What is "cued speech"?

[jillio]

yes, this was touched on in the NCLB thread <"grade levels">

seems people can take an association "below grade level" and "deaf" and turn it around to make the comparison fit their agenda and their bias, when the correlation isn't really there in the first place

Exactly. Most people assume that "grade level" means a majority of the students at that particular grade level are functioning at that specific level. It means nothing of the kind.

 

[jillio]

It was created by Dr. R. Orin Cornett with the goal of improving reading ability/literacy.

Cued speech gives the different sounds that look the same on the lips different handshapes/movements. Some sounds that have different mouth movements use the same handshape or movement (like d and p or i and a).

But confers no information regarding concept. Knowing that two words look differently doesn't provide much information regarding literacy or comprehension of conversation. That is why its application is so very, very limited, and it has not been found to increase literacy rates when used as a teaching tool.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



who is resurrecting it and when did it die?

It died a natural death approximately 40-45 years ago. And who is resurrecting it was addressed in my previous post. They are not only resurrecting it, they are presenting it as something the original system was never intended to be.

 

[deafbajagal]

I firmly believe that cue speech is the diamond in the rough for true bilingual education for deaf children, as it can be used to enable the cross modality of English and ASL. I would even go as far as say it is a key that has been lost...but unfortunately we do not have data to see if it really works. Researchers here and there have tried, but not consistently. Cue speech was designed to support ASL. It was designed to teach literacy skills. In no way was it ever intended to be used as a communication mode. It certainly wasn't designed to promote speech skills. Unfortunately its use is widely misunderstood and even misused. If my child was profoundly deaf, I would not even hesitate to use it to teach her reading and writing in English.

 

[Lily7]

Can you elaborate on that statement? In what ways do you mean, "function as hearing as possible"?

What the other people said, but what made me say that was how SO many parents talk constantly about how their child "keeps up with their hearing peers", can go to pizza parties with hearing kids with no problem, has "full access" to the hearing world, etc. etc. etc. They are completely dismissing sign language and deaf peers as an option in addition to using CS and interaction with hearing peers. They have obviously come to use CS as the MAIN form of communication and a way to fit into the hearing world more, NOT just a tool for teaching literacy. They want their deaf child to be as much like a hearing child as possible.

In other words, instead of using CS as another learning tool, they are using it to try to shove their square shaped child into a round shaped hole, rather than accepting that square shaped hole is just as viable for their child as a round one. That is what is being demonized about CS, and rightly so. Parents should never cut their deaf children off from the option of sign language and deaf peers, and no matter what they choose to use to help their children access the world that should always be one of the options. Always.

 

[deafbajagal]

And by the way, I support cue speech (they should have named it differently). But I do NOT support the National Cue Speech Association. They got it all wrong.

 

[Lily7]

I agree with you, deafbajagal. If cued speech were being used properly, I would support it too. Even if I had been raised with ASL in the deaf community like I should have been, I probably still would have been interested in cued speech in addition to that, as just another learning tool, like using a dictionary.

 

[Cloggy]

In all, Cued Speech is an excellent tool for communication. It can be learned quit fast, give hearing parents an excellent tool for communication with their deaf child.
Parents can use their own language they don't have to learn a new language, only the hand-signs that go with the sounds.
I wish I would have been available for us, but Norwegian never had it, and The Netherlands had it but it died out.

It seems that due to the effectiveness of Cued Speech it is feared by the Deaf communiy, because people might have no need for sign.. They might be able to communicate with their deaf child without sign language. A terrible thought for Deaf society..
This thread -the reactions from many Deaf people ridiculing Cued Speech is a clear sign of that fear.

If only sign language and cued speech would be allowed to live side by side....
.

 

[deafbajagal]

Kids who are fluent in ASL often do very well in English, because of cross-modality.

