Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[Silentwolfdog]

Ok now I am confused. What's the difference between both TC and bi-bi? Don't both use English and ASL to teach deaf students?

 

[jillio]

Uh-huh, You've said a lot of negaitives on all three methodologies. There is no studies that show which program is better than another, each program is specifically designed to meet the needs of the deaf. You know deaf children don't come with instuction manuals to tell parents what would work better for this one child.

For a long time some would say that ASL will fail the deaf children because signs itself has no spoken language it has no written form only that it has its own syntax, that's when oral came in, because deaf people did not have any speech skills they call them deaf-mute. I never thought it was right to cut ASL out.

Come to think of it the only counties did not opposed signs were the United States.
It was just not being use often since oral came in better.

Each program has various of ways that each individual can communicate. The only reason I choose TC because it had everything, more than what oral method had to offer.

Bi Bi is just not well known, it will take couple more years to show the studies of the improvement of deaf children's literacy. TC, Oral and Cued Speech has been around for a long time, and there's some flaws in each metholdology but it is not too bad or far the worse.

Cheri, my own son attended a TC program. At the time, there were no Bi-Bi programs, and TC was the best choice. By the time he graduated, they were moving toward a more Bi-Bi approach. There was a time that if you wanted your deaf child to be exposed to sign at all in the educational environment, TC was the only option.

Never did I say that it was the worst option. Nor did I say that it was all bad. I said it had some weaknesses, but all methodologies have strengths and weaknesses. I see Bi-Bi as moving forward and compensating for the weaknesses in TC. It is just an improvement. Just like digital HA is an improvement over analog, or CC is an improvement over open caption, or a text pager is an improvement over TTY, and TTY was an inprovement over having to write letters to communicate. VRS is another improvement.

Bi-Bi does not take speech away from a deaf child. Just like TC, it offers everything...speech, HA, CI, sign. The only difference is the sign is ASL instead of signed English in the classroom. The reason for that is, there have been studies that support increased fluency in both English and ASL is obtained when the 2 languages are kept separate, and English is taught as a second language.

I agree that we need more research on Bi-Bi, but it hasn't been in use long enough to generate that kind of data yet. Educational research is most valid when it is done over several years to see how the child benefits over a long period of time. We do have research showing that the child who is exposed to both sign and speech is the highest achieving subgroup, though, and that would fall in line with Bi-Bi practices.

I'm sorry that you feel as if we have been putting TC down, or saying it has been a bad thing. That is not what shel or I am saying at all. We both agree that TC is a good program, and for some time, it was the best that was offered for deaf children. But there may be a methodology that can make a good thing even better, and our deaf kids deserve the best that can be found.

 

[jillio]

Ok now I am confused. What's the difference between both TC and bi-bi? Don't both use English and ASL to teach deaf students?

TC uses whatever is available. They might use ASL for more informal instruction and communiction, but in the classroom, they generally use sim-com. Sim-com uses one of the manually coded modes of English rather than ASL. So they teach English skills by using English in a visual mode. It is not taught as a second language, but a different mode of one language.

Bi-Bi teaches English as a second language through ASL. Once a child has acquired a strong foundation in ASL, they can transfer those linguistic skills over to learning another language: in this case English. By keeping the two languages separate, rather than trying to combine them as in sim-com, the child gets a pure model of 2 langauges, rather than a distorted model of one language. A child who knows English and SEE is bimodal. A child who knows English and ASL is bilingual.

I know it can get confusing trying to figure out the differences between the 2 approaches. I hope that helped. If not, just ask more questions and I'll try to explain it better.

 

[Angel]

Cheri, my own son attended a TC program. At the time, there were no Bi-Bi programs, and TC was the best choice. By the time he graduated, they were moving toward a more Bi-Bi approach. There was a time that if you wanted your deaf child to be exposed to sign at all in the educational environment, TC was the only option.

Never did I say that it was the worst option. Nor did I say that it was all bad. I said it had some weaknesses, but all methodologies have strengths and weaknesses. I see Bi-Bi as moving forward and compensating for the weaknesses in TC. It is just an improvement. Just like digital HA is an improvement over analog, or CC is an improvement over open caption, or a text pager is an improvement over TTY, and TTY was an inprovement over having to write letters to communicate. VRS is another improvement.

Bi-Bi does not take speech away from a deaf child. Just like TC, it offers everything...speech, HA, CI, sign. The only difference is the sign is ASL instead of signed English in the classroom. The reason for that is, there have been studies that support increased fluency in both English and ASL is obtained when the 2 languages are kept separate, and English is taught as a second language.

I agree that we need more research on Bi-Bi, but it hasn't been in use long enough to generate that kind of data yet. Educational research is most valid when it is done over several years to see how the child benefits over a long period of time. We do have research showing that the child who is exposed to both sign and speech is the highest achieving subgroup, though, and that would fall in line with Bi-Bi practices.

