For people who dont provide HAs or CIs for their Deaf children?

[shel90]

This subject started in another thread but I didnt want to make the other person's thread go off topic so I will start here..

This is the question I got asked..

The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family"

Yes but you are only talking about sign language when they could possibly also acquire spoken language as well. What about that? Why is the concern limited to the sole acquisition of spoken language and not also the sole acquisition of sign language. After all, I am addressing kids who could benefit from HAs or CIs and their parents are not providing them to these kids.


For the deaf families that I know, honestly, I know many are providing HAs to their children and their kids do recieve some speech therapy but not as intensive as deaf kids from hearing families. I agree with the concept of exposing deaf children from deaf families to both languages cuz it would be more beneficial if they acquire spoken language too. As for hearing families that dont provide their children with HAs or CIs...that is a mystery to me and I cant speak for them.

My main reason for exposing all deaf children to both is just in case the child doesnt pick up on one language which is usually the spoken one since ASL is pretty much accessible visually and tactically (if children are blind) to all even hearing people.

However, when a deaf family doesnt provide spoken language or hearing devices to their deaf children, it doesnt became as big of an issue because the child already has full access to language and is most likely enter school with a strong L1 language. Just like it is not a big issue of hearing children of hearing families cuz we know the children have full access to the spoken language.

If deaf children of deaf families must learn both languages, then that would be like saying hearing children of hearing families must learn both sign and spoken languages. It doesnt make sense for hearing children of hearing families to be required to learn ASL..that;s how it is viewed of deaf children of deaf families, in my opinion.

When it comes to making the decision of getting CIs or HAs, that is the family's personal decision as many of the parents said here. The same SHOULD be applied to deaf parents too. For myself, I dont care if the children get them or not,,if they work, great, if not I would hope the children will get a visual language to ensure that their language development grows to the point where they will be ready to read and write by the time they are 5 years old.

Ok this is how I see it...

Deaf children born to hearing families
Hearing children born to deaf families

kids should be exposed to both..

why? Most hearing parents are not fluent in sign language and the risk of the deaf child not being able to pick up on spoken language is there. For hearing children of deaf families...if they are not exposed to spoken language or denied it, u bet there will be an outcry and I believe all deaf parents dont deny their hearing children spoken language. I know of many who have taken their children to speech therapy to ensure that they dont become delayed in speech. For my children, their fathers are hearing so I know that they are getting access to spoken language. If deaf parents isolate their hearing children from the hearing world..that would be not acceptable.

Deaf children born to deaf families
Hearing children born to hearing families

Should they be exposed to both languages?

What do u think? Is it wrong or not wrong? Let's discuss...

 

[SxyPorkie]

This subject started in another thread but I didnt want to make the other person's thread go off topic so I will start here..

This is the question I got asked..

The ones who dont have HA or CIs have full access to language cuz usually they are from deaf families just like a hearing person from a hearing family"

Yes but you are only talking about sign language when they could possibly also acquire spoken language as well. What about that? Why is the concern limited to the sole acquisition of spoken language and not also the sole acquisition of sign language. After all, I am addressing kids who could benefit from HAs or CIs and their parents are not providing them to these kids.


For the deaf families that I know, honestly, I know many are providing HAs to their children and their kids do recieve some speech therapy but not as intensive as deaf kids from hearing families. I agree with the concept of exposing deaf children from deaf families to both languages cuz it would be more beneficial if they acquire spoken language too. As for hearing families that dont provide their children with HAs or CIs...that is a mystery to me and I cant speak for them.

My main reason for exposing all deaf children to both is just in case the child doesnt pick up on one language which is usually the spoken one since ASL is pretty much accessible visually and tactically (if children are blind) to all even hearing people.

However, when a deaf family doesnt provide spoken language or hearing devices to their deaf children, it doesnt became as big of an issue because the child already has full access to language and is most likely enter school with a strong L1 language. Just like it is not a big issue of hearing children of hearing families cuz we know the children have full access to the spoken language.

If deaf children of deaf families must learn both languages, then that would be like saying hearing children of hearing families must learn both sign and spoken languages. It doesnt make sense for hearing children of hearing families to be required to learn ASL..that;s how it is viewed of deaf children of deaf families, in my opinion.

