Question

[shel90]

I don't know.. who ARE they attempting to serve? Does it matter? If a neighbor shows up at your house..and offers you some cheese that he bought as a gift for you while he was in France.. But he did not realize you were lactose intolarent.. would you refuse the gift and tell him that he hurt your feelings..and did not consult with you first about your gift?.. And then call him arrogant because he assumed that you liked cheese in the first place.. Of course not! If you were a decent human being you would accept the gift.. say thank you.. and either throw it away.. or better yet.. re-gift it!!

Now.. i realize this situation is a bit silly.. but.. do you see my point? If someone wants to make a contribution to the community.. I say go for it.. at least they are wanting to become an active part of that community..

--



Again with the blanket statements.. Your saying that hearing mentors and teachers have no other care in their hearts other then to try to get their deaf students to become more like hearing students.. You do realize that the parents of these deaf children are the ones who make these choices.. There are MANY options you can do to raise a deaf child. You have pointed most of them out.. but the fact is.. most deaf children are born to hearing parents.. They want their child to hear, and be able to function in the hearing world

I have a hearing friend who's son was born deaf.. he received a CI when he was around three years old.. He is now 10 and being mainstreamed through the Florida school system with fairly good success. He goes to a speech therapist twice a week to improve his oral communication skills, which his father has told me is going to be reduced because he is doing very well. His grades are excellent for any student.. but no.. he does not know much ASL as he has forgotten most of what his father and myself taught him.. or anything about Deaf culture.. But I do not think that is either a bad thing.. or an issue.. I am just proud of him for making good grades in school and being a good kid.. I do not think a parent could hope for anything more.

We have switched from making blanket statements of saying that the inventors SEE, PSE, and CS.. as well as mainstreaming are all arrogant.. to education.. while I can see the topics are linked due to the intricate nature of education and communication.. I think you are just wanting to use your original statment as a springboard to bash these types of educational styles..

Jillio, I know you have an issue with deaf education that does not include ASL.. I have seen it in your previous posts.. Thats fine.. but calling these inventors of different types of communication arrogant because YOU think they had no input from deaf individuals when they formed these methods of communication is ridiculous.

What do u say that some of these approaches deprive children of full access to languages and they fall so far behind. When it was apparent that these approaches, especially the oral-only one, wasnt working, they get introduced to ASL which is a visual language and those children just thrive under it but so far behind with reading and writing? That's what I see constantly and I wish the oral-only approach was eliminated for good and use oral language along with a visual language.

 

[Canuckian_Chick]

I personally glad that I was mainstreamed in a way for educational reasons..as for ASL wasn't being used at my time in school early 60's and 70's.. so the additional to have ASL exposure as well then it'll be great!!! I really don't think anyone knew what's best for them since I was mainstreamed with no exposure to ASL till my late 20's.... I do not REGRET once being in mainstreamed additionally I had awesome support from my family that I'm greatly thankful for their timeless work with me..

 

[Canuckian_Chick]

What do u say that some of these approaches deprive children of full access to languages and they fall so far behind. When it was apparent that these approaches, especially the oral-only one, wasnt working, they get introduced to ASL which is a visual language and those children just thrive under it but so far behind with reading and writing? That's what I see constantly and I wish the oral-only approach was eliminated for good and use oral language along with a visual language.

I agree with you to a certain extent about only-oral approach as I believe it's depending on the hearing loss and ability to adapt to any challenges such as ability to read and write well (it was emphasized when I was in school). As I mentioned in my thread that I didn't even know ASL was existed around since it wasn't even mentioned... I also agree with the CI should learn ASL but then again, it's their choice to what they want to do with it... it's a TOUGH to go through, there's no wrong or right things to do... I do accept ASL in my life but I have the best of both world. smile... I had a friend that was profounded deaf, her parents thought with her hearing aids she should be able to hear 100 Percent. Sadly.... I don't blame the parents when they didn't have that exposure and resources to know what's best for the child.

Note: as Jasper mentioned in his post, about oral communication which I had great support with my speech by using a speech therapist and my sisters.... I thank god I was able to speak pretty well but I do understand some deaf that don't have that ability shouldn't be forced to try to speak as orally.... I know I have friends that are totally deaf and can't talk well but is very very very intelligent in everything. To be honest with you all I couldn't accept my hearing loss for a very long time till in my late 20's until ASL came in... I'm don't have the best ASL skills, good enough... lol... Also I think sometimes the kids with no exposure to ASL or not accepting it but with time he'll come around smile.