I'm sorry that you feel as if we have been putting TC down, or saying it has been a bad thing. That is not what shel or I am saying at all. We both agree that TC is a good program, and for some time, it was the best that was offered for deaf children. But there may be a methodology that can make a good thing even better, and our deaf kids deserve the best that can be found

Excellent post there Jillioie I like your point toward where I bold it, that was an great listing of examples of how things has improved dramatically in the past years, it the same way as what I see in these cochlear implants, not so long ago, I remember being so against cochlear implants in the past because I feel parents were trying to change us to be like them but I was so wrong and started learning so much more about them. Anyways, I'd be interested to see how many deaf children benefits from these bi bi programs just as much as TC did for me and the others inculde your son.

Before I submit my reply, I wanted to add what I love best about it is your passionate focus on deaf children's education and not often do I see hearing parents fighting to keep ASL alive. It good to have people like you on this forum Jillio, only to wish for more people like you, well done!

 

[shel90]

TC uses whatever is available. They might use ASL for more informal instruction and communiction, but in the classroom, they generally use sim-com. Sim-com uses one of the manually coded modes of English rather than ASL. So they teach English skills by using English in a visual mode. It is not taught as a second language, but a different mode of one language.

Bi-Bi teaches English as a second language through ASL. Once a child has acquired a strong foundation in ASL, they can transfer those linguistic skills over to learning another language: in this case English. By keeping the two languages separate, rather than trying to combine them as in sim-com, the child gets a pure model of 2 langauges, rather than a distorted model of one language. A child who knows English and SEE is bimodal. A child who knows English and ASL is bilingual.

I know it can get confusing trying to figure out the differences between the 2 approaches. I hope that helped. If not, just ask more questions and I'll try to explain it better.

Using whatever communication method that works for each child is great about a TC program but too often, the teachers who has a classroom full of deaf kids just cannot use all those methods at one time to meet all their communication needs and end up Sim-Comming so as a result, the children arent getting a pure model of either languages.

I think TC is more appropriate for one-on-one situations like an iinternat teacher (a teacher who goes to different schools each day to work with different deaf children) does. Maybe even on two-on one situations would work too but I dont see how it can work in a classroom full of students.

The BiBi approach uses one language that is visually accessible for all deaf children even if some of them have excellent speech skills so that language is ASL and then use English for reading and writing. As for speech, those who benefit from speech development still get their speech time too.

 

[Angel]

As for speech, those who benefit from speech development still get their speech time too.

What about those who don't benefit well from speech, does that mean more hours spending on speech?

 

[shel90]

What about those who don't benefit well from speech, does that mean more hours spending on speech?

Well, we generally make the recommendation to the parents that their child is showing signs of not benefiting from speech and to end the speech classes in order to use the time for more academics...most of the parents take our recommendations but there are some that are in denial and request the continuance of speech classes. If it is on the IEP, we have to follow it even though it would be a waste of those children's time. Fortunately, most of the parents have been pretty realistic. For those who show signs of benefitting from speech, we recommend more speech time for the kids and always, the parents will agree to that.

We even have deaf students from Deaf families taking speech classes cuz their parents know that having speech skills help. We would never ever deny any children the chance for it but we are also realistic that some kids just dont have the innate ability to do so. If we had the answer to why, we could work around it but we dont. I dont think anyone does.

 

[Silentwolfdog]

Ah. I would just think it's better to use one language instead of two at the same time.

Even I can't look at interpreter while reading the textbook. Two languages fighting for dominant position in my brain just hurts me.

 

[Angel]

The reason why I asked Shel is because 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness and also would like their deaf children to learn spoken language and if you were get hearing parents to be interesting in these bi bi programs, how would you do that?..AND if you noticed why there are many hearing parents favor early implantation is because of an increased improvement in their child's speech classes..

 

[Silentwolfdog]

I don't see how ASL won't work for some deaf people. It's like saying English isn't work for some Americans.

Only reasons I can think of if those aren't working is if those people already have another type of problems as such literacy isn't their strongest subject or having dyslexia or whatever.

I can see deaf people having more problems with oral method rather than with ASL since ASL depends on one of their strongest sense (sight).

But that's just me.

 

[Cheri]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)
Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

 

[Banjo]

It's difficult to get some real results out of many types of educational programs for the deaf and hard of hearing. One of the reasons is the lack of language development during the first five years of a child's life. It is absolutely crucial that language development is made a top priority, if not then you are likely to be in for a very rough ride. Educators and the educational programs will not work if the parents don't work with their children in acquiring a language or more.

It's a continuing trend and not much is being done about it. It's the same old story all of the times.

 

[shel90]

Ah. I would just think it's better to use one language instead of two at the same time.

Even I can't look at interpreter while reading the textbook. Two languages fighting for dominant position in my brain just hurts me.

LOL, I know. Can u imagine while teaching, I use two language at the same time. I wouldnt be able to teach effectively cuz my mind would be just confused trying to make sense of fitting two languages together.

