Is it ever ok for kids NOT to use ASL?

[shel90]

Isn't there a vicious cycle here? Shel90 is always talking about the amount of language delayed kids (from oral programs) in her program. Now look at it from the parent's perspective. Any REASONABLE parent would not put their kid in a classroom with even just half of really delayed kids. A few is understandable, but if you have that many.... the teacher will not be able to accommodate the natural progression for BOTH the "normal" and "delayed" kids at the same time. I am willing to bet that even deaf parents with deaf kids were worried about putting their children in a deaf school with a lot of delayed students.

In my last 6 years of teaching, I have done nothing but accommodate each learning level. My language arts class has 3 different levels...they are all progressing nicely at their levels. Most kids who come to our program who are language delayed usually catch up quickly for communication skills...just when it comes to literacy skills, that's where the struggles come in. So, if it is a social concern, none of our kids had problems. Just the normal growing pains kids go thru.

 

[shel90]

Does that mean parents dont want their kids around deaf signing children?


Just the thought of that really saddens me cuz deaf signers/children are just like anyone and deserve to be treated like humans.

 

[Daredevel7]

Does that mean parents dont want their kids around deaf signing children?


Just the thought of that really saddens me cuz deaf signers/children are just like anyone and deserve to be treated like humans.

I meant delayed kids. Language or education delayed. No matter their method of communication. I wonder if there is any deaf parents who have deaf kids on AD? I'd like to know what they think.

 

[faire_jour]

Denying a deaf/CI/hoh child the basic skills of ASL--couldn't that be misconstrued as child abuse/neglect?

I would say it is the equalivent of teaching a child with CP to walk. Some say, "Just let them have a wheelchair, they'll use one when they are grown anyway" but others think that the child should learn to overcome their handicap and struggles and use their legs.

 

[faire_jour]

Well, let me ask you this:

For years, it has been substantiated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to oral only language are language delayed, thus affecting not just their ability to use language fluidly, but their cognitive processes, their psycho-social development, their academic acheivement, and their ability to become employed gainfully in accordance with their true innate abilities.

For years, it has been substaniated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to ASL from birth outperform those coming from an oral only environment, in all the above areas, those deaf children not exposed to ASL from an early age.

For years, it has been substantiated that children in oral environments show academic and social performance below what would be expected for their innate abilities. It has also been shown that children coming from an environment that includes ASL from an early point in their lives perform consistently at levels that would be expected for their innate abilities.

These conclusions have been reached, time and time again, not just from anecdotal evidence, but from hard and fast, replicable, empirical evidence. There have been any number of studies that test the cognitive processing results of deaf participants compared to hearing participants, and the conclusions are consistent that deaf participants have a distinct advantage when it comes to tasks presented that require visual attention.

Given all of that, ASL certainly is not going to hurt a deaf child, and there is a significant probability that it will indeed help. Why would you deny it to a deaf child?

But the children who do so well are the ones with fluent language models. Hearing parents beginning to learn ASL are far from fluent models. Even if a parent works every minute of everyday to learn ASL, it will take them years to be able to model the language. The children will still end up with a delay. Don't pretend that if your primary caregivers do not model fluent language that you will end up better off than a child who has limited language access. Both situations have language delays and limited language access, just different ways.

 

[Lissa]

i think all children should be exposed to ASL/BSL/ any other sign language to build their language and communication skills but if the child does not want to use it then it's up to the child how they wish to communicate. But if they can manage with spoken language fine and if sign language doesnt seem to improve or change their understanding then they shouldnt have to be forced to use it.

 

[jillio]

Isn't there a vicious cycle here? Shel90 is always talking about the amount of language delayed kids (from oral programs) in her program. Now look at it from the parent's perspective. Any REASONABLE parent would not put their kid in a classroom with even just half of really delayed kids. A few is understandable, but if you have that many.... the teacher will not be able to accommodate the natural progression for BOTH the "normal" and "delayed" kids at the same time. I am willing to bet that even deaf parents with deaf kids were worried about putting their children in a deaf school with a lot of delayed students.

I see where you are headed with this. However, the stats continue to show an average delay of 2 years for a deaf child that has been in an oral only environment when they enter school (mainstreamed). Keep them in that environment, and the delays only continue to accelerate with age. Place them in an environment where those delays can be attended to is the only way to remediate the original delay, and prevent further delays from occurring.

 

[jillio]

But the children who do so well are the ones with fluent language models. Hearing parents beginning to learn ASL are far from fluent models.
This has already been disproven time and again.
Even if a parent works every minute of everyday to learn ASL, it will take them years to be able to model the language. The children will still end up with a delay.
Delays are not created by less than fluent models. Delays are created by lack of acquisition due to mode.
Don't pretend that if your primary caregivers do not model fluent language that you will end up better off than a child who has limited language access. Both situations have language delays and limited language access, just different ways.

Again, that has been disproven time and again.

