Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[Bottesini]

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.

No Shel, I know I missed a lot. I know I still do. And at this old age my family is working on incorporating ASL as much as possible for that reason.

I was using sarcasm there. The people who get attacked so much use sign too. I was really angry about the rude treatment of people who disagree.

I do think BIBI is very promising, but I don't think rudeness and put downs of anyone who says something else might work is the way to make a point.

And I was very angry about Oceanbreeze, glib statement about the grammar of the deaf and her diminutive putdown by calling the person "dear". I have known a couple of people with spina bifida too, but I don't try to pretend I am an expert on their educational needs.

My point was people need to be treated more respectfully, no matter which side they take.

 

[Tousi]

Oh, Botti, okay but my take on OB's contribution was ancedotal, what she saw in the classrooms, nothing more.

 

[Cheri]

Cheri, if you are thinking of Jillio, for example

No, I wasn't. I'm talking about any hearing people in general.

For an example: A hearing person stated that the majority of deaf people who were in the total communication program doesn't have any proper English sentences, and I asked where did you get the information from? the person stated that she sees it with her own eyes on AD. How would she know what program the majority of deaf people on AD were in?

 

[Jiro]

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.

very true.... very true.... the critical factor of policy is often forgotten/ignored/looked over.... the home.

 

[Angel]

Excellent point Cheri,

While we are on this subject, how can a hearing person (who has no experience in deaf education) say a program that failed the majority of deaf students because of lack of English skills when the program itself wasn't the problem, it's the teaching. When I mainstreamed, there was no interepters, notetaker, tutor, or any special help. I was so far behind in most of my classes, unable to understand what's being said or taught during class. How can deaf child (who is unable to hear well with hearing aids) understand what the teacher is trying to say 6-7 hours a day with no sign language, I don't see how I am going to learn anything.

Total Communication had absolutely nothing to do with my lack of English skills since I did not attend this program until much later. :roll:

 

[Angel]

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.....

Cheri talking about someone who has no experience in deaf education!

 

[jillio]

I'm trying to catch up on the many pages of this thread that have been added on since I left off this afternoon ..

I need to respond to Jillio's response to my thread about my "individual program" .. and what comes to mind is pre-3rd grade... I didn't mention the story behind that and that's probably important. I attended Tilden, a pre-kindergarten school for the deaf, from 1.5 years old to 4 years old, to learn sign and speech, etc. By age 4 I was deemed ready for kindergarten even though I was younger than the legal age (which is 5 by September 1 in Minnesota.) So I started kindergarten at 4 at Como Elementary which, by what I'm reading, might be a bi-bi program. I was in a classroom with some 20 other students, about half of us were deaf, the other half hearing. During kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade, the teachers signed to the entire classroom. So I didn't need interpreters. And I would get the weekly/daily "timeout" to attend speech therapy. At the end of 2nd grade, my 2nd grade teacher suggested that I would better benefit being placed in my home school district (Como was 20 miles away.) So, I started 3rd grade in my home school district and interpreters started after that.

Thanks for the clarification on your pre-3rd grade experience, AlleyCat. I'm not certain of your age, but am assuming that you are in your early-mid 20's perhaps? Correct me if I am wrong.

The fact that you had hearing and deaf students together in that proportion would point to that having been one of the precursors of a bi-bi program. Indeed, it is unusual to have that proportion in a signing classroom. I'd like to ask, however, if the classroom instruction was entirely in sign, or if the teacher used a form of sim-com. Sim-com would suggest that it was most likely a TC program with some of the features of a bi-bi program.

It is great to hear that there were equal proportions of hearing and deaf children in this environment. Bi-bi presents advantages not only to deaf kids, but to hearing kids, as well. A bi-bi program at its best would be set up this way. I have direct experience with a pre-school program set up with both hearing and deaf children in a bi-bi classroom, and it is an example of the philosophy at it's finest.

I would also suggest that early exposure to this environment made your transition to the mainstream much easier for you, by providing you with a strong foundation in language and learning in an environment that addressed your needs completely. And of course, strong support from your family cannot be discounted, either. It sounds as if you had everything in place as a youngster.

 

[jillio]

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.

Agreed. I cited research several pages back that states the success of children in these programs is, in very large part, dependent upon the signing skills of the teacher. There are no standards by which these signing skills are assessed, and rarely are these teachers certified in deaf ed. Signing skills are usually minimal, and limited to MCEs in theory, but distorted in practice. These classrooms are where the child is not getting an accurrate model of either ASL or English, but modified and distorted versions of both. The result is a negative impact on both their English and their signing skills. I cited research to satisfy the numerous requests for me to back up my statements, but this is what I have seen in practice, as well.

 

[jillio]

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.

That is my question, as well. People seem to be confusing a bi-bi philosophy with actual teaching methodologies used in the classroom. Many various teaching methodologies can be employed in a bi-bi classroom to address the different learning styles of the students.

 

[jillio]

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

Thank you. Accepting the status quo rather than demanding excellence in education for all children only contributes to the problem. Until I see excellence becoming the standard by which the system is judged, I will continue the fight. "Good enough" is just not acceptable to me when it comes to the education standards for any child.

 

[jillio]

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.

I love the way you are able to see past the surface, and to understand that there are variables at work that are rarely seen on the surface. Keep up the open minded and fluid way of thinking.

 

[jillio]

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?

Exactly. Deafness does not make a child less intelligent or less capable of learning in any way. What keeps the literacy rates at an embarrassingly low point is a system that does not permit them to use their intelligence and capabilities. I find it remarkably sad that anyone would find that situation acceptable. We should demand excellence in education for all children.

 

[jillio]

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.

Daredevel indeed does an excellent job of seeing through the fluff to the actuality of the situation, and then expressing herself effectively.

I guess I fall outside the mainstream as a hearing person, because this type of information is what takes a priority for me. The research is secondary, in that it supports the many personal experiences related to me, and those that I have witnessed first hand. The research seems to be necessary to support the argument to those that do not have the experience, or have not experienced the situation first hand. Or, for whatever reason, refuse to accept the stories and experiences of those that have.

 

[jillio]

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.

No one has said that hearing people are more qualified than deaf people. I don't know where you are getting that. I am a hearing person. What makes me qualified to speak on this topic is not my hearing status, it is my experience directly with deaf students, deaf adults, and the educational system. Deaf individuals are the only ones that are qualified to relate the experience of being deaf. What makes me qualified is not just my education, but the fact that I have listened to the stories of struggle, and have seen first hand the consequences of the educational system on deaf students, and have made that a priority and a deciding factor in my assessments.

 

[jillio]

Excellent point Cheri,

While we are on this subject, how can a hearing person (who has no experience in deaf education) say a program that failed the majority of deaf students because of lack of English skills when the program itself wasn't the problem, it's the teaching. When I mainstreamed, there was no interepters, notetaker, tutor, or any special help. I was so far behind in most of my classes, unable to understand what's being said or taught during class. How can deaf child (who is unable to hear well with hearing aids) understand what the teacher is trying to say 6-7 hours a day with no sign language, I don't see how I am going to learn anything.

Total Communication had absolutely nothing to do with my lack of English skills since I did not attend this program until much later. :roll:

I can say that the program has failed the majority because I have witnessed it first hand in students who have come from the program. Since that doesn't seem to be good enough for some, I can also support what I have seen in real life with research done in regard to other deaf students that I have not had personal contact with that shows findings the same as what I have witnessed first hand.

If you discount my 20 years of experience, and also discount the research that finds the same as what I have seen in my 20 years of experience, what are you left with? A broken system that continues to fail deaf students simply because you are willing to accept it.

 

[jillio]

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.....

Tousi.

 

[jillio]

No, I wasn't. I'm talking about any hearing people in general.

For an example: A hearing person stated that the majority of deaf people who were in the total communication program doesn't have any proper English sentences, and I asked where did you get the information from? the person stated that she sees it with her own eyes on AD. How would she know what program the majority of deaf people on AD were in?

It's a natural progression of logical thinking. As TC is the program used in the vast majority of programs over the past 30 years, then one can also logically conclude that the majority of deaf students were educated in a TC environment. Those that weren't have been educated in an oral only environment. Combine that with the deaf here on AD relating their personal experiences educationally, and it is a logical and valid conclusion.

 

[AlleyCat]

Thanks for the clarification on your pre-3rd grade experience, AlleyCat. I'm not certain of your age, but am assuming that you are in your early-mid 20's perhaps? Correct me if I am wrong.

The fact that you had hearing and deaf students together in that proportion would point to that having been one of the precursors of a bi-bi program. Indeed, it is unusual to have that proportion in a signing classroom. I'd like to ask, however, if the classroom instruction was entirely in sign, or if the teacher used a form of sim-com. Sim-com would suggest that it was most likely a TC program with some of the features of a bi-bi program.

It is great to hear that there were equal proportions of hearing and deaf children in this environment. Bi-bi presents advantages not only to deaf kids, but to hearing kids, as well. A bi-bi program at its best would be set up this way. I have direct experience with a pre-school program set up with both hearing and deaf children in a bi-bi classroom, and it is an example of the philosophy at it's finest.

I would also suggest that early exposure to this environment made your transition to the mainstream much easier for you, by providing you with a strong foundation in language and learning in an environment that addressed your needs completely. And of course, strong support from your family cannot be discounted, either. It sounds as if you had everything in place as a youngster.

I'm 38. So this was quite a while ago. As for the teachers, they spoke and signed at the same time. Tilden and Como were known for their deaf ed programs back then which is why so many deaf students attended there. Tilden no longer exists today -- the building was very old and I believe has since been torn down; I'm not sure if a similar program replaced it elsewhere. And, local deaf charter schools have been formed, so deaf students have more choices now as far as location.

 

[jillio]

I'm 38. So this was quite a while ago. As for the teachers, they spoke and signed at the same time. Tilden and Como were known for their deaf ed programs back then which is why so many deaf students attended there. Tilden no longer exists today -- the building was very old and I believe has since been torn down; I'm not sure if a similar program replaced it elsewhere. And, local deaf charter schools have been formed, so deaf students have more choices now as far as location.

The charter schools are indeed providing an excellent option for deaf students today. I am very relieved to see so many being chartered and licensed. A few even use a bi-bi program that includes deaf and hearing children in a signing classroom, as did yours. This is very progressive. I would love to see it become the norm, rather than the exception, in edcuation. It, I firmly beleive, would benefit hearing and deaf alike, and go a long way toward overcoming not just eductional problems, but the psycho-social problems seen in the mainstream practice of integration.

 

[Cheri]

It's a natural progression of logical thinking. As TC is the program used in the vast majority of programs over the past 30 years, then one can also logically conclude that the majority of deaf students were educated in a TC environment. Those that weren't have been educated in an oral only environment. Combine that with the deaf here on AD relating their personal experiences educationally, and it is a logical and valid conclusion.

Total Communication was not the only method, there were oral and cued speech also. :roll:

Total Communication and Oral methods were popular for a long time, so don't start pointing fingers at one method.