Mother of 7 y/o Deaf girl

Status
Not open for further replies.
zeefour said:
@Teacherofthedeaf

continued....


11. De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Tonawanda, New York: Multilingual Matters.
12. Deaf Education: A new philosophy. Research findings at NTID. Retrieved 10-10-2016 from https://www.rit.edu/showcase/index.php?id=86
Krentz, U.C., & Corina, D.P. (2008, January). Preference for language in early infancy: the human language bias is not speech specific. Developmental Science, 11(1), 1-9.
13. Kuhl, P. (2010, October). Patricia Kuhl: The linguistic genius of babies [Video file]. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies
14. Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. Mayberry, R.I. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about the critical period for language. 16.In Marschark, M. & P.E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education Volume 2 (pp. 281-291). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Meadow, K. (1966). The effects of early manual communication and family climate on the deaf child’s early development. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
18. Mitchell, R.E., & Karchmer, M.A. (2004, Winter). Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138-163.
19. Morford, J.P., & Mayberry, R.I. (2000). A reexamination of “Early Exposure” and its implications for language acquisition by eye. In Chamberlain, 20.C., Morford, J.P., & R.I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 110-127). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Morgan, G. & Kegl, J. (2006, August). Nicaraguan Sign Language and Theory of Mind: the issue of critical periods and abilities. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(8), 811-819.
21. Newport, E. L., & Supalla, T. (1980). The structuring of language: Clues from the acquisition of signed and spoken language. Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Weinheim/Deerfield Beach, FL/Basel: Dahlem Konferenzen. Verlag Chemie.
22. Orfanidou, E., Adam, R., Morgan, G., & McQueen, J. M. (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 272-283.
23. Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and a spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4-33.
24. Pinker, S. (2003, February). Steven Pinker: Human Nature and the blank slate [Video file]. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate
25. Quigley, S. P., Montanelli, D. S., & Wilbur, R. B. (1976). Some aspects of the verb system in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19 (3), 536-550.
26. Quigley, S. P., & Frisina, D. R. (1961). Institutionalization and psycho-educational development of deaf children. Council for Exceptional Children.
27. Schick, B., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., & Hoffmeister, B. (2002). Theory of mind: Language and cognition in deaf children. The ASHA Leader, 22, 6-7.
28. Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive psychology, 49(4), 370-407.
29. Stevenson, E. (1964). A study of the educational achievement of deaf children of deaf parents. California News, 80(14.3).
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. M. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 37-46.
30. Stuckless, E. R., & Birch, J. W. (1966). The influence of early manual communication on the linguistic development of deaf children: I. American Annals of the Deaf.
31. Vernon, M., & Koh, S. (1970). Early manual communication and deaf children's achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115(5), 527-36.
32. Wilbur, R. B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 5(1), 81-104.
33. Woolfe, T., Want, S. C., & Siegal, M. (2002). Signposts to development: Theory of mind in deaf children. Child development, 73(3), 768-778.
34. Woolfe, T., Herman, R., Roy, P., & Woll, B. (2010). Early vocabulary development in deaf native signers: A British Sign Language adaptation of the communicative development inventories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(3), 322-331.



All this shows that bilingualism is the best for Deaf children. Their English literacy (written, read and if they want spoken/"heard" for HoH children with amplification) is higher when accompanied by bilingualism. So even if you're advocating for English use by Deaf students, bilingualism is the best way to accomplish this. Forcing oralism and only English stunts later literacy levels. You use anecdotal evidence of successful Deaf... actually deaf because you strip their association with Deaf culture from them without their consent at an early age, from your forced oralism are just that anecdotal. I was in elementary school in the early 90s and as a HoH student with amplification was subjected to such methods.

You could say I was successful. I went on scholarship to an Ivy League school, I have 3 bachelors, I started law school on an academic scholarship, was accepted to 2 grad schools and I'm currently planning on applying to Gallaudet for my masters in a year. However I know I was successful IN SPITE of the methods I had to use in school, NOT BECAUSE of them . A lot of Deaf/HoH students I know feel the same.

