Respect for all

I will look for the link to the research I referenced. Sorry about the delay...I've had a hectic couple of days and haven't been on line much. The book sounds like a good resource, too. I haven't read it, but will certainly add it to my list.

I think that one thing that keeps getting overlooked in these discussions is that speech therapy is an adjunct service, not a part of the academic curriculum. Just because the curriculum is taught in an oral manner does not imply that speech therapy is a part of the academic curriculum. When we speak of education, we are referring to academic curriculum. Delivering classroom material in an oral mode of language does not mean that lessons in speech are inherent. Additionally, a classroom is a receptive environment. What we need to be concerned with is not how well a child can speak, but how well they are able to receive information in the classroom from an oral base. The level of speaking skill is not necessarily correlated to the level of reception skill. Being able to speak well does not improve academic functioning. Being able to receive and comprehend the information being presented is the key to improved academic functioning. The teacher's job is to get the information in, not to provide speech therapy.
 
jillio said:
I will look for the link to the research I referenced. Sorry about the delay...I've had a hectic couple of days and haven't been on line much. The book sounds like a good resource, too. I haven't read it, but will certainly add it to my list.

I think that one thing that keeps getting overlooked in these discussions is that speech therapy is an adjunct service, not a part of the academic curriculum. Just because the curriculum is taught in an oral manner does not imply that speech therapy is a part of the academic curriculum. When we speak of education, we are referring to academic curriculum. Delivering classroom material in an oral mode of language does not mean that lessons in speech are inherent. Additionally, a classroom is a receptive environment. What we need to be concerned with is not how well a child can speak, but how well they are able to receive information in the classroom from an oral base. The level of speaking skill is not necessarily correlated to the level of reception skill. Being able to speak well does not improve academic functioning. Being able to receive and comprehend the information being presented is the key to improved academic functioning. The teacher's job is to get the information in, not to provide speech therapy.
Click to expand...

While this may be true for some, I know that personally, my son's speech services are really language services. THere is no focus on his speech at all- only language and his comprehension ....My private speech therapist as well as the school therapist work in coordination with the teacher and her lessons. Any words that are abstract, they will review with my son and find him concrete examples ...To us, it's a safety net if he misses something, and the TOD doesn't catch it... we have this... My son has not received "speech" since he was 5 years old.. no need.. now it's our focus on his language and his comprehension of it.
 
doubletrouble said:
While this may be true for some, I know that personally, my son's speech services are really language services. THere is no focus on his speech at all- only language and his comprehension ....My private speech therapist as well as the school therapist work in coordination with the teacher and her lessons. Any words that are abstract, they will review with my son and find him concrete examples ...To us, it's a safety net if he misses something, and the TOD doesn't catch it... we have this... My son has not received "speech" since he was 5 years old.. no need.. now it's our focus on his language and his comprehension of it.
Click to expand...

That is more of a whole language approach, and one that is much more beneficial than speech therapy. I wonder, though, how much more beneficial it would be to focus on a whole language approach even prior to those children reaching school age, rather than a speech skills approach birth -5, and language after age 5. This is where the gaps seem to lie.

Likewise, if information was being presented in a conceptual manner in the classroom, would the remedical vocab work really be necessary?

Not arguing...simply asking for your views.
 
flip said:
Whatever that is, that sounds creative, let's hope advanced bionics don't read those threads :giggle: Hope that does not involve implanting babies before they are born?
Click to expand...

Unfortuantely, that is exactly what it would involve.
 
jillio said:
I will look for the link to the research I referenced. Sorry about the delay...I've had a hectic couple of days and haven't been on line much. The book sounds like a good resource, too. I haven't read it, but will certainly add it to my list.