When it comes to making the decision of getting CIs or HAs, that is the family's personal decision as many of the parents said here. The same SHOULD be applied to deaf parents too. For myself, I dont care if the children get them or not,,if they work, great, if not I would hope the children will get a visual language to ensure that their language development grows to the point where they will be ready to read and write by the time they are 5 years old.

Ok this is how I see it...

Deaf children born to hearing families
Hearing children born to deaf families

kids should be exposed to both..

why? Most hearing parents are not fluent in sign language and the risk of the deaf child not being able to pick up on spoken language is there. For hearing children of deaf families...if they are not exposed to spoken language or denied it, u bet there will be an outcry and I believe all deaf parents dont deny their hearing children spoken language. I know of many who have taken their children to speech therapy to ensure that they dont become delayed in speech. For my children, their fathers are hearing so I know that they are getting access to spoken language. If deaf parents isolate their hearing children from the hearing world..that would be not acceptable.

Deaf children born to deaf families
Hearing children born to hearing families

Should they be exposed to both languages?

What do u think? Is it wrong or not wrong? Let's discuss...

Yes to both...

 

[Buffalo]

I see what you mean. The hearing people are running the show and they are making sure that the deaf kids are learning to speak, hopefully along with sign language. Yet those same people aren't making sure that the hearing kids are learning sign language. Double standard, isn't it. I see nothing wrong with teaching hearing kids sign language. They would be glad they learn it when they lose hearing at old age and they didn't miss out anything when the family sign. One can continue working without missing a beat if one lose his/her hearing. It is really a gift to the hearing people. It is too bad that many of them don't want to learn sign language or see how useful sign language could be.
If everybody sign, my life would be alot easier. I would be happy to see the tax exception for the deaf removed. The government would rake in $$$ when the day happens - only after everybody know sign language. PSE is fine with me as it is easier to do total communication with PSE than ASL. We can always switch to ASL when talking to each other. (or maybe not)

 

[jillio]

I see what you mean. The hearing people are running the show and they are making sure that the deaf kids are learning to speak, hopefully along with sign language. Yet those same people aren't making sure that the hearing kids are learning sign language. Double standard, isn't it. I see nothing wrong with teaching hearing kids sign language. They would be glad they learn it when they lose hearing at old age and they didn't miss out anything when the family sign. One can continue working without missing a beat if one lose his/her hearing. It is really a gift to the hearing people. It is too bad that many of them don't want to learn sign language or see how useful sign language could be.
If everybody sign, my life would be alot easier. I would be happy to see the tax exception for the deaf removed. The government would rake in $$$ when the day happens - only after everybody know sign language. PSE is fine with me as it is easier to do total communication with PSE than ASL. We can always switch to ASL when talking to each other. (or maybe not)

 

[jillio]

All deaf children, regardless of the hearing status of their parents, should be exposed to both languages.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

Speaking of deaf children as well as hearing children both should be expose to the deaf and hearing world to use both languages. But I can understand that some deaf people are against the idea of childern having C.I., But when a child get older like 8 to teenagers and decided they want C.I. it would still be their personal choice to make. Children are very smart and they do have feelings. But C.I. don't make you become hearing... it just help a person hear better just like wearing a hearing aid.

 

[deafdyke]

Well the thing is despite what AG Bell types think, the Deaf kid who doesn't speak and DOESN"t wear HA or CI is rare. Only about 1-2% of the Deaf population is Sign alone.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yeah, I'd say both.

 

[deafdyke]

Right now oralists are too audist/ableist to really coexist peacefully with TCers. Yes, there are indivduals who are Deaf who are extreme.....but that wasn't born out of nothing. It's not an Animal Farm style way of thinking.
I wish oral programs changed so that instead of aqquestion of oral speech being the be-all and end all of a dhh kids' existence, its more promoted as a helpful tool.............along with things like Cued Speech, Sign etc!

 

[jillio]

Right now oralists are too audist/ableist to really coexist peacefully with TCers. Yes, there are indivduals who are Deaf who are extreme.....but that wasn't born out of nothing. It's not an Animal Farm style way of thinking.
I wish oral programs changed so that instead of aqquestion of oral speech being the be-all and end all of a dhh kids' existence, its more promoted as a helpful tool.............along with things like Cued Speech, Sign etc!

