Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[shel90]

Great, I'm glad you are here to learn but please do not make assumption about the majority of deaf people who have a lack of english skills came from Total Communication since there are many deaf people from all walks of life -- oralist, cued-speech, ASL, SEE, PSE users and also varying degrees of hearing (CI users and hearing aid users) and speech, etc. came from either mainstreamed programs, Total Communication, Bi-Bi etc. Just because one program may works for one child will not necessarily work for another doesn't mean that program failed. each child is different, no child is the same.



The bottom line is there is no one-size-fits-all approach to educating a deaf child.

Teaching strategies are employed to teach different kinds of learners.

ASL is the language of instruction. If there is no one size that fits all, then we need to reevaluate the language of instruction for hearing kids.

There is a big difference btw those two.

If we were talking about teaching strategies, then we can say "one size dooesnt fit all"

We are talking about language of instruction and it seems like many of you are saying that some deaf people dont benefit from ASL.

Well, that would be like saying that some hearing kids dont benefit from spoken English.

Then, the hearing classes are doing it ALL wrong according to your and others' logic with "one size doesnt fit all".

Why apply to only deaf children? Why do hearing have full access to language, communication, and blah blah but many deaf children dont?

Can anyone answer that? Pls.

 

[shel90]

One size doesnt fit all means that there is no single best way to educate a deaf child. It has nothing to do with the particular program my child is in.

It sounds like u are talking about teaching strategies and that would make sense.

We are talking about language...ASL is not a teaching strategy.

 

[shel90]

If one program works for one but not others.. keep this going for majority of students. do you know what happens? A massive confusion, inefficiency, and a colossal waste of budget. If standardized curriculum structure works for hearing people, so should for deaf student population.

EXACTLY!!!! Geez! I feel like I am banging my head on a wall. Why do hearing kids get the language they fully access to and deaf kids dont? That doesnt make sense at all.

 

[shel90]

well Shel and Jillio deal with hundred of students per year. So yea - who are we to dispute that? Who knows better on what works, what doesn't work? Them as teachers.... or us as bystanders?

 

[shel90]

That is very poor reasoning. I was oral all the way. I am pretty much able to put my thoughts down, so I could argue that that is the best because it worked for me.

Of course I am still learning ASL as an adult and I don't have much of a social life, but since I am literate (or close to it) I could argue for the oral method.

But someone else could dispute it when a different method worked for them.

Can I ask you this? Yes, u are literate as well as I am. Do u ever wonder how much information u probably have missed by being in an oral only environment?

When I learned ASL and experienced a classroom where everyone used ASL, I was shocked by how much information was shared in the classroom. I had no idea how much I missed out growing up. My communication was always direct not shared.

 

[shel90]

Certainly never said all. I believe the estimates are around 40% for minorities. I am just trying to put thing in perspective. I know that it is horrible that Deaf children are undereducated, but the truth is that all students are!

and I dont think that's an excuse to keep it going. If we can improve the system for both deaf and hearing, u can bet on it, that I will advocate for it.

 

[shel90]

So that makes it acceptable?

If people think that its acceptable, then they are just as responsible for contributing to the literacy problems.

 

[shel90]

Exactly. And again with the one size does not fit all. The only people here that seem to using the word all every other post are those opposing bi-bi. Those in favor of bi-bi keep saying "majority". Then the responses come in with the "all" statements. They keep disputing something that isn't even being said.:roll:

I noticed that too. :roll:

 

[shel90]

Quote by Angel #657; Great, I'm glad you are here to learn but please do not make assumption about the majority of deaf people who have a lack of english skills came from Total Communication since there are many deaf people from all walks of life -- oralist, cued-speech, ASL, SEE, PSE users and also varying degrees of hearing (CI users and hearing aid users) and speech, etc. came from either mainstreamed programs, Total Communication, Bi-Bi etc. Just because one program may works for one child will not necessarily work for another doesn't mean that program failed. each child is different, no child is the same.

The bottom line is there is no one-size-fits-all approach to educating a deaf child.

-------------------------
Quote by jiro #664 answered to Angel; If one program works for one but not others.. keep this going for majority of students. do you know what happens? A massive confusion, inefficiency, and a colossal waste of budget. If standardized curriculum structure works for hearing people, so should for deaf student population.

-------------------------
That's correct and that is why the BiBi approach is the best system to use for the deaf ed system out there for the MAJORITY... despite whoever continue claiming the "one size cant fit all" crap.

Why? That is what jiro explained away as why it was so. Use your common sense, people.

A good post, jiro!

Agreed..good post, Jiro.

