Two girls with CI...

[Audiofuzzy]

If you read the links that I provided so u can read the older girl's view on ASL. It is apparent that she and her parents knew about it but may have some misconceptions about it.

My opinion is some pple WANT TO some things to be what they are not just to be able to say 'bad hearing parents".
This is horrible, and a disservice to the deaf culture itself.

NO there is no reading betwen the lines- the mother who wrote the article simply stated that "Boston was the bastion of Deaf Culture", but despite that status they didn't offer satisfactory oral programs, period.

btw this alone means she WAS looking into the Deaf culture, and SHE HAD TO talk to at least SOME deaf representatives but what she'd learned from them she wasn't satisfied with.
She wanted her daughter to be able to hear and speak - IT'S HER RIGHT - and the Boston's Deaf community DIDN'T provide the programs she wanted. Not at the level she wanted it to, at least.

The point is - she probably WOULD get involved her daughters with deaf culture if they provided better oral programs. Hearing pple have every right to have their needs meet as have deaf pple theirs.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

To give you an idea of what I mean, let's say that a Republican who's noted for being anti-communist tells his potential voters that colleges are bastions of communists, would that word have a negative meaning given the context? I rest my case.

I am sorry but you actually enforced "positive" meaning of the word - the Republican wanted to prove he is not anti-communist, or at least his collegues aren't, so he called his collegues a bastion of communist.

Just give it a rest - as I've explained earlier, there is no negative connotation to the world "bastion" used in the article. It just states: Boston was a bastion of Deaf culture, period.



Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

If you click on this, you will read Rachel"s statement about ASL and Deaf culture.

Cochlear Implant Online

Cochlear Implant Online

Rachel"s statement about sign language. That is what turned me off.

my public middle school, which had a total communication program, I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids, and they all signed and also spoke. Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently. Most of them were also not mainstreamed and were in a self-contained classroom all day. If I relied on sign language like these students, my life would have been like theirs In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

She has no clue and to make statements like these is portraying many deaf/hoh who grew up with ASL wrong. :roll:

Poor brainwashed child. She is simply repeating what she has been told by others who are obviously consumed with ignorance.

 

[jillio]

Fuzzy, ever heard of reading between the lines? The negative meaning was implied given the context. As I said, this word normally doesn't have a negative meaning.

To give you an idea of what I mean, let's say that a Republican who's noted for being anti-communist tells his potential voters that colleges are bastions of communists, would that word have a negative meaning given the context? I rest my case.

Another example of excessively concrete thinking that comes with language delays seen in so many oral deaf.

 

[jillio]

My opinion is some pple WANT TO some things to be what they are not just to be able to say 'bad hearing parents".
This is horrible, and a disservice to the deaf culture itself.

NO there is no reading betwen the lines- the mother who wrote the article simply stated that "Boston was the bastion of Deaf Culture", but despite that status they didn't offer satisfactory oral programs, period.

btw this alone means she WAS looking into the Deaf culture, and SHE HAD TO talk to at least SOME deaf representatives but what she'd learned from them she wasn't satisfied with.
She wanted her daughter to be able to hear and speak - IT'S HER RIGHT - and the Boston's Deaf community DIDN'T provide the programs she wanted. Not at the level she wanted it to, at least.

The point is - she probably WOULD get involved her daughters with deaf culture if they provided better oral programs. Hearing pple have every right to have their needs meet as have deaf pple theirs.

Fuzzy

The Deaf Community is not responsible for providing intervention and educational services, Fuzzy. The dept of ed is responsible for that.

Your claim that she would have become invoolved with deaf culture had they provided oral programs is incorrect ont hat point alone. Further, Deaf Culture has at its foundation, linguistic difference. Obviously, your understanding of culture and of program decisions and implementation is lacking.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

That's my point..they knew about it and yet didnt seek the Deaf community out for advice. The girls ended up with delays in their language in which they had to spend an exorbitant amount of time on hard work so their language levels can catch up. They were lucky that they could to some extent but there are so many other deaf children being put in that position and many of them never catch up.

But they DID. they went to wherever they needed to, they researched the programs and found them unsatisfactory.
That is why I am saying maybe it's time for the deaf community to re-evaluate what they have to offer - times change, what was good ten, twenty, fifty years ago is not good today, maybe more hearing parents would be interested in deaf culture knowing they have options they want?


Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

The Deaf Community is not responsible for providing intervention and educational services, Fuzzy. The dept of ed is responsible for that.

