Taking hold .........

[loml]

New Approach on Deaf Literacy Heartening
By BRETT ZONGKER
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 20, 2006; 5:13 AM

WASHINGTON -- Advocates are heartened that a system of teaching deaf children English is beginning to take hold, despite fears among many in the deaf community that it diminishes their culture.

Advocates say a phonetically based technique called cued speech can improve literacy rates among deaf students even if not used primarily for speaking. They point out that the average 18-year-old deaf high school graduate reads on a third- or fourth-grade level.

The system is gaining popularity with new research, a grass-roots movement and new funding aimed at improving reading scores under the federal No Child Left Behind Law. Advocates will mark the 40th anniversary of the system's creation at a conference beginning Thursday in Towson, Md.

American Sign Language has its own vocabulary and grammar, different from English. But cued speech, a phonetically based technique, uses eight hand shapes to make lip reading easier.

For deaf people who may not be able to differentiate between the sounds of the words "bed" and "pet," for instance, the corresponding visual cues help make the English language complete.

However, the idea of cued speech is sensitive in the deaf community, where many consider American Sign Language the central part of deaf culture. Protests erupted this spring at Gallaudet, the nation's only liberal arts college for the deaf, over the incoming president, partly because she had not learned to communicate with sign language until later in life.

"Often in the deaf community, it is thought that cuing is used only for speech purposes," said Amy Crumrine of Germantown, Md., who is among the first generation of deaf adults who grew up using cued speech. "This is not the main purpose of cuing _ it's for literacy."

Research shows that learning about word sounds and how they fit into language are critical elements of learning to read and write, said Gallaudet professor Carol LaSasso.

Crumrine organizes cued speech clinics and family camps as a volunteer and is planning the five-day conference in Towson, which begins Thursday. It honors Dr. R. Orin Cornett, who created cued speech in 1966 while serving as vice president of Gallaudet.

The idea for the new way to teach English came when Cornett, who died in 2002, found few students were reading on campus, said Cornett's son, Robert, an astronomer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. He wanted to provide the same elements of spoken and written English for deaf people.
But use of the communication system has faded at Gallaudet, and the clinics that taught Crumrine's parents and others about cuing are no longer regularly offered on campus.

"His feelings were very hurt by that," Cornett's son said. "This was the thing that he contributed most."

Many deaf people would prefer that deaf babies begin learning ASL from birth. But 95 to 97 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who usually don't learn sign language quickly enough to be able to teach it to their children, LaSasso said.

"You just can't expect them to learn a new language, frankly," LaSasso said. "It's not reasonable."

Many parents can become fluent with cuing in about six months, LaSasso said.

Most cuers are concentrated on the East Coast, but the system is used in all 50 states and has been modified for 67 different languages, said Sarina Roffe, now president of the National Cued Speech Association.

Manually Coded English, which uses sign language to help translate English, has been more widely used over the last 40 years than cued speech, but LaSasso said it has failed to improve literacy rates. Translating the hundreds of thousands of words of English with about 6,000 signs leaves out many words.

"That means the kids are getting fragmented input," LaSasso said. "Compared to the signing of English, cuing more clearly and completely conveys English at the same level that speech does."

Her findings were published in an article with Gallaudet professor Melanie Metzger in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education in 1998. Last spring it was selected for a 100-year commemorative work by Oxford University Press.

New Approach on Deaf Literacy Heartening

 

[Byrdie714]

You are now posting an article that was written over 2 years ago???

 

[AlleyCat]

You are now posting an article that was written over 2 years ago???

^^^ My exact thought.

…..Advocates say a phonetically based technique called cued speech can improve literacy rates among deaf students even if not used primarily for speaking. They point out that the average 18-year-old deaf high school graduate reads on a third- or fourth-grade level.

I’d like to see the statistics for that. Many deaf people go to college, and a 3rd or 4th grade level reading level doesn’t cut it. Even NTID requires an 8th grade or better reading level, and if the average is really 3rd to 4th grade, there would be very few students at NTID.

….. Many deaf people would prefer that deaf babies begin learning ASL from birth. But 95 to 97 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who usually don't learn sign language quickly enough to be able to teach it to their children, LaSasso said.

"You just can't expect them to learn a new language, frankly," LaSasso said. "It's not reasonable."

