For those who suport NCLB..take a hard look at this cartoon

Deafguy25 said:
I think she was actually disagreeing with you. She was saying that it IS all important, and that kids should learn all of it, including English.
Click to expand...

Does not matter if she were agreeing with me or not. The fact is when you question the worth of one you open the door to question all of the others. Reasonable progression.

Whether you are the type of person who reacts "OMG don't do THAT." or, like me say, "Lets do it." Is a different story.

What I was taught in school was, "He who has the right answer is the winner," and "He who has the most answers is superior."

What I learned was, "Answers are easy. Finding a good question takes more work." (And scares the hell out of a LOT of people.)
 
Berry, that's almost like re-framing.... <i.e.>
"Finding a good question...."

in order to pursue that, one has to change one's perception, which requires looking at what one values. That's where ego comes in
 
It seems that reading and writing is being talked about alot. But these are not the only subject being taught in schools.
 
Beowulf said:
Umm, not really. She was lumping English with the other crap we learn in school as children.
Click to expand...

Except that some people value everything we learn in school. I think "lumping" English in with all of that is good :wave:
 
Badgers00 said:
It seems that reading and writing is being talked about alot. But these are not the only subject being taught in schools.
Click to expand...

Correct. But English is what effects most people here. In other places the discussion might concern football.

By the way English is NOT taught in schools. What IS taught is reading, writing, and grammar.

But the English language is MUCH more than that.
 
dogmom said:
Berry, that's almost like re-framing.... <i.e.>
"Finding a good question...."

in order to pursue that, one has to change one's perception, which requires looking at what one values. That's where ego comes in
Click to expand...

Which is why questions, real questions, scare people. In order to find a good question you have to examine your own biases, preconceptions, etc. During the discovery of a really good question you tend to both discover and alter yourself. When you discover a great question you can actually feel a shift in your perceptions. Like an epiphany.

Sometimes I call it "Blinking." Because I blink when it happens.
 
Deafguy25 said:
Except that some people value everything we learn in school. I think "lumping" English in with all of that is good :wave:
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with valuing everything you learned in school. Nor is there anything wrong with valuing certain things and disdaining others. Nor is there anything wrong with learning what you were taught.

My problem has always been with the latter. I never quite learned what I was taught. I always learned something different.

Teachers taught me to obey: I learned to question authority.

Teachers taught me science had all the answers: I learned that scientists had forgotten the value of questioning what they thought they knew.

I could go on but you get the point.
 
For those who are not for teaching English, how do you propose those that use a language that has no written form (ASL for example) be able to read and comprehend legally binding contracts and documents?

It could be interpreted into ASL, but the person still wouldn't really know exactly what they are signing...
 
I am outta here now. I do not think anywhere there was ever mentioned that we were against teaching English.

:iough:
 
CSign said:
For those who are not for teaching English, how do you propose those that use a language that has no written form (ASL for example) be able to read and comprehend legally binding contracts and documents?

It could be interpreted into ASL, but the person still wouldn't really know exactly what they are signing...
Click to expand...

Just curious - can you point out who aren't for teaching English, please? I am not sure if anyone on AllDeaf is not for that, so you might get no answer I think.
 
The impression I got from a number of posters is that English is unnecessary. Since we are discussing NCLB, which applies to the Unites States where the significant majority utilize English as their Native language, I was curious how those with that position would respond. Legally binding contracts are not something one should take lightly as they are enforceable in the court of law. If a person's native language is ASL which has no written form, with limited English skills how is it in their best interest to sign legal documents which they do not understand?

As I stated; I understand it can be interpreted in ASL, but that does not change the words that are written on the page which they would be consenting to.
 
CSign said:
The impression I got from a number of posters is that English is unnecessary. Since we are discussing NCLB, which applies to the Unites States where the significant majority utilize English as their Native language, I was curious how those with that position would respond. Legally binding contracts are not something one should take lightly as they are enforceable in the court of law. If a person's native language is ASL which has no written form, with limited English skills how is it in their best interest to sign legal documents which they do not understand?

As I stated; I understand it can be interpreted in ASL, but that does not change the words that are written on the page which they would be consenting to.
Click to expand...

And.... if a person is functionally literate, and understood what he was signing , what is the problem?

I'm sorry you got that impression, I doubt it was the impression that was made. The "number of posters" understood exactly what was being said though.
 
CSign said:
The impression I got from a number of posters is that English is unnecessary. Since we are discussing NCLB, which applies to the Unites States where the significant majority utilize English as their Native language, I was curious how those with that position would respond. Legally binding contracts are not something one should take lightly as they are enforceable in the court of law. If a person's native language is ASL which has no written form, with limited English skills how is it in their best interest to sign legal documents which they do not understand?

