Putting your deaf children in which schools...and why?

"Kids, you are not working hard enough to be oral" -Pro-Oral

"Kids, you are working too hard to be oral." -Pro-ASL

"Parents, you are not working hard enough to teach your child oral skills." - Pro-Oral

"Parents, you are not working hard enough to gain fluency in ASL." -Pro-ASL

Maybe everyone is just hardly working. :)

:dizzy: we're all a bunch of slackers :)
 
Possibly: in a test tube or controlled laboratory.

But not if the child has strong auditory access and the environmental stimuli available is overwhelmingly auditory, when a child's world is awash with incidental auditory stimuli, and ASL is delivered in discrete lessons, in limited and controlled parts of her week, or day. For that child, spoken language comes easier than ASL, it's more accessible, more often, and in greater quantity.

If that same child is in an environment where ASL is everywhere -- everyone around at home, at school, around the neighborhood, in stores, the library, and on TV is signing, and it is spoken language that's directed at her 3 X a week or even daily in a special class -- I have no doubt that ASL would be the more accessible language, and would come far more easily than spoken language. Most of us don't live in this kind of world.

Aided auditory access whether through HA or CI, will never be as strong as unimpaired visual sense. You are still relying on a child's weakest sense any time you rely solely on the auditory for a deaf child. Nothing to do with a test tube or a laboratory. Real life.
 
Absolutely, totally correct !!! If I had a nickel for every time I realized how much I visually "heard" something, I'd be filthy rich by now. I have always strongly believed that "missing" a sense makes the other senses overcompensate for that missing sense -- in my case, my hearing sense. With my what-I-deem-good-auditory-skills (with the help of my HAs, obviously,) my speech, and my fluency in sign, I have what I consider an all-around comfort level with communication. However, my eyes really help to make up for what I cannot hear. It feels very natural and effortless. It's difficult to explain, but most deaf persons would likely agree with me.

Yes, most deafies and even a few of us hearies :)giggle:) agree completely. It seems to be the few hearing parents who disagree.
 
This isn't about what's better for or how hard it is for parents, we're talking about what's more accessible to a child.

Again, you, your family, your neighbors may have been able to leap the learning curve and provide a fluent and immersive ASL environment for your child from birth. But most deaf children born to hearing parents are not brought into those ideal situations where they have immediate and full access to fluent ASL speakers at home and throughout their environment from the start. Parents and relatives may be slow in the first few years, with rudimentary and hesitant signing skills rather than the fluid and almost constant flow of spoken language and song children are exposed to. Most deaf children do not encounter the same amount of signing as spoken language on children's programming/DVDs. Most deaf children are not exposed to neighbors signing across the street to each other, in stores, to siblings and and their friends signing to one another at the same rate they see people speaking to one another.

A child with auditory access, whether through hearing aids or CIs, is -- in most cases -- going to be bombarded with more spoken language stimuli from the start than ASL stimuli. The shear volume of this input is going to have an impact. The child will be exposed to more spoken vocabulary, more frequently. That wash of continuous language exposure makes it easier for the child to learn the language.

This is one very important reason why we value my daughter's school for the deaf and are proponents of this option if available: they can provide an intensive ASL environment. Sure, we can easily provide access to spoken language ourselves: in her home environment, her local school, stores, restaurants, the gym, piano lessons, in TV/movies, etc., when we travel, she's awash with it. But we can't manufacture people using ASL everywhere we go. Her school provides exposure to other students, from her age group on up through high school, deaf or ASL-fluent teachers and aides, performers and other language models, a controlled environment awash with ASL flowing everywhere.

You may think it's easy for a child to access ASL in his or her own environment, that ASL is just free flowing around the average deaf child. But I don't agree -- I think ASL is far too rare in our everyday lives, far too difficult for my deaf child to encounter on her own, and I think we need to take pretty extreme action to make that's child's path to ASL somewhat easier. In our case, the school we choose, the deaf friends we make playdates with, deaf babysitters who know ASL, using ASL at home even when not directed at the child. This isn't necessarily making ASL easier for my child to access than spoken language, because the balance is still off, but it does make ASL more common in her everyday environment and that helps her learn the language.

If you are talking about what is more accessable to the deaf child, that question has been answered over and over and over again. Someone appears not to be listening.
 
I had so many Oprah "aha" moments that led me to really push sign language for my son. He is my only child and since he was diagnosed at 1 month we had only been in groups with other dhh kids. I took him on his first playdate with all hearing kids a couple of months ago, and I immediately saw the difference. I saw immediately how visual my son was, and the spoken vocabulary out of these hearing ONE year olds was so heartbreaking to me. They were saying sooooooo many words, and my son didn't have any words at all at the time. But I saw so clearly how visual he is! Ever since I have been using signs 90% of the time with him. I don't claim to use ASL since I don't know it, but I use ASL dictionaries for vocabulary. The only reason I don't send my son to an ASL school is because it is too far, and we can't move right now. That's his/our story so far!

I don't think ASL will hurt his ability to speak, and he is already lipreading me. He wears aids and can hear sounds but isn't speaking or understanding yet. I wish I would have really used signs from the start.

The first time I went to a deaf conference the first people who approached us were anti-CI. I'm not really affected by things like that, but I can see how many people would run in the other direction if approached in such a way. Also, I heard this is because deaf are really blunt. :) LOL!

