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

oralists have gotten somewhat more moderate. But its more of an "Iran Contra" moderate,
Click to expand...

Hello Pot, meet Kettle!
 
Hello Pot, meet Kettle!
Click to expand...
And what the heck does that mean? Sure there are extreme Deafies but overall MOST Deafies are 100% OK with speech. Matter of fact, a SIGNIFICENT number of Deafies grew up oral, and came to the community late!
 
As far as educating Deaf children in oral and/or sign, I say they should be allowed to freely learn ASL and not be forced into oral methods. I find it unnatural to force someone to do something that their body may not be ready for. I find ASL to be a perfectly awesome way of communicating. And, as already stated, a good understanding of written English can go a long way.

Now with teaching ASL to hearing children, I have a different opinion. I have found that there are areas of the country where there is a high population of the Deaf community. Maybe in other areas it would be impractical to teach all hearing people ASL, but in these areas, it would be highly beneficial. In response to the comparison about Tagolog, there are areas where it would be helpful to know Tagolog. The needs of different languages often depend on the location. Spanish isn't very helpful in Maine, but ASL is very important in Fremont, CA.

Well, that's just my 2 cents.
 
And what the heck does that mean? Sure there are extreme Deafies but overall MOST Deafies are 100% OK with speech. Matter of fact, a SIGNIFICENT number of Deafies grew up oral, and came to the community late!
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that oralists as a majority are, as you so eloquently put it "Iran Contra moderate" or are you just lumping ALL oralists in this catagory just for the sake of bashing oralism?

I think you hit the nail on the head.. There ARE extreme Deafies.. just as there are extreme Oralists.. but why point that fact out? They are a very small part of the rest of their respective communities. That is like saying Muslims are terrorists.. a complete fallacy! They are but a small portion of the entire community.. Now I did take an extreme point in this case.. but I hope you understand why..
 
Just a note: The use of CI and HA alone is often not sufficient -along with it should come auditory training, speech training (including phonics, phonemic awarness, and mouth formation), and language(s) exposure. Even a child who is learning exclusive ASL still can be expose to phonics (Visual Phonics, Cued Speech, etc.) and correct mouth formation. Even a profoundly deaf child can learn environmental sounds through auditory training. So many times have I seen someone slap a hearing aid/or implant a CI on a child and say, "You're all set!" NO! There's more to it. If we are going to do it, let's do it all the way. A child who is in a program that promotes signing will not get much benefit if s/he goes home and the family is not signing. Same for a child in an oral program - if s/he goes home and the family is not using methods to ensure language accessibilty. It takes the whole family working with the educators to make a difference. I've seen children from deaf parents who are significantly delayed in language because the parents do not take the time to read to/with the child, interact with the child, etc. And I've seen hearing parents who have never seen a deaf person in their lives before, jumped into the situation and really take charge of making sure their children acquire language and other skills for communication. So, all parents are to be held accountable for ensuring their children, regardless of what methods/theories/etc. they choose to use, have accessiblity to at least one language on a ongoing basis.
 
shel90 said:
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 ..
Click to expand...

:) The most indicative way of working out whether a belief is balanced or not is to state it in the opposite sense, as you did here.

You are right - it is as balanced to say that hearing children of hearing families should learn sign language, as to say deaf children of deaf adults should automatically be expected, even demanded, to learn spoken language. And if the first seems unreasonable, then ... so must the second.

The other point that is reasonably important is to note the difference between "language acquisition" (a process that occurs naturally when exposed to a language as a baby) and "language learning" (a process that occurs with a concerted effort by the individual, and requires unnatural repetition - such as learning a second language). Swedish researchers have made the distinction that HA/CI users who have not "acquired" language as babies in a natural fashion can still "learn" language later on - but the process should not be called "acquisition" because it is a different process, and to say HA/CI users (or oral deaf) "acquire" language can result in incorrect assumptions by parents of deaf kids in terms of, as you say
slap a hearing aid/or implant a CI on a child and say, "You're all set!"
Click to expand...
.

Perhaps if we would change our language and say that HA/CI users can "learn language" sufficient to perform at certain standards on certain tests, there would be more realistic expectations... and likewise for those who say "oh teach them to speak first, if that fails they can learn sign language later"!

Oh, and don't get me started on the difference between learning "language" and learning "speech"!! :)
 
Info Officer said:
:) The most indicative way of working out whether a belief is balanced or not is to state it in the opposite sense, as you did here.

You are right - it is as balanced to say that hearing children of hearing families should learn sign language, as to say deaf children of deaf adults should automatically be expected, even demanded, to learn spoken language. And if the first seems unreasonable, then ... so must the second.

The other point that is reasonably important is to note the difference between "language acquisition" (a process that occurs naturally when exposed to a language as a baby) and "language learning" (a process that occurs with a concerted effort by the individual, and requires unnatural repetition - such as learning a second language). Swedish researchers have made the distinction that HA/CI users who have not "acquired" language as babies in a natural fashion can still "learn" language later on - but the process should not be called "acquisition" because it is a different process, and to say HA/CI users (or oral deaf) "acquire" language can result in incorrect assumptions by parents of deaf kids in terms of, as you say .

