Reasonable accomodation?

[A]

That's what bi-bi advoctes say every single day. If you don't learn a soild language in young childhood you will be critically handicapped and unable to ever learn fluent language. That is why they insist that ASL is the only choice for young deaf children.

If these adults did not have access to ASL from the start then it shows that ASL can be learned at a later date with great fluency. If they did have ASL from the start, why didn't they learn to read and write? I thought having ASL as your first language makes English acquisition easy??

I assume that the school she went to school that was TC and she only know ASL . Most school of the deaf back then were oralism (but the kids were more bi-bi because they were signing to each other.. and get their hands slapped) later SEE/PSE/TC at least that's what I reading from deaf school histories.. and that school today had lower expectation of writing. Which why we feel that deaf school should strengthen literacy.

 

[Daredevel7]

I assume that the school she went to school that was TC . Most school of the deaf back then were oralism (but the kids were more bi-bi because they were signing to each other.. and get their hands slapped) later SEE/PSE/TC at least that's what I reading from deaf school histories.. and that school today had lower expectation of writing. Which why we feel that deaf school should strengthen literacy.

This is kinda off topic but I think Im unclear by the "timeline of trend of the deaf services". I've had several conflicting statements regarding deaf education such as:

1) "Most schools of the deaf back then were oralism"
2) "The student population of the state supported deaf schools are on the decline."
3) "Ever since the Milan conference, oralism has been on the rise. But now that is changing."
4) "More deaf students are becoming mainstreamed or are in deaf programs. That's why more deaf schools are closing."

Etc, etc.

Can someone clear this up for me? PM me if you don't want to derail the thread.

 

[faire_jour]

I assume that the school she went to school that was TC and she only know ASL . Most school of the deaf back then were oralism (but the kids were more bi-bi because they were signing to each other.. and get their hands slapped) later SEE/PSE/TC at least that's what I reading from deaf school histories.. and that school today had lower expectation of writing. Which why we feel that deaf school should strengthen literacy.

So, assuming that all these wonderful signers with poor writing skills were in a TC enviroment, wouldn't that mean that TC can equip a child with wonderful language skills?

 

[A]

because the mainstreamed school are providing interpreters. And people are accepting ASL as a language and deaf culture.

 

[A]

So, assuming that all these wonderful signers with poor writing skills were in a TC enviroment, wouldn't that mean that TC can equip a child with wonderful language skills?

It is just not their language. and FJ take a break, will ya?

 

[Daredevel7]

because the mainstreamed school are providing interpreters. And people are accepting ASL as a language and deaf culture.

I see what you mean. The use of ASL is rising but not the use of state supported residential schools. Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[faire_jour]

It is just not their language. and FJ take a break, will ya?

It has been said on this site, over and over, that if a child is not given access to a fluent, accessable language, right from the start, they will be chronically unable to learn a language and it will hae profound affects on their later life and cognition.

If these ASL users didn't have ASL from the start, how did they learn to use the language fluently and with such skill? If they did have ASL from the start, why weren't they able to use that language base to learn written English? If ASL-English truly is the only "right" way to eduate a deaf child, this needs an explanation...

 

[Tousi]

Seems like you can have superior ASL skills without a strong first language foundation.

Maybe because I am in a hurry or missing something but I would have thought having superior ASL skills IS the strong first language foundation of which we are speaking. However, Shel's saying that these folks are adults now which makes me think that, when they were young, no one helped them make that transferrence of high ASL skills into literacy in English........

 

[A]

I think they've been visual all along . Anyway, once the school have stability of ASL and not a mixture of sign languages, Over time, they'll know how to teach deaf people English Language properly. But right now, they need stability just like hearing school use English and only English as their stability to teach. Deaf education is just full of experiments. And I wouldn't use the "she have such good writing" to compromise their social needs anyhow, we need to learn how to work with both because it is obvious that some deaf people want ASL in their life and we should not try to fight the system but to work with it.

I'm sure it took a long time properly teach hearing students with LD learn how to read and write (in fact they are still learning the correct approach).

 

[jillio]

That's what bi-bi advoctes say every single day. If you don't learn a soild language in young childhood you will be critically handicapped and unable to ever learn fluent language. That is why they insist that ASL is the only choice for young deaf children.

If these adults did not have access to ASL from the start then it shows that ASL can be learned at a later date with great fluency. If they did have ASL from the start, why didn't they learn to read and write? I thought having ASL as your first language makes English acquisition easy??

Fallicious logic. There is a difference between having "superior skills" and using a language to fluency. There are cognitive implications to fluency that are not being considered.

 

[jillio]

So, assuming that all these wonderful signers with poor writing skills were in a TC enviroment, wouldn't that mean that TC can equip a child with wonderful language skills?

No. This is more fallicious logic.

 

[shel90]

That's what bi-bi advoctes say every single day. If you don't learn a soild language in young childhood you will be critically handicapped and unable to ever learn fluent language. That is why they insist that ASL is the only choice for young deaf children.

If these adults did not have access to ASL from the start then it shows that ASL can be learned at a later date with great fluency. If they did have ASL from the start, why didn't they learn to read and write? I thought having ASL as your first language makes English acquisition easy??