I think that one thing that keeps getting overlooked in these discussions is that speech therapy is an adjunct service, not a part of the academic curriculum. Just because the curriculum is taught in an oral manner does not imply that speech therapy is a part of the academic curriculum. When we speak of education, we are referring to academic curriculum. Delivering classroom material in an oral mode of language does not mean that lessons in speech are inherent. Additionally, a classroom is a receptive environment. What we need to be concerned with is not how well a child can speak, but how well they are able to receive information in the classroom from an oral base. The level of speaking skill is not necessarily correlated to the level of reception skill. Being able to speak well does not improve academic functioning. Being able to receive and comprehend the information being presented is the key to improved academic functioning. The teacher's job is to get the information in, not to provide speech therapy.
Click to expand...

I agree but unfortunately my oral deaf ed teachers, regular ed teachers, audis and speech therapists took my good speech as a sign of having the ability to understand what is being said around me most of the time. It was the total opposite. I spent so much time counting the patterns on the ceiling and on the walls during class. Heck, I even memorized all the Presidents in my History class. What a great lesson I learned throughout the whole year, huh?
 
doubletrouble said:
While this may be true for some, I know that personally, my son's speech services are really language services. THere is no focus on his speech at all- only language and his comprehension ....My private speech therapist as well as the school therapist work in coordination with the teacher and her lessons. Any words that are abstract, they will review with my son and find him concrete examples ...To us, it's a safety net if he misses something, and the TOD doesn't catch it... we have this... My son has not received "speech" since he was 5 years old.. no need.. now it's our focus on his language and his comprehension of it.
Click to expand...

You are right people keep talking speech therapy. My children stop receiving speech therapy in school when they were kindergarten. The way I learned about the type of program you have going for your son is the top down. You only need a speech therapist when you are correcting an arti issue but with a lot CI kids you do not need to go this route.
 
shel90 said:
I agree but unfortunately my oral deaf ed teachers, regular ed teachers, audis and speech therapists took my good speech as a sign of having the ability to understand what is being said around me most of the time. It was the total opposite. I spent so much time counting the patterns on the ceiling and on the walls during class. Heck, I even memorized all the Presidents in my History class. What a great lesson I learned throughout the whole year, huh?
Click to expand...

Your story could be repeated by untold nuimbers of deaf children restricted to an oral only environment. In fact, it has been, on this forum alone.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are right people keep talking speech therapy. My children stop receiving speech therapy in school when they were kindergarten. The way I learned about the type of program you have going for your son is the top down. You only need a speech therapist when you are correcting an arti issue but with a lot CI kids you do not need to go this route.
Click to expand...

So, CI kids develop perfect articulation just as the result of being implanted? And perfect articulation is equal to perfect comprehension? And if so, why is remedial work necessary?
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are right people keep talking speech therapy. My children stop receiving speech therapy in school when they were kindergarten. The way I learned about the type of program you have going for your son is the top down. You only need a speech therapist when you are correcting an arti issue but with a lot CI kids you do not need to go this route.
Click to expand...

This does not make sense when observing all those deaf children with speech issues, even if they was implanted early and exposured to AVT.

Can you document this statement you are making here?
 
shel90 said:
Yes, Jillo I would like a link. Flip, I googled about Japan..couldnt find anything about it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I discovered that, too. Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, China and some of the other countries in the far east are truly inaccessible through the net if one don't know their written codes :( So this rumor is to me yet to be confirmed or rejected.
 
You are welcome to read the information posted at the following:

http://www.teachersandfamilies.com/sped/prof/deaf/deaf-biling.htmlre

During the last two decades bilingual-bicultural education programs (programs which recognize that children may come from a different culture and speak a different language in the home than in the school) have flourished in the United States as the ethnic composition of children attending public schools has become more diverse. In the late 1980's discussion of bilingual-bicultural education for children who are Deaf brought about new theories. (A capital D is used by bilingual-bicultural programs to identify deafness as a cultural, rather than a medical, issue.) According to Schirmer (1994) "the impetus for implementing bilingual-bicultural programs for children who are deaf comes from two sources: (1) The Deaf community, who advocate for the right to pass on their language and culture to succeeding generations; (2) the overall disappointing achievement of youngsters who are deaf. (p. 98) Althoughsmall gains have been made in the levels of reading achieved by the average child who is deaf, overall achievement remains considerably lower compared to their hearing peers despite ardent attempts to teach Deaf children through Total Communication (see ERIC Digest E559) and oral approaches (see ERIC Digest E551).