Cue speech = dictionary. I like that analogy.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

yes, this was touched on in the NCLB thread <"grade levels">

seems people can take an association "below grade level" and "deaf" and turn it around to make the comparison fit their agenda and their bias, when the correlation isn't really there in the first place

Exactly. Most people assume that "grade level" means a majority of the students at that particular grade level are functioning at that specific level. It means nothing of the kind.

doesn't it mean the level that the majority SHOULD be on?

 

[deafbajagal]

In all, Cued Speech is an excellent tool for communication. It can be learned quit fast, give hearing parents an excellent tool for communication with their deaf child.
Parents can use their own language they don't have to learn a new language, only the hand-signs that go with the sounds.
I wish I would have been available for us, but Norwegian never had it, and The Netherlands had it but it died out.

It seems that due to the effectiveness of Cued Speech it is feared by the Deaf communiy, because people might have no need for sign.. They might be able to communicate with their deaf child without sign language. A terrible thought for Deaf society..
This thread -the reactions from many Deaf people ridiculing Cued Speech is a clear sign of that fear.


.

One of the pros of cue speech in U.S. is that it only takes about 30-50 hours (average) for a person to learn cue speech, so I bet parents will pick it up faster than they would ASL or signed English.

I promote ASL, obviously. But I'm also realistic in the fact that we do a crappy job of supporting parents who are trying to learn ASL, which is a foreign language to them. They have to pay for classes (if they can afford it!), go to classes (miss work, find childcare, etc.), and try to absorb this language...while their child is picking it up much faster than they are. I can see how frustrating it can be.

But I see the true benefits of ASL...and it breaks my heart when I realize we are failing our parents in that regard.

So Cue speech gets a vote for me. Make the language VISIBLE. I rather have that, than pure aural-verbal therapy.

 

[jillio]

I firmly believe that cue speech is the diamond in the rough for true bilingual education for deaf children, as it can be used to enable the cross modality of English and ASL. I would even go as far as say it is a key that has been lost...but unfortunately we do not have data to see if it really works. Researchers here and there have tried, but not consistently. Cue speech was designed to support ASL. It was designed to teach literacy skills. In no way was it ever intended to be used as a communication mode. It certainly wasn't designed to promote speech skills. Unfortunately its use is widely misunderstood and even misused. If my child was profoundly deaf, I would not even hesitate to use it to teach her reading and writing in English.

Agreed. If used as intended, it could very well be a useful tool. Visual phonics is empirically supported. The problem is, people will not permit it to be used as intended, but instead attempt to generalize it into something it is not and never intended to be.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



doesn't it mean the level that the majority SHOULD be on?

No.

 

[posts from hell]

One of the pros of cue speech in U.S. is that it only takes about 30-50 hours (average) for a person to learn cue speech, so I bet parents will pick it up faster than they would ASL or signed English.

I promote ASL, obviously. But I'm also realistic in the fact that we do a crappy job of supporting parents who are trying to learn ASL, which is a foreign language to them. They have to pay for classes (if they can afford it!), go to classes (miss work, find childcare, etc.), and try to absorb this language...while their child is picking it up much faster than they are. I can see how frustrating it can be.

But I see the true benefits of ASL...and it breaks my heart when I realize we are failing our parents in that regard.

So Cue speech gets a vote for me. Make the language VISIBLE. I rather have that, than pure aural-verbal therapy.

Not me.

 

[jillio]

Kids who are fluent in ASL often do very well in English, because of cross-modality.

Cue speech = dictionary. I like that analogy.

There you go. That is perfect. A dictionary to be used for spoken language.

 

[Buffalo]

In all, Cued Speech is an excellent tool for communication. It can be learned quit fast, give hearing parents an excellent tool for communication with their deaf child.
Parents can use their own language they don't have to learn a new language, only the hand-signs that go with the sounds.
I wish I would have been available for us, but Norwegian never had it, and The Netherlands had it but it died out.

It seems that due to the effectiveness of Cued Speech it is feared by the Deaf communiy, because people might have no need for sign.. They might be able to communicate with their deaf child without sign language. A terrible thought for Deaf society..
This thread -the reactions from many Deaf people ridiculing Cued Speech is a clear sign of that fear.