 

[shel90]

Specialized classe, self contained classroom, light mainstreamed, whatever. I know dozens of deaf people from this kind of classes, and they are much the same.

I would call those settings very risky because the prinicpal seldom know anything about deafness, and it all depends on the teacher, that is employed by a principal who have accidental knowledge about deaf ed. If this is the mysterious "one size don't fit all" theory in practice I would not recommend it to anyone except deaf parents of deaf children that more easily can evaluate the education. I also feel a bit sorry for the studens because the classes are very small and boring to be in for most deaf children compared to larger bilingual charter schools or state deaf schools. I know of one specialized class where deaf parents pulled their children out just after days and put them in a bilingual charter school because the specialized class was so crappy. The hearing parents kept their children in the specialized class, and failed to notice the crappy teaching. "One size don't fit all"? Nah, needs of parents and evaluation based on THEIR knowledge, yes.

It's interestin that deaf people tends to argue with situations they know of, while hearings tends to argue with general stats and findings. Both have their weakness and advantages. You are a perfect example of the american mainstream way of arguing. As long you don't know the deaf way to argue, you will be limited to understanding arguments from people inside the borders of the american mainstreamed hearing culture. Try to listen to some of the stories deaf people tell you. That's where a lot of the "stats and findings" you search for are. It's interesting that even the deaf oral and TC folks around here keep on telling stories of situations they know of, while the hearing people here keep on yelling "stats and findings!".

Hope this help you.

Exactly..otherwise why are teachers for the deaf required to get degrees and certifications specializing in Deaf education? It is common sense.

 

[shel90]

I've cited a little girl I know of who is deaf and doing extremely well having learned ASL first and then spoken language, yet I'm disregarded because I'm hearing. I've also cited the struggles of the deaf students I went to school with, too, and that's disregarded by some as well.

Oh well. I may not be deaf, but I know what I've seen.

Such is life, I guess. I'm not deterred.

, Flip!

If people want their opinions and experiences valued, then they shouldnt devalue yours.

Otherwise, if yours should be devalued, then they have to expect theirs to be devalued too. Cant have their cake and eat it.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Teaching strategies are employed to teach different kinds of learners.

ASL is the language of instruction. If there is no one size that fits all, then we need to reevaluate the language of instruction for hearing kids.

There is a big difference btw those two.

If we were talking about teaching strategies, then we can say "one size dooesnt fit all"

We are talking about language of instruction and it seems like many of you are saying that some deaf people dont benefit from ASL.

Well, that would be like saying that some hearing kids dont benefit from spoken English.

Then, the hearing classes are doing it ALL wrong according to your and others' logic with "one size doesnt fit all".

Why apply to only deaf children? Why do hearing have full access to language, communication, and blah blah but many deaf children dont?

Can anyone answer that? Pls.

A system that failed the majority of deaf students?

 

[Daredevel7]

It's interestin that deaf people tends to argue with situations they know of, while hearings tends to argue with general stats and findings. Both have their weakness and advantages. You are a perfect example of the american mainstream way of arguing.

It's very true that deaf people tend to argue with situations they have personally experienced. I see a lot of deaf people here angry about how they were forced in an all oral environment and how some of them were delayed in certain ways until they learned ASL, which is a stark contrast to what I have personally experienced. I have personally seen the other clients of my speech therapist (~7 students from my generation) who were raised the same as me, and also mainstreamed by kindergarten. There was only one who did not do very well (She was taught Spanish first instead of English, so she was having a hard time learning English at the age of 12-13, which is when I saw her last, so she did ASL later). Anyway, my point is that there may be a lot of variables to what I've experienced, such as maybe my therapist only takes on clients who she knows has to skills to do oral only, etc. I do honestly believe that there ARE some deaf people out there who have natural lipreading skills and can do oral only at the same literacy rate as a hearing person, but I also believe this is not very common based on statistics. I do take statistics with a grain (or a handful) of salt, but it's a better indicator than my own little world of 8 deaf kids.

 

[Daredevel7]

I do believe there should be a standard policy and I didn't see anyone against the idea of standard policy for Deaf Education (correct me if I'm wrong). I do believe that there is something wrong with the system if the literacy rates of deaf people (AS A WHOLE) are consistently lower than hearing people. I don't see any reason why it should be this way. I think a good question to ask is "Should a long and extensive study be done on most methods before we implement a method as standard policy?" People are really upset about how they were raised, so they want something to be done NOW about deaf ed, which is understandable. But which is better to you:

Changing something NOW to a method that shows only promise (statistically)
vs
Waiting until more research and studies are being done (which we don't know how long it would take) and not changing something that we know isn't working for the majority?