Having been there, I can tell you those "aha" moments will continue for a long time! :lol: Just being around my son and other deaf individuals taught me a great deal. The only thing is, you have to be open to learning and seeing the obvious. Apparently, you are!
 
I agree completely. A child will NOT learn a language unless they have exposure to it, no matter how accessable it is. If there are no fluent language models for ASL, they aren't just going to magically learn it because they "are visual". Saying that ASL is easier for the child to learn is only true if there are people around them using it, otherwise it doesn't exsist for them.

Very simple. Expose them.:roll: A deaf child that is not exposed to ASL is not exposed because a parent has made the decision not to provide that environment for them.
 
Yeah, I doubt I will ever be fluent in ASL. Are there any hearing parents on here fluent in ASL? I guess that's the weird part, huh? I wish this stuff wasn't so difficult. It's too divided. I think it's all about funding and money. It's sad, really. Our kids should be together, not separated.

Put those doubts aside. Early on, I doubted I would ever be fluent. Twenty four years later and lots of exposure to and friends in the deaf community, and I am considered fluent by most standards. And I am a hearing parent.
 
If the parents are not becoming proficient in ASL (as was indicated in the post I previously replied to), what other form of communication is there? Speaking and writing. There have been a lot of posts across this forum in regards to learning speech. I am all, all, ALL for learning speech. I learned speech and it has benefited me greatly. But when ASL is eliminated or thought of as a minimal or last resort, that's where it feels to the deaf that it isn't important as a method of communication. How else do you explain a statement from a hearing parent to a deaf person: "Yeah, I doubt I will ever be fluent in ASL."

Well said. Any hearing parent who does not become fluent in ASL for their deaf child has made a conscious decision not to devote the time and effort to do so.
 
It takes YEARS and hundreds of thosands of hours to become truly fluent in a language. You know the one thing that will make it go faster though? Being called a bad parent. That does a lot of good.

Clearly this mother is working and struggling and willing to make sacrifices (like moving to a deaf school) to have their child use ASL, and instead of honoring that, you slap her in the face....I wonder why parents turn away from the Deaf community :hmm:

Again with the defensive posturing. AlleyCat slapped no one in the face. She was simply offering an explanation for the comment made.:roll:
 
Aided auditory access whether through HA or CI, will never be as strong as unimpaired visual sense. You are still relying on a child's weakest sense any time you rely solely on the auditory for a deaf child.
Exactly!!!! We're not bashing oral skills or developing the abilty.....but it's a fact that the auditory sense is pretty much weak in hoh kids. Even with the best hearing aids/CIs we STILL miss a heck of a lot!
CI kids ARE hoh. I speak as a person who IS hoh, and has been since birth/conception.
Yes, some of them are "almost hearing" but the gross majority still are functionally hoh. (and not in the way that a unilaterally hoh kid is)
Relying solely on auditory input for a hoh kid is like forcing a low vision/legally blind kid to learn SOLELY via visual input. But then again, did you know that Braille has been pretty much verbotten in programs for blind/low vision kids? Sound familiar?
The closest school for us is California School for the Deaf, Fremont. I really do want to send him there, but it is not easy to relocate nowadays
Are there any regional dhh programs in your area? A regional dhh program, especially if it's established can be really good. I would contact CSDF and see what's out there. They may be able to point you twards resources....and maybe when your son's a lot older, he can go to CSDF around middle school. It's fairly common for parents of dhh kids to relocate for better schools. Kudos for you for chosing ASL!
 
I think I would put my child in a Deaf school and teach them at home if I saw any gaps in the quality of education. I think the purpose of a Deaf child attending a Deaf school is so they feel comfortable being around children who understand their culture. I think the quality of education at Deaf schools are not high enough to truly prepare a child for the world, that is why I would supplement my child's education at home.
 
I think I would put my child in a Deaf school and teach them at home if I saw any gaps in the quality of education. I think the purpose of a Deaf child attending a Deaf school is so they feel comfortable being around children who understand their culture. I think the quality of education at Deaf schools are not high enough to truly prepare a child for the world, that is why I would supplement my child's education at home.

I dont know which schools you have seen but I know plenty that do offer high quality education. Not all but the ones I have seen all use the public school curriculm.
 
Wirelessly posted

shel90 said:
I think I would put my child in a Deaf school and teach them at home if I saw any gaps in the quality of education. I think the purpose of a Deaf child attending a Deaf school is so they feel comfortable being around children who understand their culture. I think the quality of education at Deaf schools are not high enough to truly prepare a child for the world, that is why I would supplement my child's education at home.

I dont know which schools you have seen but I know plenty that do offer high quality education. Not all but the ones I have seen all use the public school curriculm.

I'm seconding what Shel wrote! There's not a school out there that can provide all that your child needs without supplementing the learning at home. But in terms of accessing the educational experience and developing a love for school, as well as an academic rigor on par with any public school, my daughter' school for the deaf (bi-bi) gets an A+ . I know it's just the one data point, but Shel has far more experience and so I believe her when she says there are others out there like this wonderful place.
 
The good thing about schools for the deaf is that there are usually a significent number of kids who are academic kids. Like at schools for the blind most kids there are signifciently disabled/multihandicapped.
Unless my kid was postlingal or doing REALLY well with minimal accomondations in the mainstream,I would NEVER kneejerk mainstream them.
After all, it IS a fact that most mainstream teachers (including special ed ones) don't get a lot of training with how to teach kids like us. I would only send my kids to a mainstream school if it had a well established Dhh program or a dhh magnet program.
 
Back
Top