 

[shel90]

I agree with you to a certain extent about only-oral approach as I believe it's depending on the hearing loss and ability to adapt to any challenges such as ability to read and write well (it was emphasized when I was in school). As I mentioned in my thread that I didn't even know ASL was existed around since it wasn't even mentioned... I also agree with the CI should learn ASL but then again, it's their choice to what they want to do with it... it's a TOUGH to go through, there's no wrong or right things to do... I do accept ASL in my life but I have the best of both world. smile... I had a friend that was profounded deaf, her parents thought with her hearing aids she should be able to hear 100 Percent. Sadly.... I don't blame the parents when they didn't have that exposure and resources to know what's best for the child.

Note: as Jasper mentioned in his post, about oral communication which I had great support with my speech by using a speech therapist and my sisters.... I thank god I was able to speak pretty well but I do understand some deaf that don't have that ability shouldn't be forced to try to speak as orally.... I know I have friends that are totally deaf and can't talk well but is very very very intelligent in everything. To be honest with you all I couldn't accept my hearing loss for a very long time till in my late 20's until ASL came in... I'm don't have the best ASL skills, good enough... lol... Also I think sometimes the kids with no exposure to ASL or not accepting it but with time he'll come around smile.

I was in the same shoes as u were except that I have regrets and u dont. I hated being mainstreamed, missing out a lot, being left out in social situations, being scared of my future cuz I had no adult deaf role models, and worst of all being bullied day in and day out just simply because I am deaf.


My big concern for the oral only approach is on young children and babies because we dont know how much they are able to pick up or not and when they get older and showing signs of language delays due to not having full access to language, then switch to ASL but at the age when they should be learning how to read and write not learning another language. Know what I mean?

If the child gets exposed to both and doing good and wants to be mainstreamed in an oral only program or be in a signing program, they have that choice. I believe in empowering the children especially deaf children.

 

[Canuckian_Chick]

I was in the same shoes as u were except that I have regrets and u dont. I hated being mainstreamed, missing out a lot, being left out in social situations, being scared of my future cuz I had no adult deaf role models, and worst of all being bullied day in and day out just simply because I am deaf.


My big concern for the oral only approach is on young children and babies because we dont know how much they are able to pick up or not and when they get older and showing signs of language delays due to not having full access to language, then switch to ASL but at the age when they should be learning how to read and write not learning another language. Know what I mean?

If the child gets exposed to both and doing good and wants to be mainstreamed in an oral only program or be in a signing program, they have that choice. I believe in empowering the children especially deaf children.

I totally understand what you mean smile... I also totally agree what you are aiming at smile.... once again, it's hard to tell the parents what's is right or wrong... we just have to keep educating them till we are beet red in our faces.. lol

your quote: If the child gets exposed to both and doing good and wants to be mainstreamed in an oral only program or be in a signing program, they have that choice. I believe in empowering the children especially deaf children.

I agree!!! give them many options that they are comfortable with... nothing wrong with trying out something.. smile...

 

[rockdrummer]

Originally Posted by rockdrummer
Many people including deaf, deaf educators and hearing have been involved in the evolution of the various approaches.

And you are wrong. Deaf and deaf educators have been involved in the evolution of such approaches as TC and Bi-Bi. But, the oral method and mainstreaming....thanks to cochlear implantation, the most often used methods now--are completely hearing based methods and manners of placement.

I'm sorry, Which part of my statement is wrong?

For me what's more important than who invented the methods is why they were invented and if they are effective. Take cued speech for example. Why was it invented and by whom.

Dr. Cornett said that he saw the need for a new system of deaf communication when he found that test results of hearing-impaired students were surprisingly low. According to Dr. Cornett, sign language, although an effective method of communication among the deaf, is a language in and of itself. Because its syntax differs from that of English, it does not lend itself to the acquisition of reading skills. His cued speech system was designed to help the deaf improve reading comprehension and speed. And research has shown that it is often successful.
Source:R. Orin Cornett Dies; Invented Cued Speech (washingtonpost.com)

Personally, I am glad for the various methods and the choices there are because it's known that not every method works well for everybody. I'ts a matter of choice and having the ability to adapt a method that works. If someone decides to get a CI it seems logical to try the oral approach. If that fails then fall back on something else. The fact that there are choices is a good thing.

 

[jillio]

I don't know.. who ARE they attempting to serve? Does it matter? If a neighbor shows up at your house..and offers you some cheese that he bought as a gift for you while he was in France.. But he did not realize you were lactose intolarent.. would you refuse the gift and tell him that he hurt your feelings..and did not consult with you first about your gift?.. And then call him arrogant because he assumed that you liked cheese in the first place.. Of course not! If you were a decent human being you would accept the gift.. say thank you.. and either throw it away.. or better yet.. re-gift it!!

Now.. i realize this situation is a bit silly.. but.. do you see my point? If someone wants to make a contribution to the community.. I say go for it.. at least they are wanting to become an active part of that community..

