What approach should be used in the educational setting for deaf education?

[rockdrummer]

Wouldn't the approaches vary depending on the level of deafness? From profoundly deaf to HOH. I would say that for profoundly deaf the bi bi approach would be benificial. For HOH perhaps leaning towards speech may be helpful. And also be prepared to mix it up in order to lock in on what is successful. Focusing on what works and not spending time on what doesn't would somewhat dictate the direction. There may also be special needs to contend with as well which would have an impact. I would imagine that what the parents believe they want for their child would also play a role. I'm no expert and would defer to those that know more than I.

 

[dreama]

Wouldn't the approaches vary depending on the level of deafness? From profoundly deaf to HOH. I would say that for profoundly deaf the bi bi approach would be benificial. For HOH perhaps leaning towards speech may be helpful. And also be prepared to mix it up in order to lock in on what is successful. Focusing on what works and not spending time on what doesn't would somewhat dictate the direction. There may also be special needs to contend with as well which would have an impact. I would imagine that what the parents believe they want for their child would also play a role. I'm no expert and would defer to those that know more than I.

Well I was HOH and taught orally and I always wish I'd been given the oportunity to learn sign language. I don't think the degree of deafness is really important. Of course there is nothing to stop HOH kids being taught speech but that should be moved to 3rd place after literary skills.

 

[shel90]

Well I was HOH and taught orally and I always wish I'd been given the oportunity to learn sign language. I don't think the degree of deafness is really important. Of course there is nothing to stop HOH kids being taught speech but that should be moved to 3rd place after literary skills.

Yep...literacy skills and language development should come first before oral skills. As someone told me in another thread that I am clueless to why parents want their kids to hear as if I dont understand at all. I understand more than they think. :roll:

 

[jillio]

Yep...literacy skills and language development should come first before oral skills. As someone told me in another thread that I am clueless to why parents want their kids to hear as if I dont understand at all. I understand more than they think. :roll:

(sarcasm) Well, of course you don't understand, shel. You are only a deaf adult who has lived through it. (sarcasm ended). My opinion: you are the one who has all the knowledge, and your opinions and ideas should be listened to first. (You as in D/d adults).

 

[rockdrummer]

(sarcasm) Well, of course you don't understand, shel. You are only a deaf adult who has lived through it. (sarcasm ended). My opinion: you are the one who has all the knowledge, and your opinions and ideas should be listened to first. (You as in D/d adults).

While that may be true there are always two sides to the coin. What about the deafies that did well orally or with a CI? Just playing devils advocate here. There has to be balance. I have personally read posts from others here that did just fine through their lives without sign language. What about them? Doesn't their experience count? And please don't take that wrong as I hope you know my position on the subject. I am and advocate of choice and in order to make an informed decision one must have a balance of all aspects of the issue. I often get the impression that several that participate in these discussions feel that their way is the best way. While that may be true for them, you have to remember everyone is different and will react and respond differently. Balance is key.

 

[shel90]

While that may be true there are always two sides to the coin. What about the deafies that did well orally or with a CI? Just playing devils advocate here. There has to be balance. I have personally read posts from others here that did just fine through their lives without sign language. What about them? Doesn't their experience count? And please don't take that wrong as I hope you know my position on the subject. I am and advocate of choice and in order to make an informed decision one must have a balance of all aspects of the issue. I often get the impression that several that participate in these discussions feel that their way is the best way. While that may be true for them, you have to remember everyone is different and will react and respond differently. Balance is key.

That's why I am all for exposing both to young deaf children and then as they get older, they can decide which route to go. It is rare that deaf people who grew up oral not to want to learn sign language and feel they dont need it. I see so many post of oral deafies who want to learn ASL or learned it later. Just a few that they said they dont need sign language and do fine without it.

My whole point is I dont want to risk the children's language development if the oral method doesnt work. Even a few years really make a HUGe difference. That's my justification for my belief in exposing both to all deaf/hh children when they are developing language.

