For a deaf student, the resource room is lacking. 99% of special education teachers and staff are trained toward LD, AHDH, autism, etc not deaf. There are no support systems. No deaf clasmate, normal kids will make fun. No or less social life. Judith Heuman love this since money will be saved. AND SHE CAN SIGN!!!!!!

 

[Deborah]

I have no idea what kinds of accommodations would be given to an oral deaf kid if they wanted to join my daughter's school. It has never happen, but the school is new. I know, however, that we have a few hearing students, and they are required to use ASL. If a student wants to attend an ASL school, they need to learn the language.

OK--but that is referring to something labeled as an "ASL school." Is a "Bi-Bi school" ACTUALLY an "ASL school"? What I mean is, why call it BI-BI when it is actually SINGULAR language and NOT BI-lingual? Are you saying that any deaf school that is considered "Bi-Bi" is ACTUALLY an "ASL only school"? For parents looking at deaf schools, it is very important that we understand exactly what kind of school it is--what kind of educational environment our children would be in if enrolled there. From the outside, the term Bi-Bi sounds good--it sounds like an equal presentation of TWO languages. Is this not actually the case? There is NOTHING wrong with having ASL only schools, of course, but shouldn't they be called that--"ASL schools" instead of "Bi-Bi schools"? If there was a school that claimed to be BI-lingual, maybe English and Spanish--neither language would take higher precedent--each language would be presented equally. So, a child who knows absolutely no ASL really would not do well in a "Bi-Bi program" because they would be expected to know ASL already before entering school there, right? See, there are many kids who would fail from the start there, then--it is NOT the right program for a child who is just learning sign. I know that adults can be immersed in classes and events where they would be expected to "just learn the language or be left out." But students who need to learn lots of concepts in order to graduate from high school cannot just be put into a foreign language classroom and expect to learn all of the concepts given to them in a foreign language that they do not know. They would have to FIRST learn the language and THEN they can learn the other subjects. They cannot learn the other subjects just by being put into a classroom that is totally presented in a language that they do not know. So, if a deaf school is really an "ASL only school" they should make that clear--if they are "Bi-Bi" then they should be using TWO languages equally. There could be children completely lost in the system if they are just expected to learn it by immersion and at the same time keep up with all of their core subjects(being presented ONLY in a different language that they are not yet fluent in). So, a child raised orally who wants to go to a deaf school later apparently would only do well at a deaf school that is TRULY bilingual--one that does not expect them to come into the school already fluent in a different language. If they want to learn ASL, they would be better off at a deaf school that will help them do that instead of at a school that expects them to already know it. So "Bi-Bi" only sounds like the right program for kids who are already fluent in ASL, not for kids who are not. And, if they are actually an "ASL school" instead of a "bilingual school" they should be clear about that. I am sure there are some WONDERFUL "Bi-Bi schools," although it seems like they should be called "ASL schools" instead so people will know that they should only consider them IF their child is already fluent in ASL. See how it can be confusing? If "Bi-Bi" means BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL, where is the equality of TWO languages? Maybe some are more accommodating to ASL learners than others-maybe some do not expect kids to come in already fluent. These things should be clear to parents who are looking into sending their kids to deaf schools--some would be a GREAT fit for their child and some would NOT be a good fit. I just wish there was a more organized way to go about the process of looking for the best schools for our kids--it seems that we are just left with whatever resources are available where we live, or we have to move elsewhere. Shouldn't there be ALL options for ALL kids no matter where they live? This may be the greatest challenge in trying to find the best education for our kids--we are totally limited by where we live or we have to move somewhere else when we find a resource that is better suited to our children. Wow--now that is a big challenge in deaf education--have ALL resources available to ALL deaf/hh kids--can it be done?

 

[Deborah]

I'm glad you asked that. I was puzzled by the "unlearning" references as well. Bilingual means fluency in 2 languages, not sacrificing one for the other.