I'm curious if you ever really talk to Deaf adults about their educational experiences and actually listen (since you're so big on that). You seem to disregard actual Deaf people and Deaf culture. If you've done so much schooling for Deaf ed why haven't you learned ANY sign language? It's so hypocritical that you demand D/deaf children learn to talk and hear your language but you refuse to learn our language. ou also haven't answered my question of when and where you were in school. Your methods are pretty outdated, oralism is dying for a reason. Bilingualism still incorporates English language fluency, so I don't know why you're so opposed to this clearly successful method that allows Deaf children to CHOOSE later in life, they can stay in the hearing world, using English fluently, or they can be in the Deaf world fluent in ASL, or they can be active in both. I have a hard time being fully active in the Deaf community because I wasn't exposed to proper ASL as a child I used cued speech, SE and English like your students.
Click to expand...
#15 discusses late acquisition of a first language and its effect on long term cognition and language use. This is also something we both knew.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
I don't force anyone to do anything. I do not make the choice for children. I do not provide CIs or hearing aids to anyone. A family chooses listening and spoken language services and then I provide them. Why is your beef with me? Do you believe that I shouldn't provide the services that a family wants? Do you believe that families shouldn't be allowed to choose?
Click to expand...

No, you also are an Early Interventionist. You go into homes and with no doubt give a biased picture of what's best for their children. Most end up in your oral program later. That's my beef.

The comments you made about how Deaf children are only at the level of their hearing peers if they learn to speak and talk... that's my beef.

The fact that you are hearing and come here and patronize Deaf individuals who don't "hear" and "speak"... that's my beef.

I really don't understand why you got involved in Deaf education if you think all Deaf people need to be hearing to succeed,
 
zeefour said:
No, you also are an Early Interventionist. You go into homes and with no doubt give a biased picture of what's best for their children. Most end up in your oral program later. That's my beef.

The comments you made about how Deaf children are only at the level of their hearing peers if they learn to speak and talk... that's my beef.

The fact that you are hearing and come here and patronize Deaf individuals who don't "hear" and "speak"... that's my beef.

I really don't understand why you got involved in Deaf education if you think all Deaf people need to be hearing to succeed,
Click to expand...
No, most do not end up going to our program. I also did not say that deaf children can only be at the level of hearing kids if they listen and speak. You need to go back and reread. I said that we educate our students so that they are at the same level as hearing kids. It doesn't mean our way is the only way or the best way.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
As for my supervisor, my school's policy for language use is very specific. We use spoken language, through listening so that our students will transition to a mainstream placement to learn alongside hearing children from their communities. Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty clear that you think that Deaf children are only competitive with hearing peers if they speak and "hear".
 
zeefour said:
That seems pretty clear that you think that Deaf children are only competitive with hearing peers if they speak and "hear".
Click to expand...

I think that what you are overlooking (and it seems to be on purpose) is that Teacherofthedeaf's current job is at a school that just uses listening and speaking. That does not mean that she is not aware of the other methods, etc.
 
Jane B. said:
I think that what you are overlooking (and it seems to be on purpose) is that Teacherofthedeaf's current job is at a school that just uses listening and speaking. That does not mean that she is not aware of the other methods, etc.
Click to expand...

No I'm not overlooking that, it's a major part of the issue. Her own words show her bias against ASL and towards "making" Deaf kids "hear" as superior.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
No, my words specifically say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I keep quoting your words as evidence and you just respond no I didn't say that you need to re-read. You either 1) truly believe that DHH individuals don't "understand" the oh so superior English language at the level of hearing individuals as yourself do nd that's your entire point against my "interpretation" of your words (although I did get a 5 on the AP Lit and 5 on the AP Lang so I'm not so stupid for a HoH girl) or 2) you think a hearing person as yourself saying "you need to re-read" is superior evidence against a HoH girl, even when she shows you your exact words and you think that's an ample and legitimate way to deflect attention from your own damning words

Both come from the same antiquated and ignorant place where there's a belief a hearing person and their use of English is the superior language use. You either went to school between 30 and 50 years ago and were taught this and are a true believer or you are utilizing this mindset as a way to hide your own damning words that show your true colors of believing this despite knowing that here in 2018 this view is no longer supported.

So which one is it? Are you a true believer from a 1965 residential school where hearing teachers learned DHH kids are poor stupid souls that only have a chance if we learn to be as close to hearing as possible? Or is this something you believe at heart but you have enough self awareness to know that this is a faux pas at the very minimum and are trying to deflect attention under this guise from what you know are words that are no longer accepted in the modern era? You know, now that everyone knows that ASL and sign language is the natural language for DHH people and just as valid as spoken English in the hearing world. I'm still waiting for an answer.....
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
No, most do not end up going to our program. I also did not say that deaf children can only be at the level of hearing kids if they listen and speak. You need to go back and reread. I said that we educate our students so that they are at the same level as hearing kids. It doesn't mean our way is the only way or the best way.
Click to expand...

