Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[Buffalo]

Helen Keller was also the daughter of a very wealthy family who was able to provide her private tutors. She was not educated in a classroom where the teacher is responsible for many children. And, if you have watched anyold vidoes of Ms. Keller speaking as an adult, you will learn that her speech was very much unintelligible. She normally only made an opening comment or two when making a speach, with the rest being delivered by her interpreter.

Helen Keller was an amazing individual, and she certainly deserves everyone's admiration for her courage and perserverence, but we can't use her as a comparison for the education of deaf students as a group.

I brought up Helen Keller (my post #66) to make a point. Rockdrummer was asking if everyone knows sign language then what is the point of speech? I was trying to show that there was a deaf (and blind) person who want to learn to speak as a challenge. There will be some deaf people who want to see if they can speak as there are some who likes to take on challenges. I didn't want to speak at first because it was forced on me and I was angry about being in no-signs situation. Helen Keller wasn't forced to learn to speak at all. She got the signing right in the beginning although she got her education late.

 

[shel90]

So true. And a perfect example of what I mean when I say that other cognitive skills are dependent upon acquisition of an L1 language.

Right so when a child doesnt have a strong L1 or even a strong L2 language, they are already at an disadvantage in all content areas whether they are in a signing or spoken environment. My class this year has a very very strong L1 language so that's proof that ASL doesnt impede their learning process despite popular belief.

Also, where would speech come in a lesson like that? Where is its place? To me, this wouldnt be a time for worrying about speech development.

 

[jillio]

I brought up Helen Keller (my post #66) to make a point. Rockdrummer was asking if everyone knows sign language then what is the point of speech? I was trying to show that there was a deaf (and blind) person who want to learn to speak as a challenge. There will be some deaf people who want to see if they can speak as there are some who likes to take on challenges. I didn't want to speak at first because it was forced on me and I was angry about being in no-signs situation. Helen Keller wasn't forced to learn to speak at all. She got the signing right in the beginning although she got her education late.

Yes, she did have sign first. And she made the choice to begin to use her voice. I was actually replying to another post about Helen Keller. I understand the point you were making.

 

[jillio]

Right so when a child doesnt have a strong L1 or even a strong L2 language, they are already at an disadvantage in all content areas whether they are in a signing or spoken environment. My class this year has a very very strong L1 language so that's proof that ASL doesnt impede their learning process despite popular belief.

Also, where would speech come in a lesson like that? Where is its place? To me, this wouldnt be a time for worrying about speech development.

Because the way you are teaching the concept, it is very visual in nature. Spoeech would most likely make the concept more difficult to grasp. In fact, many mathematical concepts are more visual in nature, and only become difficult to comprehend when they are reduced to oral explanation.

 

[Buffalo]

I know what you mean. It is a bunch of BS. Like they just gave you that damned degree to be nice! I know full well how much work it is. And the sad fact is, my M.Ed will give me greater credibility than your M.Ed will because I am hearing. That really sucks. We have to complete the same requirements.

I can understand that, too. If a deaf person give good reasons why ASL is a language, nobody would believe that. Stokes is hearing and he is more believable than a deaf person.

 

[Cheri]

Let's wait and see how bi bi educational will do in the years ahead since this program is new, when somthing comes out people gets excited. For years the only options were oral, cued speech and total communication while oral and total communication were popular back then now that they just add the fourth educational option, lets see how that goes, I would not be suprised if speech language falls low.

 

[jillio]

Let's wait and see how bi bi educational will do in the years ahead since this program is new, when somthing comes out people gets excited. For years the only options were oral, cued speech and total communication while oral and total communication were popular back then now that they just add the fourth educational option, lets see how that goes, I would not be suprised if speech language falls low.

That's true. We will need to watch for results. But the results to be looking for are increases in academic achievement. Academic achievement can be measured.

The difference between the other methods and Bi-Bi is that Bi-Bi actually encourages the participation of the deaf community in program development. rather than a program being developed without input from the deaf community. I believe that is a leap in the forward direction, and a giant step backwards from the paternalistic attitude that has been prevalent in educational policy in the past.

 

[flip]

Flip- You gonna be kidding me when you say that those who prefer speech don't have any deaf friends what do you know? I have friends who are both deaf amd hearing. I'm not one of those deaf people who sticks in their little world who referred themselves "a big D Deaf" who thinks signs should be the primary language for the deaf ONLY. And disrinct themselves from the hearing community if this is how it is here, then I'm in the wrong forum. I've met some deaf people like that in every walk of life and I sure do not want to be around those people who are not very accepting and so self center.