Addditional impetus for bilingual-bicultural programs comes from Sweden, where, in 1981, after years of grassroots activism by Deaf adults and parents of children who are Deaf, the Swedish Parliament passed a law stating that people who are Deaf need to be bilingual in order to function successfully in the family, school, and society (Mahshie, 1995). What does it mean to be bilingual-bicultural?


Or here:

Changes in Teacher Education Curriculum in Sweden | DEAF-INFO

Or here:

Reading Education for Hearing Impaired and Deaf Individuals

Or here:

Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI)- PVD Chair of Deaf Studies

Or here:

Literary Studies in English for the Deaf | Stockholm Challenge

That should keep you busy for awhile.
 
jillio said:
You are welcome to read the information posted at the following:

http://www.teachersandfamilies.com/sped/prof/deaf/deaf-biling.htmlre

During the last two decades bilingual-bicultural education programs (programs which recognize that children may come from a different culture and speak a different language in the home than in the school) have flourished in the United States as the ethnic composition of children attending public schools has become more diverse. In the late 1980's discussion of bilingual-bicultural education for children who are Deaf brought about new theories. (A capital D is used by bilingual-bicultural programs to identify deafness as a cultural, rather than a medical, issue.) According to Schirmer (1994) "the impetus for implementing bilingual-bicultural programs for children who are deaf comes from two sources: (1) The Deaf community, who advocate for the right to pass on their language and culture to succeeding generations; (2) the overall disappointing achievement of youngsters who are deaf. (p. 98) Althoughsmall gains have been made in the levels of reading achieved by the average child who is deaf, overall achievement remains considerably lower compared to their hearing peers despite ardent attempts to teach Deaf children through Total Communication (see ERIC Digest E559) and oral approaches (see ERIC Digest E551).

Addditional impetus for bilingual-bicultural programs comes from Sweden, where, in 1981, after years of grassroots activism by Deaf adults and parents of children who are Deaf, the Swedish Parliament passed a law stating that people who are Deaf need to be bilingual in order to function successfully in the family, school, and society (Mahshie, 1995). What does it mean to be bilingual-bicultural?


Or here:

Changes in Teacher Education Curriculum in Sweden | DEAF-INFO

Or here:

Reading Education for Hearing Impaired and Deaf Individuals

Or here:

Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI)- PVD Chair of Deaf Studies

Or here:

Literary Studies in English for the Deaf | Stockholm Challenge

That should keep you busy for awhile.
Click to expand...


Good for the Swedens !!!
 
shel90 said:
Good for the Swedens !!!
Click to expand...

Yeah. They are really very progressive in their philosophies toward Deaf Ed and social policies.

I wonder.....how many of the oral only and TC proponents read the links I provided?
 
jillio said:
Yeah. They are really very progressive in their philosophies toward Deaf Ed and social policies.

I wonder.....how many of the oral only and TC proponents read the links I provided?
Click to expand...

I hope they take the time to read the links cuz they support what we have been trying to explain how important it is to build a strong first language that is 100% accessible to deaf children and use that to learn a 2nd language/develop higher literacy skills in English or any other language for that matter.

We have been here for 2 years and I feel that many still discredit us or call us anti-CI..whatever.
 
shel90 said:
I hope they take the time to read the links cuz they support what we have been trying to explain how important it is to build a strong first language that is 100% accessible to deaf children and use that to learn a 2nd language/develop higher literacy skills in English or any other language for that matter.

We have been here for 2 years and I feel that many still discredit us or call us anti-CI..whatever.
Click to expand...

And those that attempt to discredit us don't bother to read the research and the studies that we are citing, nor do they provide research to back their position. They just call names and make unfounded accusations.
 
jillio said:
And those that attempt to discredit us don't bother to read the research and the studies that we are citing, nor do they provide research to back their position. They just call names and make unfounded accusations.
Click to expand...

Since this thread is about respect for all so if they want respect for all, then they should apply it to themselves too.
 
Back
Top