I thinkthat there is a reason that the oralist philosphy has taken on a new fanaticism similar to what was seen in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. I, too, would like to see a more moderate position being taken, but it looks as if we are going to have to go full circle once again, as nothing seems to have been learned from history.

 

[Buffalo]

I thinkthat there is a reason that the oralist philosphy has taken on a new fanaticism similar to what was seen in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. I, too, would like to see a more moderate position being taken, but it looks as if we are going to have to go full circle once again, as nothing seems to have been learned from history.

Now who is being deaf? Us Deaf people or those pro-oralists? I'd say the latter.

 

[deafdyke]

jillo, the oralists have gotten somewhat more moderate. But its more of an "Iran Contra" moderate, then it is a real moderate position.
I mean I don't think many of them understand the emotional damage that can be wrought when oral only doesn't work. Too many pro oralists think "ah oral skills are the only thing a hoh/oral deaf kid needs."
It's true, they haven't learned from history. Sure there are mainstreamed honor role students who are oral, but what about the more typical learner?
They avoid the pure and simple fact that hearing and speaking is NOT a strengh for most dhh kids. How can you acheive at your best when you're using a tool that you're not really all that great at using? It's like forcing someone with an elementary level of French to have enough skill to take university examinations.

 

[Jasper]

if deaf children of deaf families must learn both languages, then that would be like saying hearing children of hearing families must learn both sign and spoken languages. It doesnt make sense for hearing children of hearing families to be required to learn ASL..that;s how it is viewed of deaf children of deaf families, in my opinion.

Well Shel90, the fact is, most people in the U.S. DO NOT know sign language..They know English. If someone wants to raise a child with only the understanding of ASL, and no oral language skill, far be it from me to say if it is right or wrong. But, why would someone intentionally ignore the fact that having oral skills is valuable especially in the hearing world.

That is like saying that we should teach our kids Tagalog because as of the latest census reports about the same number of people speak Tagalog in the U.S, as know ASL. (Tagalog is a language in the Phillippines). I hope you can see the point I am trying to make.

(BTW, I am using a fairly generous number of 1million ASL speakers vs. 1.2 mil Tagalog speakers. The actual number of ASL speakers is questionable although I have seen numbers as low as 100,000 in a report from 1987 to as high as over a million. )

 

[BearBeauty]

While having oral skills is valuable, Not everyone will pick up oral skills.

There will be deaf who can't pick up the skills for whatever reason. This is why doing both Oral and ASL is good for all deaf, but we do have to realize that there will be deaf that can't pick up the skills.

Plus, there are those of us who were raised orally who do not necessarily recommend it alone. Therefore, using sign is also advocated.

 

[jillio]

Now who is being deaf? Us Deaf people or those pro-oralists? I'd say the latter.

And I would agree with you.

 

[jillio]

Well Shel90, the fact is, most people in the U.S. DO NOT know sign language..They know English. If someone wants to raise a child with only the understanding of ASL, and no oral language skill, far be it from me to say if it is right or wrong. But, why would someone intentionally ignore the fact that having oral skills is valuable especially in the hearing world.

That is like saying that we should teach our kids Tagalog because as of the latest census reports about the same number of people speak Tagalog in the U.S, as know ASL. (Tagalog is a language in the Phillippines). I hope you can see the point I am trying to make.

(BTW, I am using a fairly generous number of 1million ASL speakers vs. 1.2 mil Tagalog speakers. The actual number of ASL speakers is questionable although I have seen numbers as low as 100,000 in a report from 1987 to as high as over a million. )

Shel doesn't advocate for the use of ASL alone, she advocates for the use of ASL and English.

And your comaprison of those who speak a different oral tongue is a fallicious comaprison. People who are hearing and develop a mother tongue have an advantage is learning a second language. The deaf are not able to develop a mother tongue through their hearing and therefore are deprived of language acquisition.

 

[Jasper]

Shel doesn't advocate for the use of ASL alone, she advocates for the use of ASL and English.