Remember that BiBi education didnt start until the mid 90s...these adults were in their late 30s and beyond so do the math. :roll:

 

[shel90]

Maybe because I am in a hurry or missing something but I would have thought having superior ASL skills IS the strong first language foundation of which we are speaking. However, Shel's saying that these folks are adults now which makes me think that, when they were young, no one helped them make that transferrence of high ASL skills into literacy in English........

Thank you..

 

[Daredevel7]

Maybe because I am in a hurry or missing something but I would have thought having superior ASL skills IS the strong first language foundation of which we are speaking. However, Shel's saying that these folks are adults now which makes me think that, when they were young, no one helped them make that transferrence of high ASL skills into literacy in English........

Shel also said that all deaf schools teach them to write, sooo........

Let's assume all deaf schools teach them to write to the best of their ability and all deaf people went to a school, whether it is deaf or not.

Generally speaking:
1) A deaf child who learned ASL very early should be able to write (just like a general hearing child should be able to write)
2) A oral deaf child who never learned ASL may or may not learn to write, but since they never learned ASL, they do not count as those who have "superior ASL skills".
3) An oral (or other?) deaf child who was failed by the school system and learned ASL in his/her later years and became very fluent in it, but may not be able to write well.


Seems like the people who have superior ASL skills (but bad written English) as mentioned by Shel are more likely to be #3..... right?

Is the probability of a deaf child who learned ASL very early and is in an ASL environment (deaf school) to fail at English the same as a hearing child at a hearing school?

 

[shel90]

Shel also said that all deaf schools teach them to write, sooo........

Let's assume all deaf schools teach them to write to the best of their ability and all deaf people went to a school, whether it is deaf or not.

Generally speaking:
1) A deaf child who learned ASL very early should be able to write (just like a general hearing child should be able to write)
2) A oral deaf child who never learned ASL may or may not learn to write, but since they never learned ASL, they do not count as those who have "superior ASL skills".
3) An oral (or other?) deaf child who was failed by the school system and learned ASL in his/her later years and became very fluent in it, but may not be able to write well.


Seems like the people who have superior ASL skills as mentioned by Shel are more likely to be #3..... right?

Is the probability of a deaf child who learned ASL very early and is in an ASL environment (deaf school) to fail at English the same as a hearing child at a hearing school?

I can only speculate on how they learned ASL...Back then, in those times, most deaf schools were TC but they never told me if they went to a deaf school or were mainstreamed. I never asked. All I knew that they were beautiful signers and learned that they couldnt find jobs because of their weak English skills. Now, that was based on their perspectives.

I thought this thread was about deaf people needing advanced English in order to get jobs and if the accodomations were reasonable or not.

I was thinking advanced English all this time and thought deaf people couldnt find jobs because their English wasnt advanced but simple.

Seems like I got confused to what the thread was really about.

 

[jillio]

Shel also said that all deaf schools teach them to write, sooo........

Let's assume all deaf schools teach them to write to the best of their ability and all deaf people went to a school, whether it is deaf or not.

Generally speaking:
1) A deaf child who learned ASL very early should be able to write (just like a general hearing child should be able to write)
2) A oral deaf child who never learned ASL may or may not learn to write, but since they never learned ASL, they do not count as those who have "superior ASL skills".
3) An oral (or other?) deaf child who was failed by the school system and learned ASL in his/her later years and became very fluent in it, but may not be able to write well.


Seems like the people who have superior ASL skills (but bad written English) as mentioned by Shel are more likely to be #3..... right?

Is the probability of a deaf child who learned ASL very early and is in an ASL environment (deaf school) to fail at English the same as a hearing child at a hearing school?

Who knows? But we do have empirical evidence that deaf of deaf who learn ASL as their first language perform academically, in all domains, on par with hearing peers.

 

[Daredevel7]

I can only speculate on how they learned ASL...Back then, in those times, most deaf schools were TC but they never told me if they went to a deaf school or were mainstreamed. I never asked. All I knew that they were beautiful signers and learned that they couldnt find jobs because of their weak English skills. Now, that was based on their perspectives.

I thought this thread was about deaf people needing advanced English in order to get jobs and if the accodomations were reasonable or not.

I was thinking advanced English all this time and thought deaf people couldnt find jobs because their English wasnt advanced but simple.

Seems like I got confused to what the thread was really about.

It IS getting off topic. Sorry, I was just curious.

Actually, the thread was about: should coworkers take training to learn about the deaf style writing by their deaf coworker?

And I added more to the scenario. Should the coworkers be forced to read and try to interpret the deaf style writing if writing is part of the job?

I think we can agree that deaf style writing is VERY distinctive from less than stellar English grammar/spelling.

 

[Bottesini]

It IS getting off topic. Sorry, I was just curious.

Actually, the thread was about: should coworkers take training to learn about the deaf style writing by their deaf coworker?

And I added more to the scenario. Should the coworkers be forced to read and try to interpret the deaf style writing if writing is part of the job?

I think we can agree that deaf style writing is VERY distinctive from less than stellar English grammar/spelling.

No we can't. It is not the AD way to agree on anything!

 

[Daredevel7]

Who knows? But we do have empirical evidence that deaf of deaf who learn ASL as their first language perform academically, in all domains, on par with hearing peers.

I have seen this evidence myself, but for young kids. Have you seen evidence for those who are 18 and older? I won't ask you to show me, just want to know if it's out there.

 

[A]

did you know that deaf people can read each other's writing in deaf style (I'm assuming you mean ASL style)

They even have textbook in ASL