Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheri
Same goes for you, you criticized TC when you have never took TC, just because jillio says this and that, does it make her right and those who experienced TC wrong? Jillio is hearing and she has not walked a mile in any deaf person's shoes to say what she says.
|
No, Cheri, I'm not deaf, nor have I ever claimed to know what it is to experience life as a deaf person. On the contrary, I have always said that I have gone out of my way to consult with deaf people because they are the only ones who truly know what it is to be deaf, and they are the experts on their own needs. I constantly advocate for services to be provided from a deaf perspective rather than from a hearing perspective. I am the one that reccommends involving deaf individuals in the decisions made and the policies set that affect them.
I have, however, studied deaf education and psychology of deafness in depth. I have studied cognitive psychology as it applies to learning styles of deaf children. I have studied developmental psychology as it applies to language acquisition of deaf children. I have been directly involved in deaf education and advocacy for deaf students for 16 years. I have studied the psychosocial impact of deafness, and how changes in the environment such as school placement and methodology benefit deaf students. I have done research on these topics. My dissertation is based on these concepts. I talk with deaf students on a daily basis, and I listen to what they tell me, and use it as a foundation for understanding what I know about these other subjects as they apply to deafness. I have not only seen TC programs in operation, I have spoken in depth to students who were educated in TC programs. I know the philosophy behind TC, and I know the methodology used in a TC environment. I know the rationale used in the development of TC programs. I have also witnessed Bi-Bi education, and know the methodology used and the philosophy behind it. I understand the rationale on which Bi-Bi education is developed. I have spent considerable time and effort comparing and contrasting the two methodologies, and applying them as they fit the needs of specific learning preferences and cognitive processes. My opinions regarding Bi-Bi and TC are based on extensive klnowledge and the experience of those who have been educated in the methods, and those who have taught using the methods. Whether I am hearing or deaf is not the issue, because I use the deaf population as my focus group in both assessing the effectiveness, and evaluating the differences.
Shel is not agreeing with me just because she thinks I am right. She, too, has extensive experience and education to back up her opinions. She and I have seen the same things, and have reached the same conclusions, and we have done so separately. She has been involved with different programs than I have, she has worked with different deaf students that I have, she attended a different college than I did, so she had different coursework and professors. But we are seeing the same things in her experience and in my experience. That alone tells me that it isn't just what I have experienced, or just what she has experienced, but that there is a common thread that holds true across different groups of students.
No one has said that TC is bad. In fact, for several years, TC was the best choice available. But, just as with anything, there are strengths and there are weaknesses in the methodology and the philosophy that have been well documented across disciplines. Bi-Bi has the possibility to overcome the weaknesses. It isn't about making a judgement of one program being bad and one being good. It is about improving the educational environment for deaf children, and making changes that provide greater opportunity.