Jillo, I was just responding to her post in the first part of my post

And your comaprison of those who speak a different oral tongue is a fallicious comaprison. People who are hearing and develop a mother tongue have an advantage is learning a second language. The deaf are not able to develop a mother tongue through their hearing and therefore are deprived of language acquisition.

I was talking about the population at large. Not just deaf persons. The statement was a generalized statement. Using ASL as a "language" verses Tagalog as a "language"

I did this to point at the reasoning behind wanting to raise a child without giving a chance of oral communication and setting them loose upon the hearing world. They are up against a very large obstacle.. communication with the rest of the world. We should not expect 'terps to be available. Sure there is the nice little ADA, but how many times have you seen posts about problems with not having proper translators, and other problems that the ADA was supposed to eliminate?!

But I am digressing upon the point of one of the last questions she mentioned which was should hearing children have access to ASL. Sure, I guess so.. If they want it.. but again, referring to the Tagalog language again. They would have just as much chance to use it (Tagalog) in a day to day environment as they would ASL. A hearing child would do much better to learn a more spoken language such as Spanish, Mandarin, Russian, German, or Arabic.

I am just a big advocate upon self-sufficiency. I do not ask or expect help from anyone! But that is a topic for another discussion.. probably somewhere else due to the nature of the self-sufficiency topic IMO.

 

[jillio]

Jillo, I was just responding to her post in the first part of my post




I was talking about the population at large. Not just deaf persons. The statement was a generalized statement. Using ASL as a "language" verses Tagalog as a "language"

I did this to point at the reasoning behind wanting to raise a child without giving a chance of oral communication and setting them loose upon the hearing world. They are up against a very large obstacle.. communication with the rest of the world. We should not expect 'terps to be available. Sure there is the nice little ADA, but how many times have you seen posts about problems with not having proper translators, and other problems that the ADA was supposed to eliminate?!

But I am digressing upon the point of one of the last questions she mentioned which was should hearing children have access to ASL. Sure, I guess so.. If they want it.. but again, referring to the Tagalog language again. They would have just as much chance to use it (Tagalog) in a day to day environment as they would ASL. A hearing child would do much better to learn a more spoken language such as Spanish, Mandarin, Russian, German, or Arabic.

I am just a big advocate upon self-sufficiency. I do not ask or expect help from anyone! But that is a topic for another discussion.. probably somewhere else due to the nature of the self-sufficiency topic IMO.

Thanks for clarifying. The only thing I can add is that with the push toward mainstreaming, a hearing child inthe U.S. will probably encounter some situations where they could use ASL. Especially since it is increasingly being used with all sorts of communication disorders and cognitive disabilities.

 

[shel90]

Well Shel90, the fact is, most people in the U.S. DO NOT know sign language..They know English. If someone wants to raise a child with only the understanding of ASL, and no oral language skill, far be it from me to say if it is right or wrong. But, why would someone intentionally ignore the fact that having oral skills is valuable especially in the hearing world.

That is like saying that we should teach our kids Tagalog because as of the latest census reports about the same number of people speak Tagalog in the U.S, as know ASL. (Tagalog is a language in the Phillippines). I hope you can see the point I am trying to make.

(BTW, I am using a fairly generous number of 1million ASL speakers vs. 1.2 mil Tagalog speakers. The actual number of ASL speakers is questionable although I have seen numbers as low as 100,000 in a report from 1987 to as high as over a million. )

My deaf brother and several deaf/hh friends who dont have oral skills are doing fine on their own in the hearing world. As long as they have strong literacy skills, they will succeed without the need to use spoken language.

 

[jillio]

jillo, the oralists have gotten somewhat more moderate. But its more of an "Iran Contra" moderate, then it is a real moderate position.
I mean I don't think many of them understand the emotional damage that can be wrought when oral only doesn't work. Too many pro oralists think "ah oral skills are the only thing a hoh/oral deaf kid needs."
It's true, they haven't learned from history. Sure there are mainstreamed honor role students who are oral, but what about the more typical learner?
They avoid the pure and simple fact that hearing and speaking is NOT a strengh for most dhh kids. How can you acheive at your best when you're using a tool that you're not really all that great at using? It's like forcing someone with an elementary level of French to have enough skill to take university examinations.

I think true moderation would be a Bi-Bi approach.