Rockdrummer, didnt u notice so many oral deafies posting here wishing that they had learned or been exposed to sign language? Why werent we exposed to it along with oral language too? It really sucked growing up without sign language. I wonder if I had both, would I have opted to be more involved in the hearing world than I am now? Never know but thanks to my bad experiences growing up, I get anxiety or nerves whenever I am around hearing people using oral language only. I envy the deafies who got exposed to both and felt very comfortable with themselves growing up and dont mind being involved in the hearing world a lot. Would have been nice to grow up feeling that way about myself.

 

[rockdrummer]

That's why I am all for exposing both to young deaf children and then as they get older, they can decide which route to go. It is rare that deaf people who grew up oral not to want to learn sign language and feel they dont need it. I see so many post of oral deafies who want to learn ASL or learned it later. Just a few that they said they dont need sign language and do fine without it.

My whole point is I dont want to risk the children's language development if the oral method doesnt work. Even a few years really make a HUGe difference. That's my justification for my belief in exposing both to all deaf/hh children when they are developing language.

Rockdrummer, didnt u notice so many oral deafies posting here wishing that they had learned or been exposed to sign language? Why werent we exposed to it along with oral language too? It really sucked growing up without sign language. I wonder if I had both, would I have opted to be more involved in the hearing world than I am now? Never know but thanks to my bad experiences growing up, I get anxiety or nerves whenever I am around hearing people using oral language only. I envy the deafies who got exposed to both and felt very comfortable with themselves growing up and dont mind being involved in the hearing world a lot. Would have been nice to grow up feeling that way about myself.

I almost get the impression that you don't know my position so let me explain. I agree with you on the mulitple language approach. In fact I may take it further and use the full toolbox approach. That way if something is not working you try something else. The CI is just another tool in the box. Its up to the parents to decide (after educating themselves) what should be priority or attempted first. What is unfortunate is that not all mainstream schools (or perhaps even deaf schools) support that approach.

 

[Boult]

While that may be true there are always two sides to the coin. What about the deafies that did well orally or with a CI? Just playing devils advocate here. There has to be balance. I have personally read posts from others here that did just fine through their lives without sign language. What about them? Doesn't their experience count? And please don't take that wrong as I hope you know my position on the subject. I am and advocate of choice and in order to make an informed decision one must have a balance of all aspects of the issue. I often get the impression that several that participate in these discussions feel that their way is the best way. While that may be true for them, you have to remember everyone is different and will react and respond differently. Balance is key.

+1 good point!

 

[Boult]

I almost get the impression that you don't know my position so let me explain. I agree with you on the mulitple language approach. In fact I may take it further and use the full toolbox approach. That way if something is not working you try something else. The CI is just another tool in the box. Its up to the parents to decide (after educating themselves) what should be priority or attempted first. What is unfortunate is that not all mainstream schools (or perhaps even deaf schools) support that approach.

Yep right on!

 

[deafdyke]

What about the deafies that did well orally or with a CI? Just playing devils advocate here. There has to be balance. I have personally read posts from others here that did just fine through their lives without sign language. What about them? Doesn't their experience count?

Well advocating a full toolbox isn't deintegrating deaf people who have done well orally. You know...........it does seem like a lot of the people who claim that they dont need Sign, have been almost ....not brainwashed exactly.......but more they more believed the pro oral folks who made oralism seem like some sort of grand high glorious utopia. A lot of the pro oral folks out there REALLY do look down on Sign as some sort of "crutch"
I know there has to be balance........but I think instead of yapping about how every kid is different, it's better to equipt a kid with a full toolbox of tools, so that the KID can decide for themselves what tools are valueable.
I really think that the two factions need to work together to equipt dhh kids with a full toolbox, instead of spending time and energy fighting over which methology is the best.