That was not what I was trying to say. My view is that deaf people will rate the importance of speech depedent on their background and preset situation. As an example, deaf people who don't know other deaf people propbably would rate speech as more important than a deaf person that live in a deaf community like Marthas Vineyard or Gallaudet. We also have deaf people that would rate speech and ASL/SEE/PSE whatever equally. I hope you don't mean that all deaf people should rate speech as important as you do?

 

[shel90]

That was not what I was trying to say. My view is that deaf people will rate the importance of speech depedent on their background and preset situation. As an example, deaf people who don't know other deaf people propbably would rate speech as more important than a deaf person that live in a deaf community like Marthas Vineyard or Gallaudet. We also have deaf people that would rate speech and ASL/SEE/PSE whatever equally. I hope you don't mean that all deaf people should rate speech as important as you do?

Before learning ASL, I used to rate speech number one but when I learned how inaccessible it is for many deaf people especially the young ones who are just developing their language foundation, my mind was quickly changed.

Since becoming involved in the Deaf culture, I realize how much more relaxed and fulfilling my conversations have become due to not having to working so hard to catch what other people are saying nor working hard to make sure my speech is clear. I wasnt used to it but right off the bat, I wanted more of the relaxed social environment so hence my usage of ASL increasing to about 90% to 95% of my daily life. I guess I am the kind of person who feels if hearing people dont have to be constantly stressed out with communication, why should I?

 

[shel90]

I brought up Helen Keller (my post #66) to make a point. Rockdrummer was asking if everyone knows sign language then what is the point of speech? I was trying to show that there was a deaf (and blind) person who want to learn to speak as a challenge. There will be some deaf people who want to see if they can speak as there are some who likes to take on challenges. I didn't want to speak at first because it was forced on me and I was angry about being in no-signs situation. Helen Keller wasn't forced to learn to speak at all. She got the signing right in the beginning although she got her education late.

Yes, can u image trying to teach Helen Keller speech skills instead of signing? Signing (tactile) was fully accessible to her so once she learned her first concept (water), it was like she wanted mroe and more. All children are born with that curiosity so by putting deaf children in an educational environment where they are extremely restricted and constantly frustrated, you risk killing that curiosity. I have seen young children whose curiosity in learning was completely killed so it becomes much much more difficult for them to continue to learn.

 

[Bear]

I think in this debate, that all tools should be used.

I have had the unique experience of being hearing and suddenly put into an alien world. I had to go from knowing english and speech to a whole new foriegn language.

I found it funny, because I was speaking with Angel the other day in aim, and she was like Bear, I still find it hard to believe you were once hearing. That made me laugh. She said this because to her I am very proficient in my signing skills. Now with that said.

Would I have survived in a world that was suddenly alien to me if I hadnt learned signs? Maybe eventually, but it would have been a struggle.

However, I also believe that speech and the english language is just as important to focus on as the sign is.

You may be able to get a job without speaking, but have fun finding a job with very poor english skills on top of it.

I do believe sign should be focused on first in the child's early years, then when sign is established and mastered, I see nothing wrong with introducing speech.

Now the ideal world would be a world where everyone can speak all languages including signs. But that is not about to happen. So therefore, to truly function in today's world we need at least very good written english skills and comprehension. Speech to me, is just a plus to have.

I will say this.

This debate reminds me of how many Americans are telling the Spanish, you learn to speak English if you wanna be here. Some of those people saying that are deaf as well as hearing. Wouldnt this be considered a double standard?

 

[shel90]

I think in this debate, that all tools should be used.

I have had the unique experience of being hearing and suddenly put into an alien world. I had to go from knowing english and speech to a whole new foriegn language.

I found it funny, because I was speaking with Angel the other day in aim, and she was like Bear, I still find it hard to believe you were once hearing. That made me laugh. She said this because to her I am very proficient in my signing skills. Now with that said.

Would I have survived in a world that was suddenly alien to me if I hadnt learned signs? Maybe eventually, but it would have been a struggle.

However, I also believe that speech and the english language is just as important to focus on as the sign is.

You may be able to get a job without speaking, but have fun finding a job with very poor english skills on top of it.

