Start with spoken language or ASL?

[Jiro]

I was born with 85-95 dB loss in both ears. Is this not deaf enough? Don't say that oralism won't work PERIOD. Oralism most likely will NOT work for those who are severely profound. Therein lies the difference.

it's not that it's "deaf enough." It's still a hearing damage.. hearing disability.. or simply "deaf." I am deaf too but that term can be confusing for general population. Most associated the term "deaf" with a complete loss of hearing.

I am severely profound with about 120 dB loss in both ears. Oralism somehow work for me but you are right - it will MOST LIKELY not work for those. And yes... therein lies the difference... which is why this thread got hot over which LANGUAGE to use first depending on the degree of hearing damage. BUT... the thing is - I think ASL should be taught first at ANY sign of hearing damage (except below moderate damage). That's just my opinion and that's why I love America - I get to choose whatever the hell I want for my future deaf child. So can you.

 

[Buffalo]

Also, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to convince anyone that oral skills are the best. I want people to convince ME that Bi Bi approach is the best for the majority. While I believe that one size does not fit all, I also believe that a majority of deaf people will have best success with one general method.

If there has to be one method for all deaf/HH kids, I would pick Bi-Bi because it is all inclusive. ASL is used in classrooms to insure that ALL kids understand what was being taught regardless of how much they can hear. Speech therapy is being used to make sure that the kids can use their oral skills to the maximum.

I don't understand why some people don't like Bi-Bi. I think it is because of the ASL part and they bought the myth that ASL will cause kids to have poor English skills or poor speech skills. That's is bunk!

Do you want a solid proof that oral only doesn't work? Look at Braidwood 2006 school scores. Braidwood School for The Deaf and you will see that none of the kids make to level 5 or 6 of English. Their math is better than Science. Look at the chart and see how far behind they are compared to the England's averages. In case, you or anybody else know what Braidwood school is, it is pro-oral and still is. It was founded in 1790.

 

[shel90]

Then I would appreciate if you would go correct your post. Thank you.

 

[shel90]

You just gave evidence that one size does not fit all.

And is it ok for my brother to suffer language delays like that? That's my whole point.

 

[shel90]

I was born with 85-95 dB loss in both ears. Is this not deaf enough? Don't say that oralism won't work PERIOD. Oralism most likely will NOT work for those who are severely profound. Therein lies the difference.

The boy I was speaking of is hard of hearing ...in the 50 db range. *shrug*

 

[Daredevel7]

And is it ok for my brother to suffer language delays like that? That's my whole point.

Maybe its too early in the morning, but I don't understand this response. I said that you gave evidence that one size does not fit all, and bam whammo you said that? I'm confused.

 

[Daredevel7]

The boy I was speaking of is hard of hearing ...in the 50 db range. *shrug*

Jiro said that oralism will obviously not work for those who are severe/profoundly deaf. I was merely asking if he doesn't think I fall into the category of sever/profoundly deaf since oralism worked for me.

 

[Daredevel7]

I want to clarify something. A few people are under the impression that I am all about oralism ONLY. This is most definitely not the case. I am all for different methods for different people, and people HAVE convinced me that for the general deaf child population, Bi-Bi may be the best way to go. However, if you refer to the original post, I did not ask the opinion of which is the best school environment (I am sure this has been debated over and over), but rather if it is worth it at all to try oralism? Every approach mentioned will have a "child left behind" whether you want to believe it or not. (Which is why there can't be one method for everyone).

Every method has a con (those cons are my opinions, only):
Oralism may delay those who do not have great lipreading skills. (I've seen several instances of this on this thread and a family member of mine)
Bi-Bi approach may cause the child to rely on ASL and not so much on speech. (I have also seen instances of this) Also may hold back those who could have done well with oralism.
ASL only... Im sorry, I do not advocate this AT ALL. This is my opinion, I am strongly against this. If they learned to read, then that's much better, but still.