If you educate your kids to speak and "hear" so they are at the same level as hearing children you are saying hearing children are the highest level and that the only way you can make DHH kids to perform at that level is to teach them to speak and "hear" just like them.

You are saying that hearing children are the highest level, not Deaf children fluent in ASL. That means you think the latter are at a lower level.

You say that speaking and "hearing" is the most successful way to get DHH kids to the level of their superior hearing peers. Therefore DHH children taught with ASL, signing at all, or anything other than speaking and "hearing" in spoken English are not at this level.

You can't make the claims that you did then back track and say oh no I didn't say those things. If nothing else you should back up your beliefs. I may disagree but you at least open the door for discourse. Instead you say insulting outdated things in the heat of the moment and then try to deny your own words when people point out the hurtful ignorant beliefs that they contain and support.

In fact you've actively debated with me that bi bi and ASL as an L1 kids perform far lower than verbal ATV DHH kids in performance exams. you believe it's an inferior method. You'd be negligent to allow parents to use a method you believe has far worse results. Even if you don't outright say this, you'd at least want to imply to the parents what is most successful in your eyes would be best.
 
zeefour said:
No, you also are an Early Interventionist. You go into homes and with no doubt give a biased picture of what's best for their children. Most end up in your oral program later. That's my beef.

The comments you made about how Deaf children are only at the level of their hearing peers if they learn to speak and talk... that's my beef.

The fact that you are hearing and come here and patronize Deaf individuals who don't "hear" and "speak"... that's my beef.

I really don't understand why you got involved in Deaf education if you think all Deaf people need to be hearing to succeed,
Click to expand...
Oh I do. She is CONVINCED it's still innovative to oralize a dhh kid. Speech is a good skill to have, but if speech equalized dhh kids or lead to high achievement, all hearing people would be successful. Problem is that she doesn't understand while there's not a lot of right off the bat speech failures, as the child gets older they start struggling with literacy and end up being like one of those kids who transferred to Clarke, CID for middle school. She doesn't see those kids......
 
zeefour said:
I keep quoting your words as evidence and you just respond no I didn't say that you need to re-read. You either 1) truly believe that DHH individuals don't "understand" the oh so superior English language at the level of hearing individuals as yourself do nd that's your entire point against my "interpretation" of your words (although I did get a 5 on the AP Lit and 5 on the AP Lang so I'm not so stupid for a HoH girl) or 2) you think a hearing person as yourself saying "you need to re-read" is superior evidence against a HoH girl, even when she shows you your exact words and you think that's an ample and legitimate way to deflect attention from your own damning words

Both come from the same antiquated and ignorant place where there's a belief a hearing person and their use of English is the superior language use. You either went to school between 30 and 50 years ago and were taught this and are a true believer or you are utilizing this mindset as a way to hide your own damning words that show your true colors of believing this despite knowing that here in 2018 this view is no longer supported.

So which one is it? Are you a true believer from a 1965 residential school where hearing teachers learned DHH kids are poor stupid souls that only have a chance if we learn to be as close to hearing as possible? Or is this something you believe at heart but you have enough self awareness to know that this is a faux pas at the very minimum and are trying to deflect attention under this guise from what you know are words that are no longer accepted in the modern era? You know, now that everyone knows that ASL and sign language is the natural language for DHH people and just as valid as spoken English in the hearing world. I'm still waiting for an answer.....
Click to expand...
Show me the words. Show me where I say anything that is negative about ASL or Deaf people. I said that we focus on teaching our children to think because people bashing spoken language as being nothing but speech therapy and neglecting cognition and academics. We don't. That does not mean that there are not other ways to reach similar goals. As I said, if I say that I teach math using Hebrew without using any English, does that mean that I believe Hebrew is superior to English? No. Does that mean that I think that people who use English cannot learn math? No.
 
zeefour said:
If you educate your kids to speak and "hear" so they are at the same level as hearing children you are saying hearing children are the highest level and that the only way you can make DHH kids to perform at that level is to teach them to speak and "hear" just like them.

You are saying that hearing children are the highest level, not Deaf children fluent in ASL. That means you think the latter are at a lower level.

You say that speaking and "hearing" is the most successful way to get DHH kids to the level of their superior hearing peers. Therefore DHH children taught with ASL, signing at all, or anything other than speaking and "hearing" in spoken English are not at this level.

You can't make the claims that you did then back track and say oh no I didn't say those things. If nothing else you should back up your beliefs. I may disagree but you at least open the door for discourse. Instead you say insulting outdated things in the heat of the moment and then try to deny your own words when people point out the hurtful ignorant beliefs that they contain and support.