 

[dreama]

I would say it is the equalivent of teaching a child with CP to walk. Some say, "Just let them have a wheelchair, they'll use one when they are grown anyway" but others think that the child should learn to overcome their handicap and struggles and use their legs.

Sorry but I don't think that's a good thing either. I think if a child has CP and needs a chair it would be much better to use one rather then spending hours and hours in physiopherapy when the child would do a lot better excercising their brain or excercising their arms to push their chair with.

I'm for using the bits that work, not dwelling on the bits that don't. I'm also for teaching low vision kids braille and mobility using sleeper shades and a long cane so they can learn how to develop other senses that work better then their sight.

 

[dreama]

But the children who do so well are the ones with fluent language models. Hearing parents beginning to learn ASL are far from fluent models. Even if a parent works every minute of everyday to learn ASL, it will take them years to be able to model the language. The children will still end up with a delay. Don't pretend that if your primary caregivers do not model fluent language that you will end up better off than a child who has limited language access. Both situations have language delays and limited language access, just different ways.

That can be easily remideed by taking the child to the local deaf club and exposing him or her to fluent signing deaf adults.

Nobody is saying the deaf shouldnt be taught speech if they can master it. But they will anyway if they've got that ability. It's just some deaf people don't. Plus other deaf people have had really bad experiences being forced into oral only programmes and decide for whatever reason not to use their voice any more because it's too much hassle. Plus they are likely to be the ones that don't teach their kids oral skills as they consider it child cruelty which indeed it was in their case if they were forced into it for several hours every day and deprived a natural language.

I'm for giving a child BOTH sign language AND Literacy skills AND speech training using both non auditory methods such as cued speech or tactilating AND hearing aids when that is apropriate.

 

[dreama]

I see that a lot of oral people here said "I wish I knew ASL." Does that mean you wish you learned it first? Or you wish you had that as an option (learning it later)?

I wish I had learnt it first as baby signs.

 

[Daredevel7]

I wish I had learnt it first as baby signs.

Just as baby signs? Could you clarify? Do you mean just "drink", "hungry", etc. Or further language development?

 

[dreama]

Just as baby signs? Could you clarify? Do you mean just "drink", "hungry", etc. Or further language development?

Well I wish they had started using it as baby signs. Then to increase the signs afterwards.

It would have also helped to have learn cued speech too.

I don't think it would have impaired my speech as a child. Far from it. I would probably have learnt how to speak faster with a little visual help. Only nobody would have considered anything like that because I was just mildly deaf so of course everyone used speech.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I refuse to be a part of it...I couldn't live with my conscience..

:nods in agreement: Me too.

This thread really amazes me...

 

[jillio]

Just as baby signs? Could you clarify? Do you mean just "drink", "hungry", etc. Or further language development?

Kids acquiring spoken language begin with one word utterances, too.

 

[faire_jour]

Again, that has been disproven time and again.

I don't understand. If a child is not exposed to a fluent language how on earth with they become fluent? If a parent only knows a few broken phrases, no grammar, and can't tell a story or communicate, how is the child going to learn more than that?

 

[jillio]

I don't understand. If a child is not exposed to a fluent language how on earth with they become fluent? If a parent only knows a few broken phrases, no grammar, and can't tell a story or communicate, how is the child going to learn more than that?

It has been shown that a child who has parents who are less than fluent models of ASL will develop fluency that surpasses that of the parents. It has to do with the intuitive way that grammar is acquired and used. This applies to language acquisition, not necessarily language learning. I am not on my home computer, but I do have research that substantiates this, and have posted it before on this forum.

Quite frankly, all these excuses about the parent needing to be fluent for ASL to be a proper model for the deaf child is nothing more than that...excuses for not making the effort to learn it or provide it.

 

[faire_jour]

It has been shown that a child who has parents who are less than fluent models of ASL will develop fluency that surpasses that of the parents. It has to do with the intuitive way that grammar is acquired and used. This applies to language acquisition, not necessarily language learning. I am not on my home computer, but I do have research that substantiates this, and have posted it before on this forum.

Ok. It shows that they will get further than the parents, but does it say they will become fluent users? What about learning appropriate levels of vocabulary? If a word is never used it is impossible to learn.

 

[Jiro]

I don't understand. If a child is not exposed to a fluent language how on earth with they become fluent? If a parent only knows a few broken phrases, no grammar, and can't tell a story or communicate, how is the child going to learn more than that?

lol..... that applies to hearing people. Look at everywhere, Faire. You live in a country that's built by immigrants, populated by immigrants. Many (hearing) children of first-generation immigrants speak and write English better than their parents. Their source of learning isn't limited to parents. It's also school, friends, colleagues, tv, etc.

 

[shel90]

Denying a deaf/CI/hoh child the basic skills of ASL--couldn't that be misconstrued as child abuse/neglect?

If that happened to hearing kids, the kids would be taken away from the parents but it is ok to allow that to happen to deaf children cuz the idea is to make them as much like hearing people as they can. Heck, some poeple reported feelings of getting their kids taken away just for letting their kids be like deaf kids! How screwed up is society, heh?