 

[flip]

I've cited a little girl I know of who is deaf and doing extremely well having learned ASL first and then spoken language, yet I'm disregarded because I'm hearing. I've also cited the struggles of the deaf students I went to school with, too, and that's disregarded by some as well.

Oh well. I may not be deaf, but I know what I've seen.

Such is life, I guess. I'm not deterred.

, Flip!

I am sure one "problem" is that you are hearing, and the reason why you are disregarded would be interesting to investigate. Perhaps unwritten cultural rules are playing in the background here, too, and ways of sharing information and arguing creates some of the most striking examples on cultural differences between cultures.

Don't give up, I am working with understanding the hearing mainstreamed culture myself.

 

[flip]

It's very true that deaf people tend to argue with situations they have personally experienced. I see a lot of deaf people here angry about how they were forced in an all oral environment and how some of them were delayed in certain ways until they learned ASL, which is a stark contrast to what I have personally experienced. I have personally seen the other clients of my speech therapist (~7 students from my generation) who were raised the same as me, and also mainstreamed by kindergarten. There was only one who did not do very well (She was taught Spanish first instead of English, so she was having a hard time learning English at the age of 12-13, which is when I saw her last, so she did ASL later). Anyway, my point is that there may be a lot of variables to what I've experienced, such as maybe my therapist only takes on clients who she knows has to skills to do oral only, etc. I do honestly believe that there ARE some deaf people out there who have natural lipreading skills and can do oral only at the same literacy rate as a hearing person, but I also believe this is not very common based on statistics. I do take statistics with a grain (or a handful) of salt, but it's a better indicator than my own little world of 8 deaf kids.

This post was filled with interesting personal experiences and observations.

That's the deaf way of sharing information in a nutshell. The mainstream american culture rejects this as an interesting and valid argument, while it's full on valid among deaf people.

I see you master this kind of arguing, as you describes where your experience proves something, and where it does not.

 

[loml]

I enjoy a good discussion......

there you go. "some yes..... some no...." Sounds like less than 50-50... sounds unreliable.... I think I can safely say there would be much more than 50% (including "some yes" and "some no") who would benefit from ASL as L1 as the start before becoming bi/multilingual.

Jiro - All this discussion of Bi-Bi education and L1 being ASL for children who are deaf in a hearing family, is really conjecture (imo). The language of the home (which can/should be the richest enviroment for language) needs to be considered, as well as the each unique family dynamics, and the entire education system (no easy task). If historically hearing parents of deaf children found learning of ASL to be as easyand a successful, as it tends to be portrayed here in these discussions, there in fact would be no discussion.

All the biased research in the world, and research is biased, does not change the reality for the deaf child of a hearing family.

 

[flip]

I do believe there should be a standard policy and I didn't see anyone against the idea of standard policy for Deaf Education (correct me if I'm wrong). I do believe that there is something wrong with the system if the literacy rates of deaf people (AS A WHOLE) are consistently lower than hearing people. I don't see any reason why it should be this way. I think a good question to ask is "Should a long and extensive study be done on most methods before we implement a method as standard policy?" People are really upset about how they were raised, so they want something to be done NOW about deaf ed, which is understandable. But which is better to you:

Changing something NOW to a method that shows only promise (statistically)
vs
Waiting until more research and studies are being done (which we don't know how long it would take) and not changing something that we know isn't working for the majority?

Damn good question

 

[Cheri]

If people want their opinions and experiences valued, then they shouldnt devalue yours.

Otherwise, if yours should be devalued, then they have to expect theirs to be devalued too. Cant have their cake and eat it.

Something is not right here; What makes hearing people more qualified than deaf people? Then in that case that means we all should allow doctors, educators, professionals to share their opinions of what they saw in the deaf educational setting too even if that means they support the AGB Association. Ok then have it your way.

 

[Tousi]

Something is not right here; What makes hearing people more qualified than deaf people? Then in that case that means we all should allow doctors, educators, professionals to share their opinions of what they saw in the deaf educational setting too even if that means they support the AGB Association. Ok then have it your way.

Cheri, if you are thinking of Jillio, for example, well, I am deaf (HoH) and she is imminently more qualified than I am on these issues whereas just about the entire medical profession knows zip about us except from a medical viewpoint only. The upper echelon of people in the deaf world support bi bi and, in due time, it will prevail as THE educational model for the majority of the deaf population.

Your own experiences are taken for what they are because, yes, you experienced them. Some succeed but the majority don't. No disrespect to any individual here, just at the system, techniques, etc.....