In fact you've actively debated with me that bi bi and ASL as an L1 kids perform far lower than verbal ATV DHH kids in performance exams. you believe it's an inferior method. You'd be negligent to allow parents to use a method you believe has far worse results. Even if you don't outright say this, you'd at least want to imply to the parents what is most successful in your eyes would be best.
Click to expand...
What I've actually said is that there is no research that says that children who use ASL outperform those who don't in English literacy. That statement is true. If you have additional research that says otherwise, I would love to see it.

Hearing students absolutely outperform children with hearing loss in literacy. There is no doubt about it. We want these students to keep up and be competitive in school and in the workforce. That means they need to be able to read as well as the 99.8% of the population that was not born with hearing loss. If they use English as their language of communication it means they need to have grammar, syntax, vocabulary and pragmatic skills that are equal to those same people because those are the people they will be going to school with, be graded against and be considered for the same jobs. They need to have the same skills.

Again, I have said absolutely nothing against ASL or those who use it. I have said nothing against people with hearing loss. You are reading motives into my words that simply aren't there.
 
deafdyke said:
Oh I do. She is CONVINCED it's still innovative to oralize a dhh kid. Speech is a good skill to have, but if speech equalized dhh kids or lead to high achievement, all hearing people would be successful. Problem is that she doesn't understand while there's not a lot of right off the bat speech failures, as the child gets older they start struggling with literacy and end up being like one of those kids who transferred to Clarke, CID for middle school. She doesn't see those kids......
Click to expand...
I have worked in every type of setting except a state school for the Deaf. I have worked with teens in a self-contained classroom, a Title I public preschool program, as an itinerant in a public school district, in early elementary as a listening and spoken language therapy provider, in early intervention, and now as a pre-k teacher in a spoken language program.

As for your comment about "all hearing people would be successful" because they use spoken language, have you never heard of a bell curve? 80% of people are within one standard deviation of the mean. That means some will be higher and some will be lower. That is the exact same configuration we are working towards with children with hearing loss.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
What I've actually said is that there is no research that says that children who use ASL outperform those who don't in English literacy. That statement is true. If you have additional research that says otherwise, I would love to see it.

Hearing students absolutely outperform children with hearing loss in literacy. There is no doubt about it. We want these students to keep up and be competitive in school and in the workforce. That means they need to be able to read as well as the 99.8% of the population that was not born with hearing loss. If they use English as their language of communication it means they need to have grammar, syntax, vocabulary and pragmatic skills that are equal to those same people because those are the people they will be going to school with, be graded against and be considered for the same jobs. They need to have the same skills.

Again, I have said absolutely nothing against ASL or those who use it. I have said nothing against people with hearing loss. You are reading motives into my words that simply aren't there.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm thinking YOU have literacy problems. You keep harping that the HoH are not as good as hearing, but then you say have nothing against ASL or those who use it. Sounds to me that you do have negative feelings towards ASL and people who use it because, in YOUR mind, they're not as good as hearing people.
 
LoveBlue said:
Hmm, I'm thinking YOU have literacy problems. You keep harping that the HoH are not as good as hearing, but then you say have nothing against ASL or those who use it. Sounds to me that you do have negative feelings towards ASL and people who use it because, in YOUR mind, they're not as good as hearing people.
Click to expand...
No, the fact is that the average student with hearing loss is not achieving at the same level as the average hearing student. One in five deaf students graduate high school with a reading level at or below the second grade. One in three graduate reading at between the second and fourth grade level.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
No, the fact is that the average student with hearing loss is not achieving at the same level as the average hearing student. One in five deaf students graduate high school with a reading level at or below the second grade. One in three graduate reading at between the second and fourth grade level.
Click to expand...

So? There are quite a few Lord Chesterfields who defy the stats. ;)
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
Which is great! We need to improve the average and make sure that all children with hearing loss have the opportunity to succeed.
Click to expand...

Now we are dealing with intangibles.
Who is "we?"
Sufferin' succotash! Those who never experienced what deafies go through, or...?
Like I say, it is intangible.
I am not disappointed with my fellow deafies, though.
Don't worry, I don't think you are, either.
 
Beowulf said:
Now we are dealing with intangibles.
Who is "we?"
Sufferin' succotash! Those who never experienced what deafies go through, or...?
Like I say, it is intangible.
I am not disappointed with my fellow deafies, though.
Don't worry, I don't think you are, either.
Click to expand...
General we. All of us who care and can, myself included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top