 

[shel90]

I almost get the impression that you don't know my position so let me explain. I agree with you on the mulitple language approach. In fact I may take it further and use the full toolbox approach. That way if something is not working you try something else. The CI is just another tool in the box. Its up to the parents to decide (after educating themselves) what should be priority or attempted first. What is unfortunate is that not all mainstream schools (or perhaps even deaf schools) support that approach.

It is apparent u have a different meaning of what a toolbox is than I do. When I speak of educational approaches or toolbox, I am referring language. Language development is the key to knowledge and understanding new concepts so it is my primary focus. Once the child acquired language, then can use whatever methods that best fit the child.

 

[shel90]

Well advocating a full toolbox isn't deintegrating deaf people who have done well orally. You know...........it does seem like a lot of the people who claim that they dont need Sign, have been almost ....not brainwashed exactly.......but more they more believed the pro oral folks who made oralism seem like some sort of grand high glorious utopia. A lot of the pro oral folks out there REALLY do look down on Sign as some sort of "crutch"
I know there has to be balance........but I think instead of yapping about how every kid is different, it's better to equipt a kid with a full toolbox of tools, so that the KID can decide for themselves what tools are valueable.
I really think that the two factions need to work together to equipt dhh kids with a full toolbox, instead of spending time and energy fighting over which methology is the best.

I know that this happens about oralism cuz I grew up orally and was brainwashed into looking down on sign language and deaf people who used them. I find it hard to believe that it is not still happening cuz I still encounter that attitude in my field of work. That's why I have a huge distrust of the oral specialists. I dont know what are they really saying to those parents about Deaf culture and sign language. If they are advocating for both, great but why arent their oral programs using sign language too?

 

[rockdrummer]

Well advocating a full toolbox isn't deintegrating deaf people who have done well orally. You know...........it does seem like a lot of the people who claim that they dont need Sign, have been almost ....not brainwashed exactly.......but more they more believed the pro oral folks who made oralism seem like some sort of grand high glorious utopia. A lot of the pro oral folks out there REALLY do look down on Sign as some sort of "crutch"
I know there has to be balance........but I think instead of yapping about how every kid is different, it's better to equipt a kid with a full toolbox of tools, so that the KID can decide for themselves what tools are valueable.
I really think that the two factions need to work together to equipt dhh kids with a full toolbox, instead of spending time and energy fighting over which methology is the best.

I think that's is pretty much what I said. The only point I would disagree with is that when a child is young and just entering school they are not going to know what is best. It's a matter of objective measurement that will determine what is successfull for such a young child.

 

[rockdrummer]

It is apparent u have a different meaning of what a toolbox is than I do. When I speak of educational approaches or toolbox, I am referring language. Language development is the key to knowledge and understanding new concepts so it is my primary focus. Once the child acquired language, then can use whatever methods that best fit the child.

Ok.. to clearify when I say full toolbox I mean having each and every method including a CI in the toolbox. It's may be referred to as a total communication but I'm not sure. While I agree that language is very important you have to remember there is much more to education than just language. There is also much more required to succeed in this world. Perhpas your focus is just on language and mine is on total education including the ability to communicate with both the deaf and hearing population.

 

[shel90]

I think that's is pretty much what I said. The only point I would disagree with is that when a child is young and just entering school they are not going to know what is best. It's a matter of objective measurement that will determine what is successfull for such a young child.

Right..when the child is entering school with only one approach especially the oral only approach and then to find out in a year or two, the children didn't benefit from the approach and ends up losing critical time for language development causing them to be delayed in language. Iam sure many of the parents here say that doesn't happen with their kids and that's great. Unfortunately, it does really happen to too many deaf children. That's why many of us deaf people try to offer our advice or opinions but many, not all, seem not to want to hear it. They say they know what is best for their children and that it is their decision. Fine, but until the number of deaf children being deprived of a full language shrinks rapidly until it is a tiny tiny percentage, I will continue to strongly advocate for sign language to the young deaf children so they can acquire language fully.

