So, will the deaf culture be there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
It isn't speech therapy. It is teaching a language. We are not focused on articulation but instead the ability to understand and use the language. Do you really not understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Then your child is not getting AVT. And there would be no reason to switch her from a Bi-bi program, because that is what they focus on.

Your child is receiving oral training, because the focus is on using and understanding SPOKEN language. The focus of the therapy is the mode, not the language.
 
jillio said:
Sounds more like a TC program than a "dual language" program. BTW...bi-bi, by it's very nature, is a dual language program, as well as a dual culture program. What you have described is an allowance for different modes, not language. That is exactly what TC is all about. And, TC has been shown to provide a confusing linguistic environment that actually impedes fluency.
Click to expand...

No, TLC's main campus in Framingham is not a TC program, it is a bi-bi school. TLC has a separate campus an hour or so away that does employ TC philosophy, and has a very different curriculum and approach to learning, and a greater HOH population. I believe there may be some anti-TC sentiment among the administration and teaching staff in my daughter's school, although it's not overt -- they are professionals who respect different approaches, yet have a preference. At my daughter's school, it is very clearly a bi-bi program with a predominantly Deaf/ASL-only population. Shel has taught there and can describe it far more effectively than I. The modes are maintained very distinctly. There are ASL classes, and -- for a very small population within the school -- there is an acoustic access classroom in which spoken language is used with a handful of CI and HA -aided children in the early ed program, never simcomm -- and teaching is conducted very deliberately in one language or the other, not a mix.
 
jillio said:
Then your child is not getting AVT. And there would be no reason to switch her from a Bi-bi program, because that is what they focus on.

Your child is receiving oral training, because the focus is on using and understanding SPOKEN language. The focus of the therapy is the mode, not the language.
Click to expand...

There is no AVT within a bi-bi school.
 
GrendelQ said:
No, TLC's main campus in Framingham is not a TC program, it is a bi-bi school. TLC has a separate campus an hour or so away that does employ TC philosophy, and has a very different curriculum and approach to learning, and a greater HOH population. I believe there may be some anti-TC sentiment among the administration and teaching staff in my daughter's school, although it's not overt -- they are professionals who respect different approaches, yet have a preference. At my daughter's school, it is very clearly a bi-bi program with a predominantly Deaf/ASL-only population. Shel has taught there and can describe it far more effectively than I. The modes are maintained very distinctly. There are ASL classes, and -- for a very small population within the school -- there is an acoustic access classroom in which spoken language is used with a handful of CI and HA -aided children in the early ed program, never simcomm -- and teaching is conducted very deliberately in one language or the other, not a mix.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. But the description I was referring to gave a different impression.
 
deafskeptic said:
Plus the hearing seem to equate speech skills with language skills.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, I notice that sometimes the Deaf seem to equate writing skills with language skills.
 
GrendelQ said:
That's interesting, I notice that sometimes the Deaf seem to equate writing skills with language skills.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean?

If they can communicate through writing like here on AD, then they are fluent in English or whatever spoken language that is used in their countries.

Language and speech are completely different.
 
jillio said:
I'll take your word for it. But the description I was referring to gave a different impression.
Click to expand...

II can understand that, FJ had the same thought. The school is bi-bi, the particular class my child is in is an unusual extension of that that includes spoken language access. It's odd, I realize, and the idea of a half day with voices off causes hives to break out on hardcore AVT-ers. But right now, it's working very well, we're trying hard to maintain a balance of ASL and spoken English at an equal rate, despite more ASL at school, and more spoken language outside of school.
 
shel90 said:
What is that supposed to mean?

If they can communicate through writing like here on AD, then they are fluent in English or whatever spoken language that is used in their countries.

Language and speech are completely different.
Click to expand...

I'm flipping the previous statement from hearing to deaf intentionally: speech is to the English language exactly as writing is to the English language.
 
jillio said:
shel90 said:
Nope..


just very concerned about deaf children's well being. Many of them end up with language delays and deficients and self-esteem issues all from trying to be hearing when they arent.

I have seen that too many times.

If exposed toboth, they can have that choice to remain in theDeaf culture or not. Since many of you advocate for choices when it comes to implanting children...why are you all against for giving children choices to both worlds?[/QUOTE]

That is the million dollar question. But no one will answer it!:P
Click to expand...

Who here is against that?
Click to expand...
 
GrendelQ said:
That's interesting, I notice that sometimes the Deaf seem to equate writing skills with language skills.
Click to expand...

Writing skills go hand-in-hand with having a grasp of language skills. Speech therapy is about learning how to use your voice. I worked with a speech therapist all my school years to learn how to form letters, especially those that I cannot distinguish (technically, I cannot hear any speech, but I can tell the difference between L and M, whereas I cannot tell the difference between S and X, for example.) So I learned how to form letters, and correctly, as well as how to pronounce long and short vowels, how to say whole words, and whatnot. That is about getting the sound out -- hearing babies eventually say "mama" but I had to be taught how to get that sound out since I could not hear that. It was not about learning the vocabulary that comprises the English language.
 
jillio said:
English is the language, speaking is a mode. Spoken language is not a language in and of itself.
Click to expand...

If you claim that spoken English is not a language in and of itself, you are, by that logic, also stating that written English is not a language in and of itself.
 
jillio said:
Then your child is not getting AVT. And there would be no reason to switch her from a Bi-bi program, because that is what they focus on.

Your child is receiving oral training, because the focus is on using and understanding SPOKEN language. The focus of the therapy is the mode, not the language.
Click to expand...

No, my child is in a school that use ENGLISH to teach all subjects. She is learning and using ENGLISH. It uses spoken English for the majority of communication but also teaches reading and writing. She is not in therapy all day, she is in school.
 
shel90 said:
What is that supposed to mean?

If they can communicate through writing like here on AD, then they are fluent in English or whatever spoken language that is used in their countries.

Language and speech are completely different.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Speech and language are different. It just so happens that you use speech to convey spoken language. Someone can have fabulous spoken language, but poor speech, or perfect speech and terrible spoken language.
 
GrendelQ said:
If you claim that spoken English is not a language in and of itself, you are, by that logic, also stating that written English is not a language in and of itself.
Click to expand...

I think jillio is saying that speech is a mode of English. In order to have good English skills though, you have to understand the structure of the language itself.

I don't know if it's just my imagination or not but hearing seem to allow for greater leeway for grammar errors in speech for both hearing and deaf.

If you have a poor understanding of English, it will show up in prose.
 
AlleyCat said:
Writing skills go hand-in-hand with having a grasp of language skills. Speech therapy is about learning how to use your voice. I worked with a speech therapist all my school years to learn how to form letters, especially those that I cannot distinguish (technically, I cannot hear any speech, but I can tell the difference between L and M, whereas I cannot tell the difference between S and X, for example.) So I learned how to form letters, and correctly, as well as how to pronounce long and short vowels, how to say whole words, and whatnot. That is about getting the sound out -- hearing babies eventually say "mama" but I had to be taught how to get that sound out since I could not hear that. It was not about learning the vocabulary that comprises the English language.
Click to expand...

But that is NOT how therapy today works. The therapy my daughter (and all the deaf kids I know, at all the schools she attended) is about LANGUAGE. Today the therapist was working on higher level vocabulary and prepositions. We played games hiding objects and describing if they were "between" or "next to" or "beneath" other objects. Then we played an "I spy" game with vocabulary that was a little harder. We looked for the "sofa" (instead of couch) and the "jacket" (instead of coat). This isn't about whether or not she makes a perfect "sss" sound, it is about learning LANGUAGE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top