Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer
 And what about those that it works for who are now able to communicate with their children. What about those that have tried other methods without success and CS is what is working for them. Life is not lived in a vaccum where one size fits all. I don't see where CS has anything to do with oralism. Seems to me it's more about the ability to communicate and is just another method when others may fail. |
Okay, here is how it applies to oralism. It is adding a visual component to oral language, preseumably for the assistance in removing the descrepancies in lip reading. Although there are those that are now attempting to promote it as a tool for developing speech skills, and for increasing literacy rates, and improving the language acquisition situations of deaf children. There is already a system that permits that, and offers advantages of giving a child conceptual information in a way that the eye is prepared to receive it and process it. It is called sign language.
Yes, it is about the ability to communicate. But CS users can communicate with other CS users, and their numbers are extremely limited.
And unless one has tried to incorporate sign into a child's environment they ahve not tried all of the methods available. They have only tried the oral methods available. Which goes back to how CS relates to oralism.
CS is also promoted as a quick and easy method to learn, one that requires much less effort for the parent than learning signed language. I object to this, as well, because the issue is not about what is easiest for the parent, it is about what is most beneficial for the child.