Anyway, my point is....I'm asking should we even bother with oralism? People have said over and over "ASL helped me to speak/develop/etc. It does not cause language delays at all" So, I'm asking, are you so SURE and completely confident in the powers of ASL that we don't have to worry about those kids who could have done well with oralism?

 

[Jiro]

I want to clarify something. A few people are under the impression that I am all about oralism ONLY. This is most definitely not the case. I am all for different methods for different people, and people HAVE convinced me that for the general deaf child population, Bi-Bi may be the best way to go. However, if you refer to the original post, I did not ask the opinion of which is the best school environment (I am sure this has been debated over and over), but rather if it is worth it at all to try oralism? Every approach mentioned will have a "child left behind" whether you want to believe it or not. (Which is why there can't be one method for everyone).

Every method has a con (those cons are my opinions, only):
Oralism may delay those who do not have great lipreading skills. (I've seen several instances of this on this thread and a family member of mine)
Bi-Bi approach may cause the child to rely on ASL and not so much on speech. (I have also seen instances of this) Also may hold back those who could have done well with oralism.
ASL only... Im sorry, I do not advocate this AT ALL. This is my opinion, I am strongly against this. If they learned to read, then that's much better, but still.

Anyway, my point is....I'm asking should we even bother with oralism? People have said over and over "ASL helped me to speak/develop/etc. It does not cause language delays at all" So, I'm asking, are you so SURE and completely confident in the powers of ASL that we don't have to worry about those kids who could have done well with oralism?

Things did get confusing but I don't think it was about you advocating oralism only. I think you (or somebody else) were advocating that ORALISM should be taught first.... then ASL. Thus.... many pages of debate.

 

[loml]

Daredevel7

Relying so much on ASL that speech is just too hard?

First, thanks you to all who have been providing the opinions/expereinces for this thread. It has been most interesting.

Daredevel7 - I wish to express an opinion based on my experiences. I believe that many people (professionals/families) overlook the tool of Cued Speech and the value that it can bring to the learning of a spoken language.
Albeit, cueing does not teach articulation, it IS visual cues of "sound".

ASL and spoken language, for me are to completely different skills.

 

[Cheri]

Every method has a con (those cons are my opinions, only):
Oralism may delay those who do not have great lipreading skills. (I've seen several instances of this on this thread and a family member of mine)

Not only that, but if you think about it, some teachers intends to forget that they have a deaf person in their class room, sometimes a teacher will face the board and start lecturing, a deaf person might missed out on some of the lecture. That won't give a deaf person full access to information. You know what I mean? But, I don't think that would be a problem in a small class room, but in a big classroom with other hearing people.

Anyway, my point is....I'm asking should we even bother with oralism? People have said over and over "ASL helped me to speak/develop/etc. It does not cause language delays at all" So, I'm asking, are you so SURE and completely confident in the powers of ASL that we don't have to worry about those kids who could have done well with oralism?

ASL did not helped me with speech, it was cued and oral. I think deaf children should be allowed access to both (signs (doesn't matter which signs) and speech) all the way in the classroom, out the classroom, I’m aware that some deaf people and some hearing parents might not agree with me. But, that's okay. I have my views and they have theirs.

 

[Cheri]

Jiro said that oralism will obviously not work for those who are severe/profoundly deaf. I was merely asking if he doesn't think I fall into the category of sever/profoundly deaf since oralism worked for me.

He's wrong, if it doesn't work, then why do I have an excellent speech skills?, most people thinks I'm hearing, when I tell them I'm not, I'm deaf. They wouldn't believe it.

 

[jillio]

My question has a purpose. It is to see if you believe that a deaf child having higher oral skills would make a difference in how s/he should be taught. If you believe that it does not make a difference, then bi-bi would work for them too, right? I'm striving for an ideal world. In a school, there is a minimum baseline in terms of development of a student based on their age/grade. However, some kids advance to the next grade. This school ALLOWS them to, because their method allows a minimum level of progression but does not have a maximum. This allows BOTH the general population and advanced kids to progress at their own individual rate. I'm trying to apply the same concept to the development of deaf children. Maybe I'm being naive, but at least Im thinking about it rather than automatically pointing one specific method.