I do believe sign should be focused on first in the child's early years, then when sign is established and mastered, I see nothing wrong with introducing speech.

Now the ideal world would be a world where everyone can speak all languages including signs. But that is not about to happen. So therefore, to truly function in today's world we need at least very good written english skills and comprehension. Speech to me, is just a plus to have.

I will say this.

This debate reminds me of how many Americans are telling the Spanish, you learn to speak English if you wanna be here. Some of those people saying that are deaf as well as hearing. Wouldnt this be considered a double standard?[/QUOTE]


If those deaf people who are saying that believe in having both ASL and English in the classrooms, yes it is a double standard but if those deaf have grown up orally with English only, then probably not cuz they are monolingual.

I believe Spanish speaking people should keep their language but in order to get good jobs in America, learning English as well is required just like deaf people have to learn English. It can be in the written form only. Just like if I would to move to South America...it would make sense that I learn Spanish to get a good job, right?

The more languages the child learns, the better. My deaf friend grew up orally using Spanish, learned ASL and English at the age of 18. Now, she is fluent in all 3 languages. I think that is amazing.

 

[Angel]

The reason why I look up to Helen Keller more is because she's strong and intelligent woman, she also overcame many obstacles in her own life to go on and improve the lives of others, she's not afraid to try new things so you see what looks like a bad thing at the start may be a good thing after all..

There are times when people have thought I couldn't do something, yet I just find a way to do it, to prove them wrong and I try not to feel sorry for myself because that's just focusing on my weakness ya know. I would love to try anything new and I don't allow my own deafness to get in the way either.

I know this post has nothing to do with the article itself, but I wanted to share my view on Helen Keller. so forgive me for going off-topic here.

 

[jillio]

The reason why I look up to Helen Keller more is because she's strong and intelligent woman, she also overcame many obstacles in her own life to go on and improve the lives of others, she's not afraid to try new things so you see what looks like a bad thing at the start may be a good thing after all..

There are times when people have thought I couldn't do something, yet I just find a way to do it, to prove them wrong and I try not to feel sorry for myself because that's just focusing on my weakness ya know. I would love to try anything new and I don't allow my own deafness to get in the way either.

I know this post has nothing to do with the article itself, but I wanted to share my view on Helen Keller. so forgive me for going off-topic here.

I agree with you. Helen Keller was a remarkable woman. She is one of our nastional heroines, and should be respected and admired for her accomplishments. There is nothing wrong with using her example as motivation in our own lives. I was only trying to point out that we can't use her accomplishements as a way to set standards for kids in the educational system today, because she had some very real advantages that kids in a classroom don't have. And we also need to keep in mind, that much of what has been written as history as been fictionalized. Hele Keller learned speech skill, yes. But by and large, she was not able to communicate using those skills only. She required an interpreter to voice for her in almost all situations. The main point is, she learned English, and could access the written word. But in order to do that, she required tactile signs that allowed her to understand that the sign was nothing more than a symbol for the thing being represented. Then she could apply that new found knowledge to understanding that the braille she sensed through touch was also just a symbol for the thing being represented. Remember the famous water scene where she understood her first concept? That was the connection that she was making....the sign being made in her hand was s symbol that represented the water running over her hand. That connection is mandatory for acquiring language whether it be sign or speech. Because she made that connection using a mode that was accessable to her...tactile sign...she was able to transfer than knowledge to learning English.

That is the point that Shel, Flip, Bear, Buffalo, and I (and others) are trying to make. In Bi-Bi, a child is given a language that is fully accessable to them (sign) so they may use that knowledge to learn a second language (English).

 

[shel90]

I agree with you. Helen Keller was a remarkable woman. She is one of our nastional heroines, and should be respected and admired for her accomplishments. There is nothing wrong with using her example as motivation in our own lives. I was only trying to point out that we can't use her accomplishements as a way to set standards for kids in the educational system today, because she had some very real advantages that kids in a classroom don't have. And we also need to keep in mind, that much of what has been written as history as been fictionalized. Hele Keller learned speech skill, yes. But by and large, she was not able to communicate using those skills only. She required an interpreter to voice for her in almost all situations. The main point is, she learned English, and could access the written word. But in order to do that, she required tactile signs that allowed her to understand that the sign was nothing more than a symbol for the thing being represented. Then she could apply that new found knowledge to understanding that the braille she sensed through touch was also just a symbol for the thing being represented. Remember the famous water scene where she understood her first concept? That was the connection that she was making....the sign being made in her hand was s symbol that represented the water running over her hand. That connection is mandatory for acquiring language whether it be sign or speech. Because she made that connection using a mode that was accessable to her...tactile sign...she was able to transfer than knowledge to learning English.