.

Quit twisting things around. If it had been effective, there would be more Cued Speech not less.

It is not fear of Cued Speech or even CI but it is really the stupidity of the hearing people, doctors and hearing educators for the deaf. They are doing anything but the right thing which is ASL.

You are lashing at us because you are fearing that we might be right. Why are you hanging around on AD then?

 

[jillio]

In all, Cued Speech is an excellent tool for communication. It can be learned quit fast, give hearing parents an excellent tool for communication with their deaf child.
Parents can use their own language they don't have to learn a new language, only the hand-signs that go with the sounds.
I wish I would have been available for us, but Norwegian never had it, and The Netherlands had it but it died out.

It seems that due to the effectiveness of Cued Speech it is feared by the Deaf communiy, because people might have no need for sign.. They might be able to communicate with their deaf child without sign language. A terrible thought for Deaf society..
This thread -the reactions from many Deaf people ridiculing Cued Speech is a clear sign of that fear.

If only sign language and cued speech would be allowed to live side by side....
.

It is not an excellent tool for communication. It is a tool for education. The attempt to extrapolate that into a communication tool is the source of the problem.

The Deaf community is not afraid of CS. They are simply keeping it in its proper place...something the hearing fail to do.

 

[Buffalo]

One of the pros of cue speech in U.S. is that it only takes about 30-50 hours (average) for a person to learn cue speech, so I bet parents will pick it up faster than they would ASL or signed English.

I promote ASL, obviously. But I'm also realistic in the fact that we do a crappy job of supporting parents who are trying to learn ASL, which is a foreign language to them. They have to pay for classes (if they can afford it!), go to classes (miss work, find childcare, etc.), and try to absorb this language...while their child is picking it up much faster than they are. I can see how frustrating it can be.

But I see the true benefits of ASL...and it breaks my heart when I realize we are failing our parents in that regard.

So Cue speech gets a vote for me. Make the language VISIBLE. I rather have that, than pure aural-verbal therapy.

Some of us have to pay for speech therapy after we were done with schooling. If they have to pay for ASL classes, it is about time. I have seen plenty of FREE ASL classes and I even volunteer to teach ASL back at NTID. I haven't seen a free speech therapy unless I am dating a hearing guy. Still it is no fun for him to correct my speech when we are out on a date.

Edit: They can get free ASL when they hang around at the Deaf clubs/events.

 

[Lily7]

Parents can use their own language they don't have to learn a new language, only the hand-signs that go with the sounds.

The problem is that parents are ONLY learning CS, and not ALSO learning sign language in addition to it. But you know what, if a parent can't be bothered to try to learn a new language for their child, that's incredibly selfish - what are they doing being parents?

It seems that due to the effectiveness of Cued Speech it is feared by the Deaf communiy, because people might have no need for sign.. They might be able to communicate with their deaf child without sign language. A terrible thought for Deaf society..
This thread -the reactions from many Deaf people ridiculing Cued Speech is a clear sign of that fear.

First of all I don't think the deaf community fears anything about cued speech, they are simply angry that it is being ABUSED to make life for deaf kids WORSE, not better. Cued Speech should only be used as a LEARNING tool, like a dictionary like I said, NOT a COMMUNICATION tool. But it is not being used that way.

If only sign language and cued speech would be allowed to live side by side....
.

This is a really ironic statement, because I think if given the choice a lot of deaf people, myself included, would CHOOSE to allow CS to live side by side with sign. That's how cued speech SHOULD be used. But the reason it isn't, is because of how CS is being abused and used in ways it shouldn't be. Since those abusing it can't control themselves or see WHY they are using it improperly, it's easier just to shun it altogether.

 

[deafskeptic]

And by the way, I support cue speech (they should have named it differently). But I do NOT support the National Cue Speech Association. They got it all wrong.

I think Loml is from National Cued Speech Association. Correct me if I'm wrong.