I see the point you are trying to make, but your comparison is fallicious in nature. Lactose intolerance and a gift of cheese can hardly make an adequate comparison to liguistic and cultural issues that affect an indivual for a life time.

--



Again with the blanket statements.. Your saying that hearing mentors and teachers have no other care in their hearts other then to try to get their deaf students to become more like hearing students.. You do realize that the parents of these deaf children are the ones who make these choices.. There are MANY options you can do to raise a deaf child. You have pointed most of them out.. but the fact is.. most deaf children are born to hearing parents.. They want their child to hear, and be able to function in the hearing world

I have a hearing friend who's son was born deaf.. he received a CI when he was around three years old.. He is now 10 and being mainstreamed through the Florida school system with fairly good success. He goes to a speech therapist twice a week to improve his oral communication skills, which his father has told me is going to be reduced because he is doing very well. His grades are excellent for any student.. but no.. he does not know much ASL as he has forgotten most of what his father and myself taught him.. or anything about Deaf culture.. But I do not think that is either a bad thing.. or an issue.. I am just proud of him for making good grades in school and being a good kid.. I do not think a parent could hope for anything more.

I did not say all, you are simply assuming that I meant all. In fact, I did not denote a number at all. Its wonderful that your friends son is doing so well, but it has also been proven empirically that even CI children raised in an oral only environment miss some of not only formalized communications in the classroom, but also a large part of the incidental information that is so critical to education. And also that the gaps in performance when compared to age matched hearing peer groups widen with age.


We have switched from making blanket statements of saying that the inventors SEE, PSE, and CS.. as well as mainstreaming are all arrogant.. to education.. while I can see the topics are linked due to the intricate nature of education and communication.. I think you are just wanting to use your original statment as a springboard to bash these types of educational styles..

Incorrect. This was not so much a statement of an educational nature, but one of a sociological nature.

Jillio, I know you have an issue with deaf education that does not include ASL.. I have seen it in your previous posts.. Thats fine.. but calling these inventors of different types of communication arrogant because YOU think they had no input from deaf individuals when they formed these methods of communication is ridiculous.

I don't ahve an issue with deaf education, per se, but with an oral only education for deaf children. The reason, literacy rates, for one. The other, social difficulties experienced by numerous deaf children limited to an oral only enviornment.

 

[Jasper]

did not say all, you are simply assuming that I meant all. In fact, I did not denote a number at all.

true.. you did not.. but when you simply state "hearing people" it is much like saying "I hate Florida" that would assume I hate everything located inside of Florida as well.. but.. in reality.. I just hate the tourist seasons.. and traffic.. ohh and straight roads!

I don't ahve an issue with deaf education, per se, but with an oral only education for deaf children. The reason, literacy rates, for one. The other, social difficulties experienced by numerous deaf children limited to an oral only enviornment.

I think literacy rates are low throughout the deaf community.. But I see your point, however you still see the low literacy rates and "social difficulties" with children taught in other learning enviroments as well. That is a bigger issue that should be addresses before splitting hairs over HOW they are taught. We should be worrying over WHAT they are taught.

 

[rockdrummer]

Part of being literate is having the ability to read and write. While I believe ASL is a good language for personal communication it doesn't follow the rules for proper english and as I have learned it doesn't lend itself to learning to read and write. This is one of the reasons I believe there are so many different methods. To help educate and to help the deaf population become literate. I agree and I've said this before that some methods are better depending on the severity of hearing loss. Oral might work well for those that have some residual hearing. I can't imagine it being effective for profoundly deaf individuals but I don't have access to statistics to prove one way or the other.

 

[jillio]

I'm sorry, Which part of my statement is wrong?

For me what's more important than who invented the methods is why they were invented and if they are effective. Take cued speech for example. Why was it invented and by whom.

Personally, I am glad for the various methods and the choices there are because it's known that not every method works well for everybody. I'ts a matter of choice and having the ability to adapt a method that works. If someone decides to get a CI it seems logical to try the oral approach. If that fails then fall back on something else. The fact that there are choices is a good thing.

I've already pointed out whatpart of your statement is incorrect.

 

[melabrock]

My big concern for the oral only approach is on young children and babies because we dont know how much they are able to pick up or not and when they get older and showing signs of language delays due to not having full access to language, then switch to ASL but at the age when they should be learning how to read and write not learning another language. Know what I mean?

This is definitely a great point, shel.

I recently saw the documentary "For a Deaf Son" and was really frustrated that oralism was the only approach they used for Thomas up until he was four or so, because his language skills weren't that great. My sister-in-law began teaching my oldest nephew some ASL when he was a baby so he could ask for milk, water, more food, etc before he could talk, and it really helped the communication between him and his parents.