Your claim that she would have become invoolved with deaf culture had they provided oral programs is incorrect ont hat point alone. Further, Deaf Culture has at its foundation, linguistic difference. Obviously, your understanding of culture and of program decisions and implementation is lacking.

So, what were those existing oral programs the parents rejected? why can't there be a better ones?

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

But they DID. they went to wherever they needed to, they researched the programs and found them unsatisfactory.
That is why I am saying maybe it's time for the deaf community to re-evaluate what they have to offer - times change, what was good ten, twenty, fifty years ago is not good today, maybe more hearing parents would be interested in deaf culture knowing they have options they want?


Fuzzy

No, they didn't. They stated up front that they wanted their child to function in a hearing world. Deaf Culture has many vbaluable assests to offer. They are not responsible for those hearing parents that are too narrow minded to see, and take advantage of those assests.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Poor brainwashed child. She is simply repeating what she has been told by others who are obviously consumed with ignorance.

Rachel"s statement about sign language.

my public middle school, which had a total communication program, I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids, and they all signed and also spoke. Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently. Most of them were also not mainstreamed and were in a self-contained classroom all day. If I relied on sign language like these students, my life would have been like theirs In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

REPEATED????? or Rachel met these pple IN PERSON?

I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids,

..... Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently.

In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

Rachel simply stated if she relied on sign like these students she met IN PERSON, also her speech could have been unintelligible - (that's TRUE), and difficult for others to understand.

Just stop with this blowing things out of proportion baloney.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

So, what were those existing oral programs the parents rejected? why can't there be a better ones?

Fuzzy

Oral programs are inherently deficient because they are oral. And that is, once again, not the fault of the Deaf community, but of the hearing.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

No, they didn't. They stated up front that they wanted their child to function in a hearing world. Deaf Culture has many vbaluable assests to offer. They are not responsible for those hearing parents that are too narrow minded to see, and take advantage of those assests.

WRRRONG.

Originally Posted by shel90
That's my point..they knew about it and yet didnt seek the Deaf community out for advice.

If they went to inquire about programs, they must have seek the Deaf community, period. They didn't find programs satisfactory, period.

And wanting your child to function in hearing world is not wrong, and does not have to exlude the deaf world. But if some pple do exclide it, it's their right. Once again looks like you mainly defend yourself, your own choice, jill.




Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

REPEATED????? or Rachel met these pple IN PERSON?

I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids,

..... Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently.

In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

Rachel simply stated if she relied on sign like these students she met IN PERSON, also her speech could have been unintelligible - (that's TRUE), and difficult for others to understand.

Once again, Fuzzy, your lack of critical thinking skills are getting int he way of comprehension. Actually, Rachel said "would". The use of that word provides the connation that her speech skills would have definately been poorer, and that is an incorrect assumption. You used the word "could" which implies possiblity, not definitive result.

Additionally, sign is not responsible for less than perfect speech skills. Further, she is basing her assumptions regarding these students on superficial criteria alone, and criteria that she is unqualified to determine. There is an equally good probability that, even though the students she referrred to had lesser oral skills determined on the production of speech alone, that their language levels and ability to use language was far superior. Marsharks's literature review of academic achievement in CI implanted students has found that all of the research indicates that the highest achieving students are those that are exposed to both sign and speech. So the question is, would you rather have a child that speaks well, but is unable to develop academic competency and cognitive skills, or would you rather have a child that can speak well, but is unable to use the language they can repeat, and thus falls behind academically and cognitively?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Oral programs are inherently deficient because they are oral. And that is, once again, not the fault of the Deaf community, but of the hearing.

Really? how so? hearing pple responsible for the deaf? hmmm....

ever thought that in this increasingly competetive world the time will come that the deaf themselves will have to make some changes to be still included? like, perphas improving oral programs?

After all the deaf have to live and function in the hearing world.

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

But they DID. they went to wherever they needed to, they researched the programs and found them unsatisfactory.
That is why I am saying maybe it's time for the deaf community to re-evaluate what they have to offer - times change, what was good ten, twenty, fifty years ago is not good today, maybe more hearing parents would be interested in deaf culture knowing they have options they want?


Fuzzy

Since u have stated that u are in the hearing world at all times, it is obvious that u dont know much about the Deaf community.

The Deaf community's primary language is ASL otherwise there would be no Deaf community.

If she wanted oral, then that is where deaf ed comes in not the Deaf community.