That is the point that Shel, Flip, Bear, Buffalo, and I (and others) are trying to make. In Bi-Bi, a child is given a language that is fully accessable to them (sign) so they may use that knowledge to learn a second language (English).

This is not about keeping deaf children in Deafhood nor keeping them strictly in an ASL only environment. I dont think about those things when I promote the BiBi approach. It is all about having access to language so they can develop a strong L1 language and then be more successful with their literacy skills. Helen Keller is a perfect example of being successful from the BiBi approach even though in those days, it wasnt called that. The only aspect of the BiBi approach that Helen Keller didnt have was exposure to Deaf culture but that's ok. Important that she was able to develop high literacy skills.

 

[Angel]

That is the point that Shel, Flip, Bear, Buffalo, and I (and others) are trying to make. In Bi-Bi, a child is given a language that is fully accessable to them (sign) so they may use that knowledge to learn a second language (English).

Yes I realized that you and the others strongly believe that the bi-bi approach would work for any children but however at the same time I also believe that children should access all tools so that will help determine whether or not it will work for that particular child. Like Cheri said earlier in this thread to wait and see how bi bi educational will do in a couple of years since the program is new which I agree.

I haven't seen many stories yet about how well a child does in the bi-bi program so I'm looking forward learning more about this. smile.

 

[Angel]

This is not about keeping deaf children in Deafhood nor keeping them strictly in an ASL only environment.

I'll be very honest here but that's what it looks like to me from reading most of the posts in this thread cause it sounds like "signs only enviroment to me"

 

[Bear]

my question is- in a ASL only enviroment, will they learn english or will they learn to write in ASL?

I believe adding spoken English, also helps to foster the written English.

 

[Cheri]

That is the point that Shel, Flip, Bear, Buffalo, and I (and others) are trying to make. In Bi-Bi, a child is given a language that is fully accessable to them (sign) so they may use that knowledge to learn a second language (English).

Bear did not say speech wasn't important like some of you have said, bear stated that speech is as extremely important as signs while you and the others thinks speech is just a bonus. What would happen if those deaf children have no speech skills since in deaf schools speech are only given maybe twice a week, is that enough? I don't believe so. You don't want those kids to grow up and enter the hearing world feeling awkward tenision and uncomforable with lack of speech skills. Since bi bi program is ASL all the way from the begin to the end it is use to teach English too as a second language how can ASL teach English when ASL signs itself uses ASL syntex?

While I have no problem with introducing babies to signs the first 6 month of the baby's life until there's a stage to pick up spoken language. ASL is different than English, those kids need spoken language.

The bottom line of what I'm trying to say is speech is not meant to replace ASL, speech should be very apart of the child's life as well as signs and I do think that is extremely important not the least important.

We don't need people to see that deaf people are always going to be a failture if something is limited to them. I know most of you believe that ASL is a native language for the deaf, but it does not mean you should limited their communication skills to ASL.

 

[Angel]

Bear did not say speech wasn't important like some of you have said, bear stated that speech is as extremely important as signs while you and the others thinks speech is just a bonus. What would happen if those deaf children have no speech skills since in deaf schools speech are only given maybe twice a week, is that enough? I don't believe so. You don't those kids to grow up and enter the hearing world feeling awkward tenision and uncomforable with lack of speech skills. Since bi bi program is ASL all the way from the begin to the end it is use to teach English too as a second language how can ASL teach English when ASL signs itself uses ASL syntex?

While I have no problem with introducing babies to signs the first 6 month of the baby's life until there's a stage to pick up spoken language. ASL is different than English, those kids need spoken language.

The bottom line of what I'm trying to say is speech is not meant to replace ASL, speech should be very apart of the child's life as well as signs and I do think that is extremely important not the least important.

We don't need people to see that deaf people are always going to be a failture if something is limited to them. I know most of you believe that ASL is a native language for the deaf, but it does not mean you should limited their communication skills to ASL.

Exactly sis and I feel the same way as you and Bear do!!!!