As I stated; I understand it can be interpreted in ASL, but that does not change the words that are written on the page which they would be consenting to.
Click to expand...

I believe that English is an incredibly useful tool here in the US; I don't believe that it is unnecessary (except maybe as a primary language, but instead be placed in secondary status for deaf/hh). The only thing I wanted to address is your comment on legally binding contracts (please note that I do not pretend to know much in depth about matters of law and my views are lengthy).

I agree that no one should sign a contract that they do not understand (I made that mistake as a teenager signing up for a health gym, but not due to a problem with reading English so much as my hearing and then not taking the time to fully read the contract due to feeling pressured to sign. Luckily, I was able to legally back out of it). Obviously, the best situation would be if the people involved in the contract used the same language (say German) and that was the language used in recording the contract (German) with signatures from the involved parties. But then what about two people from different countries (say Germany and France), with different languages (German and French), and only limited skills in the other's language (French and German) trying to enter in a contract together (or would they be required to learn the other's language to do business rather than rely on an interpreter or would it be in their best interest to only do business/sign contracts with people with the same language?). I imagine that they would probably have the contract in both languages (German and French). Then maybe for those that use ASL as their primary language and have limited English skills, they should record the contract in ASL (video since there is no written format) to be fair and equal in the law. And if the law does not allow a video as the same as a legally binding contract, then I think that is discrimination.

I can understand that having the English skills can be reassuring to the person signing the contract and they would not have to worry about the chance that an interpreter wasn't doing their job correctly (although that can and does happen). But if the interpreter was doing their job (their job is to interpret and to interpret accurately), then the full/entire message as written would be translated to the person signing the contract and I don't see a problem with that. It is the same as a person interpreting a contract from the written format of one language (again say German) to the written format of another language (to French); It is expected that the message is the same and intact, otherwise the fault lies with the interpreter trying to interpret (from German into French). If they weren't doing their job, then I feel that the persons signing the contract should not be penalized for that.

It is the same with Miranda Rights. The police are required by law to issue you your Miranda Rights in the case of your arrest. If say, they decided to tell you them in French (or other language or mode you do not know) for whatever reason and you do not know French, then they infringed on your rights and the case could be thrown out on that technicality.

Some of my views are maybe idealistic and would require a change in current practices, but fair is fair.
 
Berry said:
Teachers taught me science had all the answers: I learned that scientists had forgotten the value of questioning what they thought they knew.
Click to expand...

My HS chem/physics teacher told us that science was not the quest for truth, but the quest for understanding, and even established laws had the potential to be disproven. He was my favorite science teacher because, unlike the rest of the science teachers I had who just went through the motions, he encouraged his students to question everything around them.
 
CSign said:
For those who are not for teaching English, how do you propose those that use a language that has no written form (ASL for example) be able to read and comprehend legally binding contracts and documents?

It could be interpreted into ASL, but the person still wouldn't really know exactly what they are signing...
Click to expand...




As I have stated before, if not in this thread then in others. I would love to see the English language taught in schools -- In its raw form it is fully as enjoyable as ASL. It can be a very creative language.

But unfortunately it is not. What is taught is how to read (poorly): How to write (poorly): How to spell (Extremely poorly): and basic (but not advanced) grammar.

The English language, in its richest form, is as difficult to put into writing as ASL is -- Because it too includes tone of voice, gestures (unconsciously acquired), and facial expressions (unique to its place of origin -- They are not universal) and body language. (Have you ever noticed you can spot an American in an international airport by the way they walk and stand?)

In order to write English you have to leave out everything except the spoken words.





CSign said:
The impression I got from a number of posters is that English is unnecessary. Since we are discussing NCLB, which applies to the Unites States where the significant majority utilize English as their Native language, I was curious how those with that position would respond. Legally binding contracts are not something one should take lightly as they are enforceable in the court of law. If a person's native language is ASL which has no written form, with limited English skills how is it in their best interest to sign legal documents which they do not understand?

As I stated; I understand it can be interpreted in ASL, but that does not change the words that are written on the page which they would be consenting to.
Click to expand...




While a contract can be written in simple, easily understood English and be legally binding, usually it is not. It is usually written by a lawyer who has trained for years to construct one. Schools, unless you go to college and study law, do not teach how to read one -- In this I think they are remiss.

Understanding English is ONLY the FIRST step in understanding contracts. The second step is to go to Barnes and Noble and buy this sweet little book BARNES & NOBLE | Understanding Contracts (2004) by Jeffrey T. Ferriell | Other Format. Or this one, more expensive but easier to master http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Un...0735590168?itm=7&usri=understanding+contracts The best step is to go get a law degree of course, become a lawyer.

I personally took a course to become a legal assistant, passed with highest honors -- And I still have trouble.
 
Back
Top