That is in reference to the description I was given about "Bi-Bi schools". I was told that, at "Bi-Bi schools" the students are expected to have ASL as their first language and English as their second language. My point is, many people already have their first language as English--so now what? Of course we can't "unlearn" our first language--what I am saying is--if English is already their first language then they CANNOT make it their second language. I guess what I am being told is this--if kids already have English first and want ASL second, a "Bi-Bi program" may not be the right place for them. It may only be a good placement for kids whose first language is already ASL. So saying a "Bi-Bi program" is the best kind of program ONLY applies to kids whose first language is ASL, right? A child whose first language is English may feel lost for a while in an ASL only program until they become more fluent--especially in a classroom setting. That cannot be good for them--to come in and want to learn science or social studies but ONLY being presented the material in a language that they do not yet know--they will be lost for a while and fall behind because they will have to spend a LOT of time simply learning ASL first before they can ever understand the science and social studies concepts being presented in ASL only. They have to learn the language first before they can grasp the concepts. That is fine for kids who already know ASL, but not for kids who do not know it yet. That is what I mean--no, I know we cannot unlearn our first language. When the statement was made that: ASL is expected to be the first language and English the second language--what I am saying is, for many kids, it is already "too late" to have that happen because they already have English first--there is no changing that. So, "Bi-Bi" would probably not be the best placement for them. BTW--from some of the descriptions here, some "Bi-Bi programs" do not seem to be equally presented--some should actually be called "ASL programs" if that is the MAIN language used with English being the SECOND and in some cases NOT equally used language. That is not really BI-lingual if BOTH languages are not equally used. Not a thing wrong with it, but just needs to be clearly stated so as to not cause confusion to parents who are looking for schools for their kids.

 

[shel90]

OK--but that is referring to something labeled as an "ASL school." Is a "Bi-Bi school" ACTUALLY an "ASL school"? What I mean is, why call it BI-BI when it is actually SINGULAR language and NOT BI-lingual? Are you saying that any deaf school that is considered "Bi-Bi" is ACTUALLY an "ASL only school"? For parents looking at deaf schools, it is very important that we understand exactly what kind of school it is--what kind of educational environment our children would be in if enrolled there. From the outside, the term Bi-Bi sounds good--it sounds like an equal presentation of TWO languages. Is this not actually the case? There is NOTHING wrong with having ASL only schools, of course, but shouldn't they be called that--"ASL schools" instead of "Bi-Bi schools"? If there was a school that claimed to be BI-lingual, maybe English and Spanish--neither language would take higher precedent--each language would be presented equally. So, a child who knows absolutely no ASL really would not do well in a "Bi-Bi program" because they would be expected to know ASL already before entering school there, right? See, there are many kids who would fail from the start there, then--it is NOT the right program for a child who is just learning sign. I know that adults can be immersed in classes and events where they would be expected to "just learn the language or be left out." But students who need to learn lots of concepts in order to graduate from high school cannot just be put into a foreign language classroom and expect to learn all of the concepts given to them in a foreign language that they do not know. They would have to FIRST learn the language and THEN they can learn the other subjects. They cannot learn the other subjects just by being put into a classroom that is totally presented in a language that they do not know. So, if a deaf school is really an "ASL only school" they should make that clear--if they are "Bi-Bi" then they should be using TWO languages equally. There could be children completely lost in the system if they are just expected to learn it by immersion and at the same time keep up with all of their core subjects(being presented ONLY in a different language that they are not yet fluent in). So, a child raised orally who wants to go to a deaf school later apparently would only do well at a deaf school that is TRULY bilingual--one that does not expect them to come into the school already fluent in a different language. If they want to learn ASL, they would be better off at a deaf school that will help them do that instead of at a school that expects them to already know it. So "Bi-Bi" only sounds like the right program for kids who are already fluent in ASL, not for kids who are not. And, if they are actually an "ASL school" instead of a "bilingual school" they should be clear about that. I am sure there are some WONDERFUL "Bi-Bi schools," although it seems like they should be called "ASL schools" instead so people will know that they should only consider them IF their child is already fluent in ASL. See how it can be confusing? If "Bi-Bi" means BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL, where is the equality of TWO languages? Maybe some are more accommodating to ASL learners than others-maybe some do not expect kids to come in already fluent. These things should be clear to parents who are looking into sending their kids to deaf schools--some would be a GREAT fit for their child and some would NOT be a good fit. I just wish there was a more organized way to go about the process of looking for the best schools for our kids--it seems that we are just left with whatever resources are available where we live, or we have to move elsewhere. Shouldn't there be ALL options for ALL kids no matter where they live? This may be the greatest challenge in trying to find the best education for our kids--we are totally limited by where we live or we have to move somewhere else when we find a resource that is better suited to our children. Wow--now that is a big challenge in deaf education--have ALL resources available to ALL deaf/hh kids--can it be done?

