Charter school vs. state deaf school

Spoken language is not seen as something of value in many bi-bi schools.
Click to expand...
Correction.........the bi-bi school that YOU experianced!
Actually, faire_jour most of the public programs out there don't have great speech therapy resources, since many of the gifted speech therapists tend to be attracted to the private school programs or the oral programs in high achiever towns.
 
faire_jour said:
Sure. I'll find it. It was a study about bilingualism in general. It was not about Deaf children. They found that 35 hours was the key, if they were exposed to less, they never became fully fluent in the "weaker" language.
Click to expand...

In that case, you cannot generalize it to the deaf population. There are too many variables that you are not accounting for. But I would still be interested in reading it.
 
deafdyke said:
Correction.........the bi-bi school that YOU experianced!
Actually, faire_jour most of the public programs out there don't have great speech therapy resources, since many of the gifted speech therapists tend to be attracted to the private school programs or the oral programs in high achiever towns.
Click to expand...

No, I have spoken to other bi-bi programs as well. We have "shopped around" because we have considered relocating so that our daughter could have the best education around. There is a prevelant feeling that if the child is learning to speak, that's great, but if not, there is nothing we can (or will) do about it.

I think SLP's are attracted to jobs where their work is needed and valued. Why wouldn't they go to an oral school?
 
jillio said:
In that case, you cannot generalize it to the deaf population. There are too many variables that you are not accounting for. But I would still be interested in reading it.
Click to expand...

So, a deaf child would somehow need LESS exposure to a language to pick it up? That seems unlikely.....
 
That's where history repeats itself..trying to apply theories on hering children to deaf children. It just doesn't work. More variables need to be taken into account when dealing with a deaf/hoh population than just simple cut and dry exposure to 35 hours of spoken language.
 
faire_jour said:
So, a deaf child would somehow need LESS exposure to a language to pick it up? That seems unlikely.....
Click to expand...

There are variables regarding exposure that would be peculiar to a deaf child that would not apply to the hearing population.
 
The difference is that "35 hours" thing is PASSIVE learning.

In speech therapy, it's ACTIVE learning... well if it's hands-on, it's active.
 
shel90 said:
That's where history repeats itself..trying to apply theories on hering children to deaf children. It just doesn't work. More variables need to be taken into account when dealing with a deaf/hoh population than just simple cut and dry exposure to 35 hours of spoken language.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We have to break away from seeing deaf kids as hearing kids with impaired functioning and start seeing them as fully functioning deaf kids. The ears and the mouth play far too important a role for some.
 
shel90 said:
The whole point of schools is EDUCATION not speech therapy.

To guarantee that all deaf/hoh children are getting equal access, ASL is the language to use. To use spoken language u run the risk of children not having full access. They ARE deaf, not hearing.
Click to expand...

But education can be given in spoken language as much as in ASL. My daughter does not have speech therapy all day, she has school. She is learning to read, doing math and science and sharing stories. It is just a different language mode.
 
souggy said:
The difference is that "35 hours" thing is PASSIVE learning.

In speech therapy, it's ACTIVE learning... well if it's hands-on, it's active.
Click to expand...

Correct. That would be one of the variables that would make research of this type non-applicable to the deaf population. There are several others as well.
 
faire_jour said:
So, a deaf child would somehow need LESS exposure to a language to pick it up? That seems unlikely.....
Click to expand...

Spoken language..fully accessible by auditory.

Deaf children do not have full auditory access like hearing children.

ASL fully accessible visually or tactually.

Deaf children can see and can feel..so they have full access to sight or touch.

Which language would be guaranteed to be fully accessible to ANY deaf/hoh child?

I think the answer is easy to figure out.

Why should deaf childre n have less than full access in the education setting where learning takes place? Why? That just seems cruel in a way.
 
faire_jour said:
But education can be given in spoken language as much as in ASL. My daughter does not have speech therapy all day, she has school. She is learning to read, doing math and science and sharing stories. It is just a different language mode.
Click to expand...