 

[rockdrummer]

Right..when the child is entering school with only one approach especially the oral only approach and then to find out in a year or two, the children didn't benefit from the approach and ends up losing critical time for language development causing them to be delayed in language.

You run that risk no matter what approach you take. That is why I believe that quick assessment and modifications should be made at regular intervals. Even then you run a risk of delayed language aquisition depending on the child and their needs. There is no silver bullet.

 

[shel90]

You run that risk no matter what approach you take. That is why I believe that quick assessment and modifications should be made at regular intervals. Even then you run a risk of delayed language aquisition depending on the child and their needs. There is no silver bullet.

Yea, I agree with u about quick modifications and assessments. We have that program here at my work. It is a challenge but we modify the curriculm to meet a variety of needs. As long as the kids r taught the same concepts as their hearing counterparts, it is all good.

I guess other programs are not doing good jobs of it cuz we get new older kids from the public schools who r like 3 or 4 years behind academically. It is like why did those schools or specialist allow that to happen especially for so long? It is one thing to refer a 1st grader who is falling behind but a middle schooler? There is something wrong with that picture. That's why many deaf school students r delayed academically.

I was just talking with the therapist here about the older kids. She said she sees a huige difference btw social development of the kids that get referred to her at an older age. She said most of them have very low self esteem.

I work with young kids so I look mostly at the language development but also I have to remember about the social/emotional issues too.

 

[Rollover]

I felt that I missed out on so much information and learning was so boring for me. I spent most of my time in the classrooms (middle school and high school) just staring at the clock, looking at my classmates, memorizing all of the presidents, and staring at the wall in a daze. I got into trouble so many times for not paying attention in class so I felt awful. Looking back, if I knew now, I would have said to the teachers "How the fuck do u expect me to pay attention to class if u are jabbering away with your back turned to me?" Should deaf children spend their educational time staring at walls or to be able to engage in classroom discussions fully?

The story of my life!

 

[jillio]

Right..when the child is entering school with only one approach especially the oral only approach and then to find out in a year or two, the children didn't benefit from the approach and ends up losing critical time for language development causing them to be delayed in language. Iam sure many of the parents here say that doesn't happen with their kids and that's great. Unfortunately, it does really happen to too many deaf children. That's why many of us deaf people try to offer our advice or opinions but many, not all, seem not to want to hear it. They say they know what is best for their children and that it is their decision. Fine, but until the number of deaf children being deprived of a full language shrinks rapidly until it is a tiny tiny percentage, I will continue to strongly advocate for sign language to the young deaf children so they can acquire language fully.

The sad fact of the matter is that the deaf/hh child who is raised orally is constantly playing catch up in language acquisition, communication skills, social skills, and educational achievement. That include the so called oral successes.

 

[Aorora111]

I would have to say be taught in both approaches. I am HOH - not quite deaf, not quite hearing. I can hear without my aids, but it is indistinguishable unless you are very close. I was heavily immersed into the hearing world except for one year at a school for the deaf, which I still have vivid memories of. By the time I got to high school, I had lost attention. It was very hard to follow in loud, large classrooms and to follow teachers whose backs were turned like you say. I dropped out in 10th grade and unfortunately fell into a rough crowd, but came back around, into a small alternative school whereI got one on one and was able to use a computer to learn and I quickly outpaced my fellow students that way. Now, I'm 30 and just now learning sign and learning about deaf culture. It's a side I need to know and a side that was always forced into the mainstream. I think it's caused a lot of insecurities because large crowds seriously intimidate me, ironically since I'm a journalist. I'd love to become fluent in sign so that I could even report more deaf news because now that I've "discovered" the language, I am absolutely fascinated. My son and husband are hearing and are both learning sign with me. My son may have a slight loss, but we haven't determined yet since he's three, but I want him to know both. As for profoundly deaf, but with little hearing, I think they should still be given the opportunity to learn to speak so that they are able to connect to the hearing world if they can.

If Helen Keller could communicate, anyone can.

A