The Deaf community offers ASL storytelling, poetry, plays, ASL get togethers, Silent Dinners, and many more events and none of them use oral language cuz it would just defeat the purpose.

It is apparent that the mother chose not to expose her children to what the Deaf community had to offer by her comments about having more opportunities in the hearing world which is just too bad cuz people can do both.

The Deaf community IS NOT responsible for oral deaf education.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

REPEATED????? or Rachel met these pple IN PERSON?

I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids,

..... Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently.

In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

Rachel simply stated if she relied on sign like these students she met IN PERSON, also her speech could have been unintelligible - (that's TRUE), and difficult for others to understand.

Once again, Fuzzy, your lack of critical thinking skills are getting int he way of comprehension. Actually, Rachel said "would". The use of that word provides the connation that her speech skills would have definately been poorer, and that is an incorrect assumption. You used the word "could" which implies possiblity, not definitive result.

I believe either way she's right. Most signing pple have poor speech, period.

Additionally, sign is not responsible for less than perfect speech skills. Further, she is basing her assumptions regarding these students on superficial criteria alone, and criteria that she is unqualified to determine.

She saw what she saw, and what reflects the majority.
Her parents wanted her to have good oral skills, she's got it, and she's happy with it.
If, at one point she'll have to switch to deaf ways, learn sign- she CAN.
These students with unintelligible speech will not have better oral skills, ever. Not like her.


Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

REPEATED????? or Rachel met these pple IN PERSON?

I met a few students with cochlear implants and hearing aids,

..... Their speech was very unintelligible because they relied on sign language frequently.

In that I would not have fully participated in the mainstream environment, and my speech would have been unclear and, thus, more difficult for people to understand.

Rachel simply stated if she relied on sign like these students she met IN PERSON, also her speech could have been unintelligible - (that's TRUE), and difficult for others to understand.

Just stop with this blowing things out of proportion baloney.

Fuzzy

That is so not true! I have so many deaf friends who grew up relying on sign language and have good speech skills as well. Yes, there are some that dont develop good speech skills but ASL IS NOT THE REASON! Rachel's statement is portrayed ASL incorrectly.

Until you or people like Rachel become fluent in ASL, you have no argument. I used to believe the same as you did until I learned it and met so many people in the Deaf community. My old views of ASL being responsible for poor speech and literacy skills in deaf people were completely blown away.

Speech skills depend on the individual's motivation or ability NOT ASL.

 

[VanG]

 

[shel90]

Really? how so? hearing pple responsible for the deaf? hmmm....

ever thought that in this increasingly competetive world the time will come that the deaf themselves will have to make some changes to be still included? like, perphas improving oral programs?

After all the deaf have to live and function in the hearing world.

Fuzzy

Huh? Some deaf just CANT develop oral skills..my brother is a perfect example of that. U still dont get it and your comments are pissing me off cuz you r refusing to hold hearing people accountable for many of deaf children's delays in language. Hearing people started the oral programs, hearing people started the laws regarding to LRE, and all those educational policies. When deaf people give hearing people their views, it is usually disregarded. It has been happening for decades.

 

[jillio]

Really? how so? hearing pple responsible for the deaf? hmmm....

ever thought that in this increasingly competetive world the time will come that the deaf themselves will have to make some changes to be still included? like, perphas improving oral programs?

After all the deaf have to live and function in the hearing world.

Fuzzy

Of course the hearing are rsponsible for the educational and linguistic policies set for the deaf. Those policies directly affect the deaf in negative ways.

How would you propose that the deaf imporve the oral programs when the deaf themselves are not included in the policy making process?

The deaf may have to live in a hearing world, but they do so much more effectlively when they learn to live with their deafness first. To do otherwise prevents adjustment and adaptation that allows for optimal functioning.

 

[deafskeptic]

Really? how so? hearing pple responsible for the deaf? hmmm....

ever thought that in this increasingly competetive world the time will come that the deaf themselves will have to make some changes to be still included? like, perphas improving oral programs?

After all the deaf have to live and function in the hearing world.

Fuzzy

I'd think the majority of the deaf would reject the oral only programs as the majority were enrolled in oral only programs before they discovered ASL but they do see the value of speech skills.


What good is speech if you don't have the education? It's much easier to get a good education if you don't suffer from language delays.

I think it'd be much more reasonable to work on technology that help deaf communicate with others via Vid Relay or other stuff.

Fuzzy, there's no escape from the hearing world and the deaf are not isolated from the hearing world even if they don't speak.