Perhaps if we would change our language and say that HA/CI users can "learn language" sufficient to perform at certain standards on certain tests, there would be more realistic expectations... and likewise for those who say "oh teach them to speak first, if that fails they can learn sign language later"!

Oh, and don't get me started on the difference between learning "language" and learning "speech"!! :)
Click to expand...

That view is the most troubling for me. I disagree with it very strongly.
 
deafbajagal said:
Just a note: The use of CI and HA alone is often not sufficient -along with it should come auditory training, speech training (including phonics, phonemic awarness, and mouth formation), and language(s) exposure. Even a child who is learning exclusive ASL still can be expose to phonics (Visual Phonics, Cued Speech, etc.) and correct mouth formation. Even a profoundly deaf child can learn environmental sounds through auditory training. So many times have I seen someone slap a hearing aid/or implant a CI on a child and say, "You're all set!" NO! There's more to it. If we are going to do it, let's do it all the way. A child who is in a program that promotes signing will not get much benefit if s/he goes home and the family is not signing. Same for a child in an oral program - if s/he goes home and the family is not using methods to ensure language accessibilty. It takes the whole family working with the educators to make a difference. I've seen children from deaf parents who are significantly delayed in language because the parents do not take the time to read to/with the child, interact with the child, etc. And I've seen hearing parents who have never seen a deaf person in their lives before, jumped into the situation and really take charge of making sure their children acquire language and other skills for communication. So, all parents are to be held accountable for ensuring their children, regardless of what methods/theories/etc. they choose to use, have accessiblity to at least one language on a ongoing basis.
Click to expand...

Usually children whose families dont learn sign language are put in oral programs only to end up to be put in signing programs later on due to falling so far behind. Yes, even if they get placed in signing programs, their parents still do not master ASL. In my way of thinking, if those parents are not going to take the time to ensure their children have full access to language in the home, pls put them in a signing program from the start because it is better than being deprived of language 24/7.

In my experience of working with students from deaf families, they are the top achievers. Maybe I have been blessed to work with deaf families who value education. I have worked with one deaf boy who was delayed who had deaf parents but he was born with severe conginitive processing disabilities.
 
I agree that all children should be exposed to sign language. Especially those born deaf or HOH.

I was brought up orally. Although the loss I was born with was only very mild I still think I would have benifited. When I went to the PHU I found the children there who had been brought up using the oral only approach had far more communication problems then those I later met at Doncaster Deaf college who used sign language.
 
dreama said:
I agree that all children should be exposed to sign language. Especially those born deaf or HOH.

I was brought up orally. Although the loss I was born with was only very mild I still think I would have benifited. When I went to the PHU I found the children there who had been brought up using the oral only approach had far more communication problems then those I later met at Doncaster Deaf college who used sign language.
Click to expand...

And that holds true in the vast majority of cases. Unfortunately, too many hearing parents ignore the obvious.
 
shel90 said:
Usually children whose families dont learn sign language are put in oral programs only to end up to be put in signing programs later on due to falling so far behind.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... and it is my suspicion that then, when the kids have been so disadvantaged already, they find it hard to get up to speed, and that's why it appears as if so many signing only schools do not "perform" as well academically as deaf children who are mainstreamed ... and the myth is perpetuated further.

I would love to see some research examine those deaf kids who don't have any other learning difficulties who sign from day one, and compare them with those who start signing later, and those who go totally through mainstream school and examine a range of social and academic variables.
 
Info Officer said:
Yeah ... and it is my suspicion that then, when the kids have been so disadvantaged already, they find it hard to get up to speed, and that's why it appears as if so many signing only schools do not "perform" as well academically as deaf children who are mainstreamed ... and the myth is perpetuated further.

I would love to see some research examine those deaf kids who don't have any other learning difficulties who sign from day one, and compare them with those who start signing later, and those who go totally through mainstream school and examine a range of social and academic variables.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 
Info Officer said:
Yeah ... and it is my suspicion that then, when the kids have been so disadvantaged already, they find it hard to get up to speed, and that's why it appears as if so many signing only schools do not "perform" as well academically as deaf children who are mainstreamed ... and the myth is perpetuated further.

I would love to see some research examine those deaf kids who don't have any other learning difficulties who sign from day one, and compare them with those who start signing later, and those who go totally through mainstream school and examine a range of social and academic variables.
Click to expand...

Been done on an academic variable. Deaf children of deaf adults who sign as their native langauge, and learn English as a second langauge perform at the same or higher levels academically than their hearing peers when matched for age and grade. I am assuming that they are better adjusted socially and psychologically as well due to greater ability to communicate and form interpersonal relationships. All are dependent upon language.
 
Back
Top