Your question is based on a situation that has not occurred, not is it likely to occur.

Yes, Bi-Bo would work for the majority of deaf children. Oral skills have absolutley nothing to do with the premise of a bilingual/bicultural education. Simply because a child has good oral skills in no way implies that they would not benefit from an environment in which they are able to access 100% of the curriculum 100% of the time. You are operating on the assumption that good oral skills equates to no need for visually presented information.

Even hearing children benefit from a bilingual environment. Why would you think it would be beneficial to a deaf child?

 

[jillio]

where is the evidence that supports your claim? There aren't enough bibi schools and/or programs available to make it a viable option and lets not forget that some that claim to be bibi really are not. Consequences? Really? Your crystal ball works better than mine?

The evidence is all over the place, RD. Search for it. And there is also considerable historical evidence to support a bi-bi environment educationally. There are many good books out there on the history of deaf education.

Those that claim to be bi-bi but aren't can't very well be included in an analysis of a bi-bi program, now can they?

I'm not using a crystal ball. I'm using historical and current statistics regarding the academic functioning of deaf children and the effects of such on the deaf adult. You would do well to do the same.

 

[jillio]

Anyone that limits pedagogy to a single approach is really doing more of a disservice especially when there is insufficient evidence to prove that it works for the majority. The viability of the claims really are not a sufficient foundation for such an argument.

Bi-bi is not pedagogy. It is a philosophy. Perhaps you should become familiar on the differences between the two.

 

[jillio]

while i personally do not know SEE, that does seem to be the better choice when it comes down to SEE vs. ASL. if SEE if closer to spoken english then it will help the childs comprehension of it. ASL, it seems to me, would actually further confuse them since placement of words and grammar structure is different.
almost like english vs. spanish (or even french) where its like adjective/noun vs. noun/adjective. (for example "green tea" vs. "te verte" - i.e. tea green)

Perhaps you should learn something about SEE, and the linguistic processing of the brain before you decide which would be best then. You are attempting to draw a conclusion while admitted having only part of the knowledge necessary to do so.

 

[jillio]

OK.. I agree there are always exceptions to the rule. I consider myself an exception to the rules in many ways. We should talk about what is best based in individual circumstances. Deaf kids born to non-signing hearing parents vs deaf kids born to deaf native signers.

They are all still deaf children. Why should they be placed at an automatic disadvantage simply because they have hearing parents?

 

[jillio]

I said testing the abilities, not the actual development. It seems to me that my speech therapist (who is also an audiologist) has a high rate in terms of getting her clients mainstreamed by kindergarten. It can't be just luck.

How exactly do you propose to do that? You keep talking about testing potential, and you have yet to come up with any definitive way to test for potential. The experts have yet to come up with any definitive method that can test for potential to develop spoken language. If yopu know of a way to test a deaf infant for spoken language potential, please enlighten us to that procedure. I'm certain that all professionals in the field would love to know exactly how this can be done, and how results can be predicted.

 

[jillio]

If a child doesnt know the different between boy and girl at the age of 8 or older. Pretty easy to identify that the child has language delays.

Also, if a child cannot engage in a discussion regarding abstract concepts by age 8, cannot identify time sequence by age 8, cannot begin to apply critical thinking by age 8, has not begun to develop theory of mind, and is unable to engage in a discussion regarding the world around them, it is pretty evident that the child has language delays. If they are unable to read a passage in a book, and then discuss that passage showing comprehension of an abstract concept, they have language delays. If they are unable to pick up on social cues, and then to discuss the implications of such, they have language delays. Language delays are all encompassing and affect the deaf child's functioning in numerous ways. That is what these posters are failing to recognize. They are basing their ideas of language acquisition based on 1 criteria only....speech production. That indicates quite clearly that their knowledge of the topic is very limited.

 

[jillio]

And if speech is the only goal for success , great for her!

Jillo and I are talking about much more than just speech.

Speech is the lesser criteria when it comes to language development.:roll: