A Law Review of Cued Speech in Educational Settings

Wow, you are personal today. Going bananas in this thread just because I attacked faire_jour. Ok..

Rather presumptious of you. I asked you a question since it seems that you are the one who has gotten personal in the first place by going after faire jour. What are you really angry about? Faire jour? Cued speech per se? NCSA? I can understand when making arguments but that doesn't work when used in a fashion to go after individuals. It makes it a personal one. That's what I'm seeing here unless I'm wrong then let us know.
 
Still nothing new, and who are those "many people afraid of choices"?

I believe all the people who are against the AB 2072, many people in DBC, AFA, DNIA, and anyone and everyone who believes that their way is the only right way.These are all people who seek to take away a parent's right to choose the language and modality of their communication with their own children. Some of the organazations have even called for the end of cochlear implants for children, which is CLEARLY against choice.
 
I know his story, and acknowledge it, as I do with the dozen other people I have spoken to. This is about NCSA, less cued speech. Even Netrox have written that NCSA have it wrong with linquistics.

You seems a bit lost here, IMHO.

Do you have a link where Netrox discussed the linguistics aspect of it?
 
I believe all the people who are against the AB 2072, many people in DBC, AFA, DNIA, and anyone and everyone who believes that their way is the only right way.These are all people who seek to take away a parent's right to choose the language and modality of their communication with their own children. Some of the organazations have even called for the end of cochlear implants for children, which is CLEARLY against choice.

Ok. How convenient by you to leave out AG Bell and NCSA :)
 
Rather presumptious of you. I asked you a question since it seems that you are the one who has gotten personal in the first place by going after faire jour. What are you really angry about? Faire jour? Cued speech per se? NCSA? I can understand when making arguments but that doesn't work when used in a fashion to go after individuals. It makes it a personal one. That's what I'm seeing here unless I'm wrong then let us know.

Nice to see you are calming down. It's NCSA, I already said so in this thread. Please do a little work yourself and try to read the posts here.
 
Ok. How convenient by you to leave out AG Bell and NCSA :)

I know literally nothing about NCSA.

As for AG Bell, I believe they support what they support but they are not trying to force anyone to believe what they believe. They do not advocate against choice. They think ASL is a ligetimate choice but it is not within their field of knowledge so if you want support and advocacy for ASL, they are not the ones you should seek that information from. In my experience, they have never said that ASL should be stopped, or that all parents should be forced to do oral only first. They have a bias, but they do not think their way is the only right way.
 
Nice to see you are calming down. It's NCSA, I already said so in this thread. Please do a little work yourself and try to read the posts here.

I'm calm. I wasn't the one doing the attacking.

Which is why I asked again for clarifications after your post #12 since you seem to have a personal angst against NCSA for reasons not exactly clear here.
Now, are you against Cued Speech ergo "cuem"...?
 
Nice to see you are calming down. It's NCSA, I already said so in this thread. Please do a little work yourself and try to read the posts here.

In your very first post in the thread you attacked me. You said nothing about NCSA.
 
I know literally nothing about NCSA.

As for AG Bell, I believe they support what they support but they are not trying to force anyone to believe what they believe. They do not advocate against choice. They think ASL is a ligetimate choice but it is not within their field of knowledge so if you want support and advocacy for ASL, they are not the ones you should seek that information from.

They recently complained about a pepsi advertisement, just because the actors used ASL... Not advocating against choice? Nah.
 
It's detectable by what he have said about cued speech, no specific links.

Detectable? How so?

Either wait until Netrox gets here for him to explain that Cued English is a language, his position about NCSA and such. Otherwise I see it as you just making things up as you go along.
 
I know literally nothing about NCSA.

As for AG Bell, I believe they support what they support but they are not trying to force anyone to believe what they believe. They do not advocate against choice. They think ASL is a ligetimate choice but it is not within their field of knowledge so if you want support and advocacy for ASL, they are not the ones you should seek that information from. In my experience, they have never said that ASL should be stopped, or that all parents should be forced to do oral only first. They have a bias, but they do not think their way is the only right way.

Here's NCSA's position statement:

The National Cued Speech Association (NCSA) believes parents are the best language models for children. Approximately 90 percent of children who are deaf or hard of hearing are born to hearing parents. In order for the child who is deaf or hard of hearing to be fully included in the family, s/he must have full access to the parents’ primary language(s).

The NCSA believes that parents who consistently use a cued language provide the child who is deaf or hard of hearing with full access to communication and language(s) in the home, and therefore, full inclusion in family activities.

Cueing enables hearing parents to quickly learn to express their native language visually and then build upon their child’s language base at home. As with all children, those who are deaf or hard of hearing want and need to be full participants in their family’s language(s) and culture(s). Cued Speech was developed for use by all parents, hearing and deaf, of children who are deaf and hard of hearing to expedite the development of English language skills. These skills are needed to establish a strong foundation for academic literacy.

Children of hearing parents should also be provided with opportunities for interacting with deaf role models who use varied modes of communication. The exposure of role models who are deaf and hard of hearing is crucial to not only a child’s potential success, but also his/her well-being and self-esteem.

The NCSA asserts that parents have the right to decide the mode of communication used to convey their own language(s) and culture(s) to their children. Parents also have the right to use Cued Speech, singly or in combination with other modes of communication. As parents are the most important factor in a child’s nurturing as well as in their language development, the parents’ choices need to be respected. The freedom to make informed choices is essential, and educational professionals, other parents, and deaf and hard of hearing people need to recognize and respect those choices.

The NCSA also asserts that parents have the responsibility of following through on their commitment to Cued Speech by cueing accurately and consistently as a family in all interactions with their child. Parents also have a responsibility to ensure that family members who are deaf or hard of hearing have access to communication during any activity or gathering.


—Original Statement adopted 11-4-1990
—Revised Statement adopted 4-14 -2007



CUEDSPEECH.org > About NCSA > Position Statements >Cued Speech and the Deaf Child in the Hearing Family
 
I'm calm. I wasn't the one doing the attacking.

Which is why I asked again for clarifications after your post #12 since you seem to have a personal angst against NCSA for reasons not exactly clear here.
Now, are you against Cued Speech ergo "cuem"...?

Check the cite from Loml on ASL in the post prior this reply from you, typical of NCSA.
 
Check the cite from Loml on ASL in the post prior this reply from you, typical of NCSA.

That doesn't explain it fully. Are you against NCSA as a whole? Their philosophy? The roles? Etc... You are not making it clear in all this.
 
They recently complained about a pepsi advertisement, just because the actors used ASL... Not advocating against choice? Nah.

You are right, that had slipped my mind. I'm not sure exactly what they said in their letter, but the whole thing was ridiculous. I think that was over the line and wrong.
 
Back
Top