Many parents can become fluent with cuing in about six months, LaSasso said.

What is not reasonable about hearing parents learning a new language? That’s absurd to think that. Sure, it may take hearing parents a while longer to learn a new language, but even after a week of sign classes they will at least learn some basics for communicating with their child, and it goes from there. It’s not an overnight process, but it is NOT reasonable to assume hearing parents cannot learn a new language, frankly. And in that same six months that parents can become fluent with cueing, as stated in the above quote, those same parents can become quite handy at sign as well. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if those parents aren’t “fluent” in sign at 6 months, being able to communicate with and teach their child (which they can very well do with 6 months’ worth of sign learning) is what is important.

 

[shel90]

^^^ My exact thought.



I’d like to see the statistics for that. Many deaf people go to college, and a 3rd or 4th grade level reading level doesn’t cut it. Even NTID requires an 8th grade or better reading level, and if the average is really 3rd to 4th grade, there would be very few students at NTID.



What is not reasonable about hearing parents learning a new language? That’s absurd to think that. Sure, it may take hearing parents a while longer to learn a new language, but even after a week of sign classes they will at least learn some basics for communicating with their child, and it goes from there. It’s not an overnight process, but it is NOT reasonable to assume hearing parents cannot learn a new language, frankly. And in that same six months that parents can become fluent with cueing, as stated in the above quote, those same parents can become quite handy at sign as well. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if those parents aren’t “fluent” in sign at 6 months, being able to communicate with and teach their child (which they can very well do with 6 months’ worth of sign learning) is what is important.

I have seen evidence of that with my son's deaf 3 year old friend. Their parents discovered her deafness when she was a year old and immediately, they started taking ASL classes and now they are pretty fluent to converse with any deaf people and their daughter's language level has been tested on above average level.

 

[jillio]

^^^ My exact thought.



I’d like to see the statistics for that. Many deaf people go to college, and a 3rd or 4th grade level reading level doesn’t cut it. Even NTID requires an 8th grade or better reading level, and if the average is really 3rd to 4th grade, there would be very few students at NTID.



What is not reasonable about hearing parents learning a new language? That’s absurd to think that. Sure, it may take hearing parents a while longer to learn a new language, but even after a week of sign classes they will at least learn some basics for communicating with their child, and it goes from there. It’s not an overnight process, but it is NOT reasonable to assume hearing parents cannot learn a new language, frankly. And in that same six months that parents can become fluent with cueing, as stated in the above quote, those same parents can become quite handy at sign as well. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if those parents aren’t “fluent” in sign at 6 months, being able to communicate with and teach their child (which they can very well do with 6 months’ worth of sign learning) is what is important.

Couldn't agree with you more. The article is 2 years old, and still no empirical evidence of the usefulness of CS in raising literacy scores to back up the 2 year old claims. Please!!!

And I really do not understand the statement regarding the unreasonable expectation of a parent learning sign. That is what irritates me the most. It is not unreasonable to expect a parent to do whatever is necessary to assist their child with communication. It is not unreasonable to ask that parents behave as the adults, and facillitate communication with their own child, rather than asking the child to behave as the parent and make the effort to adapt to the parent. Claims like this are no more than a sales technique used to appeal to the hearing parent with no concern for the effect it has on the child. It is destructive to attempt to convince a parent that an unproven system will benefit their child linguistically in the same way that a full language approach with ASL, which has been proven empirically, will. The complete lack of concern in statements such as this for both the child and the parent infuriating.

Asking a parent with a deaf child to learn ASL is far more reasonable than the claims being made by CS supporters. I learned ASL for my deaf son, and did not consider it to be unreasonable in the least. It was what I was supposed to do as a parent with a deaf child: learn to communicate with my child in the mode that best fulfilled his needs.

Get a grip, CS supporters! The issue is not what is easier for the hearing parent! The issue is what is best suited to the deaf child, and what will allow them to receive an education and live a successful and independent life. The issue is what allows the deaf child to ask questions and understand the world around them. The issue is what allows the deaf child to communicate both needs and wants, and abstract ideas that lead to the ability to think critically. That is the first priority, not how little effort is required by the parent. This "quick fix" mentality is harmful to deaf children.