Who Uses Cued Speech

Poor children.. put into a mainstream program and ignored by their mates when older, according to hard science. Parents should back off from any organizations that cheers and promotes this kind of practice.

AD is one of few sites I know of where it's legal to start new threads with advertisement. Perhaps a "commerical" section is needed to avoid confusion among parents looking for facts?
 
Flip..I wondered if it was advertising. I thought spamming wasnt allowed here on AD? :dunno:
 
I think Cued speach is ok. It's just not ok to deprive a deaf person of sign language. Why can't someone have both?
 
dreama said:
I think Cued speach is ok. It's just not ok to deprive a deaf person of sign language. Why can't someone have both?
Click to expand...

I dont think there is anything wrong with using both. I dont think loml is against that but the mainstreamed programs seem to be against it though.
 
I've been raised using it and I think it's great. It really helped with English acquisition.

Also, note that the parents with deaf chidlren are deaf native cuers themselves and as a result, their deaf children are also native cuers. The deaf children really rocked with their cueing! Can't believe how fast they are in cueing!

I wish more deaf people use it in education.
 
netrox said:
I've been raised using it and I think it's great. It really helped with English acquisition.

Also, note that the parents with deaf chidlren are deaf native cuers themselves and as a result, their deaf children are also native cuers. The deaf children really rocked with their cueing! Can't believe how fast they are in cueing!

I wish more deaf people use it in education.
Click to expand...

netrox - I concur!!
 
shel90 said:
I dont think there is anything wrong with using both. I dont think loml is against that but the mainstreamed programs seem to be against it though.
Click to expand...

I think they make a mistake if they just promote one system. It's best to have a full tool box aproach. That way the child can choose which system they find most useful later on.
 
shel90 said:
Flip..I wondered if it was advertising. I thought spamming wasnt allowed here on AD? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yes, that confuses me, too.

It's a message it's ok to start threads with advertisements for bi-bi programs, extreme AG Bell programs, HA's with new colors, watertight CI's with internal wake up vibrator, ASL puppets and so on. It's perhaps time to give loml some company here. Let me try to find some commericals :)

Not sure if that's the kind of help parents want, but hey, it's allowed at AD!
 
dreama said:
I think they make a mistake if they just promote one system. It's best to have a full tool box aproach. That way the child can choose which system they find most useful later on.
Click to expand...

Yes, but remember this is a commerical.

NCSA can't promote ASL or full toolbox because it leaves less focus on their product. If loml expressed her own opinon, and it happened to be the same as the view expressed in the commerical she posted, we could dicuss if loml was wrong or right. This is not the case here. We are diccusing a commerical, and commericals are in 99% of the cases wrong if viewed from more than one angle. You don't get happier by using gilette shavers, you don't get a bank job by using calvin klein dresses and so on.

:2c:
 
loml said:
Quote:
....Cued Speech has substantial data showing that it enables deaf children to attain competency in English at the level of hearing students grade by grade. I know of no other system that enables this to happen.... As more and more young deaf persons achieve academically because of this system, deaf leaders will need to re-examine their options.
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet
Click to expand...

Even the sig of Loml includes an advertisement. Every sentence is wrong if viewed from more than one angle.:dunno:
 
netrox said:
I've been raised using it and I think it's great. It really helped with English acquisition.

Also, note that the parents with deaf chidlren are deaf native cuers themselves and as a result, their deaf children are also native cuers. The deaf children really rocked with their cueing! Can't believe how fast they are in cueing!

I wish more deaf people use it in education.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate? I would love to hear about your experiences. What method of communication do you use now?
 
deafbajagal said:
Can you elaborate? I would love to hear about your experiences. What method of communication do you use now?
Click to expand...

let me be terse.. profound deaf since birth, oral til age 8 yrs and still no language, parents started using cued speech, acquired english by observing their cued english, found reading easy, still use CS with cuers altho I sign with deaf signers.
 
What I can say is that while I have always promoted the full toolbox approach (giving a deaf child every opportunity for all access to communication and learning) for every deaf child, if cueing is used as part of the full toolbox approach for a specific child, and that is what worked best, then that's what worked for that child. Other parents here have said that they tried the full toolbox approach - speech, signing, etc. when they realized their child was deaf, and realized their child had NO interest in signing, then focused on speech, etc. (or vice versa.) Who are we to say that a deaf child shouldn't focus on speech (or signing, or cued speech, or whatever) if it's what worked for them? I had the full toolbox approach as a child and now I am fluent in sign, and my speech is excellent, but that's how it worked out for me. Each deaf child is an individual. We (and I) have said that time and time again. If I could not pick up speech, would that have made me a bad deaf child? No. It's the same scenario -- if another deaf child worked best with cued speech than other methods, does that make child that deaf child a bad deaf child? No. (Or even a parent a bad parent for choosing that particular method? No.) Why should we discredit certain methods just because it seems unorthodox to some when it might work perfectly well for others? I have issues only with parents who choose not to explore all options before settling on what method(s) works best for their child, and just stick with one regardless of the outcome. Just my 2 cents.
 
AlleyCat said:
What I can say is that while I have always promoted the full toolbox approach (giving a deaf child every opportunity for all access to communication and learning) for every deaf child, if cueing is used as part of the full toolbox approach for a specific child, and that is what worked best, then that's what worked for that child. Other parents here have said that they tried the full toolbox approach - speech, signing, etc. when they realized their child was deaf, and realized their child had NO interest in signing, then focused on speech, etc. (or vice versa.) Who are we to say that a deaf child shouldn't focus on speech (or signing, or cued speech, or whatever) if it's what worked for them? I had the full toolbox approach as a child and now I am fluent in sign, and my speech is excellent, but that's how it worked out for me. Each deaf child is an individual. We (and I) have said that time and time again. If I could not pick up speech, would that have made me a bad deaf child? No. It's the same scenario -- if another deaf child worked best with cued speech than other methods, does that make child that deaf child a bad deaf child? No. (Or even a parent a bad parent for choosing that particular method? No.) Why should we discredit certain methods just because it seems unorthodox to some when it might work perfectly well for others? I have issues only with parents who choose not to explore all options before settling on what method(s) works best for their child, and just stick with one regardless of the outcome. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disagree with you. All I wonder about is if spamming is allowed or not?
 
Back
Top