Iam sorry but I have never heard of an "ASL" only program. That would be unethical and illegal not to teach deaf children English. The BiBI model follows the ESL programs. Go google it..ELL or ESL programs for hearing kids. Same concept.

Bi Bi is both ASL and English...the BIG difference between BiBi and TC is that BiBI keeps both languages separate and in their true forms while TC programs do not. Simple as that.

Many people...not in this thread but in other threads talk about ASL only programs..I have never heard of such a thing. Even back in the 1800s before the Milan Congress changed everything, the deaf ed programs were not ASL only. If there are such programs then the deaf kids would not know how to read and write in English at all.

I don't see why there is a big argument about ASL only programs when there is no such thing as far as I know.

 

[Deborah]

Iam sorry but I have never heard of an "ASL" only program. That would be unethical and illegal not to teach deaf children English. The BiBI model follows the ESL programs. Go google it..ELL or ESL programs for hearing kids. Same concept.

Bi Bi is both ASL and English...the BIG difference between BiBi and TC is that BiBI keeps both languages separate and in their true forms while TC programs
do not. Simple as that.

Many people...not in this thread but in other threads talk about ASL only programs..I have never heard of such a thing. Even back in the 1800s before the Milan Congress changed everything, the deaf ed programs were not ASL only. If there are such programs then the deaf kids would not know how to read and write in English at all.

I don't see why there is a big argument about ASL only programs when there is no such thing as far as I know.

OK--I was just basing that on these quotes:

"Also, I have no idea what kinds of accommodations would be given to an oral deaf kid if they wanted to join my daughter's school. It has never happen, but the school is new. I know, however, that we have a few hearing students, and they are required to use ASL. If a student wants to attend an ASL school, they need to learn the language." "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 accessible at all times.That is what my daughter's bi-bi classroom looks like."

From the descriptions given about that particular school, it seems that ASL is the main language used with very little English. From the descriptions given, a child who does not know ASL already would be at a disadvantage at this particular school. Maybe that school is more focused on ASL and other Bi-Bi schools are more equally ASL/English. I don't know because I have never observed a Bi-Bi program--I am only going by the descriptions given by those who have seen them or currently have children in them. Once again--if that school works for its students, then that is great. It is just that, in reading about that particular school, it seems that a child needs to already be fluent in ASL and ALL instruction is given in ASL only. Maybe this is not the case in other Bi-Bi programs. All I know is this--kids who are not fluent in ASL will need to have lots of ASL interpreted into English until they are fluent--otherwise they would be lost if they do not know the language. I am trying to understand what Bi-Bi schools are like--the descriptions given to me seem to be describing schools that are at least 90 percent ASL--I am wondering how kids with only 5 to 10 percent (or less) ASL can learn at schools that expect them to already be fluent in ASL. I am just basing these questions on the descriptions given above. I just am wondering if kids are given lots of help in acquiring ASL instead of being expected to already know it beforehand(as in the description given).

 

[Boult]

Deborah, Do you mean "ASL only" = a program without spoken language ie: speech therapy excluded?

Bi-Bi program do include speech but as option upon parent discretion. Just that ASL is the language of instruction not spoken english.


Although there are some type of TC programs... ie; one with sign emphasis and one with oral emphasis as such... check out this two link to a PDF newsletter by Advanced Bionics called "Loud and Clear"
2001 Issue 2 A Sign of the Times: Cochlear Implants and Total Communication

2006 Issue 2 A Sign of the (Changing) Times

[ here is the link for more Loud and Clear Newsletters ]

 

[Deborah]

Deborah, Do you mean "ASL only" = a program without spoken language ie: speech therapy excluded?

Bi-Bi program do include speech but as option upon parent discretion. Just that ASL is the language of instruction not spoken english.


Although there are some type of TC programs... ie; one with sign emphasis and one with oral emphasis as such... check out this two link to a PDF newsletter by Advanced Bionics called "Loud and Clear"
2001 Issue 2 A Sign of the Times: Cochlear Implants and Total Communication

2006 Issue 2 A Sign of the (Changing) Times

[ here is the link for more Loud and Clear Newsletters ]

Hi--I am just wondering how classes in Bi-Bi schools work for kids who are not yet fluent in ASL. I would think that they would need an interpreter for a while, so that when the teacher is instructing completely in ASL, the kids who are not yet fluent in ASL can get the ASL instruction interpreted in English so that they can understand what the teacher is saying. Or maybe real-time captioning--somehow, kids who only understand English would need accommodations to help them grasp what is being said in ASL instruction. What works--interpreters, captioning, everything in print somehow? How do they keep from missing instruction if they don't yet know ASL very well?

 

[Boult]

Hi--I am just wondering how classes in Bi-Bi schools work for kids who are not yet fluent in ASL. I would think that they would need an interpreter for a while, so that when the teacher is instructing completely in ASL, the kids who are not yet fluent in ASL can get the ASL instruction interpreted in English so that they can understand what the teacher is saying. Or maybe real-time captioning--somehow, kids who only understand English would need accommodations to help them grasp what is being said in ASL instruction. What works--interpreters, captioning, everything in print somehow? How do they keep from missing instruction if they don't yet know ASL very well?

I am sure there will be a immersion program while enrolled into Bi-Bi program. just like hispanics take a full immersion into english before starting their school for the first time if migrating from mexico as a child.

Here in Arizona, we have been debating whether to have Bilingual education or english only education. But I think the consensus is going to be English only so therefore full immersion in english is needed before starting school in arizona.

here's example links for arizona;
English Immersion Yields Gains in Arizona - by Robert Holland - The Heartland Institute
(you will see a quote that english immersion outperform bilingual education)
Accountability - Office of English Language Acquisition Services

 

[Deborah]

I am sure there will be a immersion program while enrolled into Bi-Bi program. just like hispanics take a full immersion into english before starting their school for the first time if migrating from mexico as a child.

Here in Arizona, we have been debating whether to have Bilingual education or english only education. But I think the consensus is going to be English only so therefore full immersion in english is needed before starting school in arizona.

here's example links for arizona;
English Immersion Yields Gains in Arizona - by Robert Holland - The Heartland Institute
(you will see a quote that english immersion outperform bilingual education)
Accountability - Office of English Language Acquisition Services

Oh yes--American schools have to figure this out, and soon. I have seen too many kids who only knew Spanish but were put into all English classes--and, of course, they were lost for a while. How can they learn what is being taught if NOTHING is interpreted into Spanish? They can spend all day immersed in English, but without translation to Spanish, they are going to feel completely lost. Just as English speakers who move to Mexico would feel--they could sit all day in classes taught in Spanish and not understand one word. They HAS to be a period of time when they receive interpretations and translations of EVERYTHING presented--it needs to be completely translated from the foreign and unfamiliar language to the language that they DO know. Eventually, they will learn the new language through this immersion, but it takes a long time. Until they are completely fluent in the new language and can learn via the new language, they will HAVE to have interpreters to translate EVERYTHING. That is what I mean--if a child ONLY knows English and is put in a classroom where all information is presented in ASL, they will HAVE to be given interpreters to translate EVERYTHING into English until the have a good grasp of ASL. However, no one has stated that this is the case--those who have responded have given the impression that a child needs to already be fluent in ASL when entering a Bi-Bi program because ALL instruction is given in ASL--it appears ASL only--I am trying to see if that is actually the case. When a teacher is using ASL only to teach, those who don't understand will definitely need interpreters to help them translate--and this will remain the case for a long time until they DO become fluent in ASL. Yes, comparing it to English/Spanish in American schools makes sense--they MUST have interpreters to help them translate until they are fluent enough to understand the second language. I hope Bi-Bi programs are helping kids learn ASL--many kids need this gradual process and cannot become fluent overnight. They will need interpreters/translations for a while. I hope they are available in Bi-Bi programs--if not, English speakers will be lost(without the translations).