My experience is really limited, admitting that right now... my perspective is that if deaf kids are exposed to sign language first, giving them a firm, full langage, they'll have an easier time picking up english later on, whether it's for reading and writing purposes, or speech as well.

 

[rockdrummer]

I've already pointed out whatpart of your statement is incorrect.

Please humor me. I am trying to follow this.
I said

Originally Posted by rockdrummer
Many people including deaf, deaf educators and hearing have been involved in the evolution of the various approaches.

Then you said

Originally Posted by jillio
And you are wrong. Deaf and deaf educators have been involved in the evolution of such approaches as TC and Bi-Bi. But, the oral method and mainstreaming....thanks to cochlear implantation, the most often used methods now--are completely hearing based methods and manners of placement.

Am I missing something. I don't see an error in what I said. All I said was that many people have been involved in the evolution of the various approaches. Some deaf, some deaf educators and some hearing. What is wrong in that statement?

 

[shel90]

This is definitely a great point, shel.

I recently saw the documentary "For a Deaf Son" and was really frustrated that oralism was the only approach they used for Thomas up until he was four or so, because his language skills weren't that great. My sister-in-law began teaching my oldest nephew some ASL when he was a baby so he could ask for milk, water, more food, etc before he could talk, and it really helped the communication between him and his parents.

My experience is really limited, admitting that right now... my perspective is that if deaf kids are exposed to sign language first, giving them a firm, full langage, they'll have an easier time picking up english later on, whether it's for reading and writing purposes, or speech as well.

That is what I see with those children who were exposed to sign language first..they have command of English as a 2nd language therefore increasing their literacy skills.

Yea, many hearing people are teaching their hearing babies sign so why not the same for deaf children?

 

[melabrock]

That is what I see with those children who were exposed to sign language first..they have command of English as a 2nd language therefore increasing their literacy skills.

Yea, many hearing people are teaching their hearing babies sign so why not the same for deaf children?

I agree...my hearing nephew had no problem developing his English skills after being taught ASL as a baby. In fact, he is a very articulate kid. I can't say for sure if ASL had a hand in that, but I do know for sure that it didn't hinder him in any way. The idea that teaching deaf kids ASL might inhibit their english skills later on is quite absurd to me.

 

[shel90]

I agree...my hearing nephew had no problem developing his English skills after being taught ASL as a baby. In fact, he is a very articulate kid. I can't say for sure if ASL had a hand in that, but I do know for sure that it didn't hinder him in any way. The idea that teaching deaf kids ASL might inhibit their english skills later on is quite absurd to me.

Also there are CODAs too..

 

[rockdrummer]

I agree...my hearing nephew had no problem developing his English skills after being taught ASL as a baby. In fact, he is a very articulate kid. I can't say for sure if ASL had a hand in that, but I do know for sure that it didn't hinder him in any way. The idea that teaching deaf kids ASL might inhibit their english skills later on is quite absurd to me.

Has anybody suggested that learning ASL would inhibet english skills. While ASL doesn't lend itself to aquiring reading and writing skills I don't know that it would inhibit those skills. Are there any studies or research that suggests a benefit to learning ASL first?

 

[shel90]

Has anybody suggested that learning ASL would inhibet english skills. While ASL doesn't lend itself to aquiring reading and writing skills I don't know that it would inhibit those skills. Are there any studies or research that suggests a benefit to learning ASL first?

ASL can lead the children developing a strong language base enabling them to understand the purpose of reading and writing and the differences in the languages when in written form. When a deaf child doesnt have a strong concept of what works around them, they dont know the purpose of ABC's or have print concepts so that is why it is critical that they develop language before they are introduced to reading and writing.

 

[rockdrummer]

ASL can lead the children developing a strong language base enabling them to understand the purpose of reading and writing and the differences in the languages when in written form. When a deaf child doesnt have a strong concept of what works around them, they dont know the purpose of ABC's or have print concepts so that is why it is critical that they develop language before they are introduced to reading and writing.

are there any research or studies to back that up.

 

[shel90]

are there any research or studies to back that up.

I wish I had kept all my research from my grad studies..I will ask my brother who is currently in grad school for the BiBi approach if he has any. I dont return to work until the 20th so it will take me time to get away from the workshops and setting up my classroom to go thru the journals at my work's library.

 

[melabrock]

That is what I see with those children who were exposed to sign language first..they have command of English as a 2nd language therefore increasing their literacy skills.

Yea, many hearing people are teaching their hearing babies sign so why not the same for deaf children?

Has anybody suggested that learning ASL would inhibet english skills.

Not on this thread, as far as I remember...but there have been instances where educators for the deaf feel it would inhibit their english skills. I do have reference to it, but the book it's in isn't with me right now, but I promise to look it up and post it later.

And ditto to what Shel said.