The question is, how much more could she be learning in a visual mode?

Also, speech is a mode of English. ASL is a different language altogether, and it developed to be in sync with the manner in which the brain processes visual information. That is why the syntax is spatial and time oriented. English is linear; quite unlike ASL, and therefore, when one attempts to use one of the MCEs, one is making the linguistic environment confusing for the child's brain to process.
 
jillio said:
The question is, how much more could she be learning in a visual mode?

Also, speech is a mode of English. ASL is a different language altogether, and it developed to be in sync with the manner in which the brain processes visual information. That is why the syntax is spatial and time oriented. English is linear; quite unlike ASL, and therefore, when one attempts to use one of the MCEs, one is making the linguistic environment confusing for the child's brain to process.
Click to expand...

So far she is keeping up beautifully, is happy as a clam to be there and her spoken language has exploded. She is doing well in her academics, and is happy, I don't know what more I could want!
 
The difference is that "35 hours" thing is PASSIVE learning.

In speech therapy, it's ACTIVE learning... well if it's hands-on, it's active.
Click to expand...
YES! THANK YOU! Most dhh kids are exposed to English/spoken language out of school. Yes....they aren't sitting at a desk going " boo-be-bah" ....but they ARE building on the stuff they learn in speech therapy. They don't need to be in speech therapy 24/7.
 
deafdyke said:
YES! THANK YOU! Most dhh kids are exposed to English/spoken language out of school. Yes....they aren't sitting at a desk going " boo-be-bah" ....but they ARE building on the stuff they learn in speech therapy. They don't need to be in speech therapy 24/7.
Click to expand...

Exposure to a language is not speech therapy.

Plus, if a child is a sign language user, when they leave schol, they will still be using sign. Are you advocating a family with a child who uses ASL, NOT use it at home, so that they will learn spoken language?
 
faire_jour said:
Exposure to a language is not speech therapy.

Plus, if a child is a sign language user, when they leave schol, they will still be using sign. Are you advocating a family with a child who uses ASL, NOT use it at home, so that they will learn spoken language?
Click to expand...

*head smacks into desk*

Why is it so hard to explain to an American about fluent language acquisition... from a Canadian or European point of view.

I swear the monolingual political viewpoint distorted things.
 
souggy said:
*head smacks into desk*

Why is it so hard to explain to an American about fluent language acquisition... from a Canadian or European point of view.

I swear the monolingual political viewpoint distorted things.
Click to expand...

No. I understand, but I believe that BOTH languages need to be acquired naturally through exposure and use NOT through lessons and therapy.
 
souggy said:
*head smacks into desk*

Why is it so hard to explain to an American about fluent language acquisition... from a Canadian or European point of view.

I swear the monolingual political viewpoint distorted things.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it has. Americans appear to take great pride in their monolingualism. I, personally, see it as a shame.
 
Here's a million dollar question...

How do Europeans and Canadians become fluent in French, Italian, German, English, Japanese, Mandarin and so on... and in some cases: they learn up to 5 languages before university, without being completely immersed in the language itself, not using it at school or at home?

It's sure ain't "35 hours a week." Need help? Ask a Finnish.
 
souggy said:
Here's a million dollar question...

How do Europeans and Canadians become fluent in French, Italian, German, English, Japanese, Mandarin and so on... and in some cases: they learn up to 5 languages before university, without being completely immersed in the language itself, not using it at school or at home?

It's sure ain't "35 hours a week." Need help? Ask a Finnish.
Click to expand...

Exposure, exposure, exposure. And how do children raised in a bilingual home know to code switch at a very young age depending upon who they are communicating with. Same thing, exposure, exposure, exposure. They both early on connect the symbolic nature of language, and that fundamental knowledge is applied to various languages. Americans seem to have difficulty understanding the symbolic nature of language.
 
Back
Top