 

[shel90]

The reason why I asked Shel is because 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, and these parents know very little about deafness and also would like their deaf children to learn spoken language and if you were get hearing parents to be interesting in these bi bi programs, how would you do that?..AND if you noticed why there are many hearing parents favor early implantation is because of an increased improvement in their child's speech classes..

Some parents are well-informed and make the choice while others dont get that info and then their kids end up in our program later on. Usually the kids who come into our program later on have language delays. My school has a family ed program who goes to home visists and educate the parents about all the options including our program. Up to the parents to make that decision. We have children with CIs coming in our program as babies and some of those chidlren are able to switch between both lanaguages which is really neat to see.

 

[shel90]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)
Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

Never seen a child get pulled from our program because it wasnt working for them cuz ASL is 100% accessible to all chidlren even hearing ones.

In AZ, there is a charter school called Sequois that is a BiBi program using ASL and English. Both deaf and hearing children are accepted there and it is having a lot of success. In my 5 years of teaching, I have never seen a child pulled out of our program to another program. It is usually the other way around.

It would be like saying spoken English doesnt work for some hearing kids in the public schools.

 

[shel90]

It's difficult to get some real results out of many types of educational programs for the deaf and hard of hearing. One of the reasons is the lack of language development during the first five years of a child's life. It is absolutely crucial that language development is made a top priority, if not then you are likely to be in for a very rough ride. Educators and the educational programs will not work if the parents don't work with their children in acquiring a language or more.

It's a continuing trend and not much is being done about it. It's the same old story all of the times.

Yep, that is what I see too often.

 

[shel90]

I don't see how ASL won't work for some deaf people. It's like saying English isn't work for some Americans.

Only reasons I can think of if those aren't working is if those people already have another type of problems as such literacy isn't their strongest subject or having dyslexia or whatever.

I can see deaf people having more problems with oral method rather than with ASL since ASL depends on one of their strongest sense (sight).

But that's just me.

Right...it is the same thing with CODAs...never heard of a case where ASL didnt work for a CODA either.

 

[shel90]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)
Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

It sounds like a good idea but the problem is you run risk of language delays if those programs dont work for some. That is why we get so many kids referred to our program at an older age cuz their parents tried all these programs only to have their kids fall so far behind. For me, I would rather have the child to have 100% full access to language and communication at all times in the educational setting so that way they have a better chance of developing higher literacy skills. I guess that's just me...putting the child's education/language/literacy skills first and foremost.

At the rate we are going, probably all deaf kids will end up implanted in the future.

 

[rockdrummer]

No, Cheri, I'm not deaf, nor have I ever claimed to know what it is to experience life as a deaf person. On the contrary, I have always said that I have gone out of my way to consult with deaf people because they are the only ones who truly know what it is to be deaf, and they are the experts on their own needs. I constantly advocate for services to be provided from a deaf perspective rather than from a hearing perspective. I am the one that reccommends involving deaf individuals in the decisions made and the policies set that affect them.

I have, however, studied deaf education and psychology of deafness in depth. I have studied cognitive psychology as it applies to learning styles of deaf children. I have studied developmental psychology as it applies to language acquisition of deaf children. I have been directly involved in deaf education and advocacy for deaf students for 16 years. I have studied the psychosocial impact of deafness, and how changes in the environment such as school placement and methodology benefit deaf students. I have done research on these topics. My dissertation is based on these concepts. I talk with deaf students on a daily basis, and I listen to what they tell me, and use it as a foundation for understanding what I know about these other subjects as they apply to deafness. I have not only seen TC programs in operation, I have spoken in depth to students who were educated in TC programs. I know the philosophy behind TC, and I know the methodology used in a TC environment. I know the rationale used in the development of TC programs. I have also witnessed Bi-Bi education, and know the methodology used and the philosophy behind it. I understand the rationale on which Bi-Bi education is developed. I have spent considerable time and effort comparing and contrasting the two methodologies, and applying them as they fit the needs of specific learning preferences and cognitive processes. My opinions regarding Bi-Bi and TC are based on extensive klnowledge and the experience of those who have been educated in the methods, and those who have taught using the methods. Whether I am hearing or deaf is not the issue, because I use the deaf population as my focus group in both assessing the effectiveness, and evaluating the differences.

Shel is not agreeing with me just because she thinks I am right. She, too, has extensive experience and education to back up her opinions. She and I have seen the same things, and have reached the same conclusions, and we have done so separately. She has been involved with different programs than I have, she has worked with different deaf students that I have, she attended a different college than I did, so she had different coursework and professors. But we are seeing the same things in her experience and in my experience. That alone tells me that it isn't just what I have experienced, or just what she has experienced, but that there is a common thread that holds true across different groups of students.

No one has said that TC is bad. In fact, for several years, TC was the best choice available. But, just as with anything, there are strengths and there are weaknesses in the methodology and the philosophy that have been well documented across disciplines. Bi-Bi has the possibility to overcome the weaknesses. It isn't about making a judgement of one program being bad and one being good. It is about improving the educational environment for deaf children, and making changes that provide greater opportunity.

All very impressive but at the end of the day you still can't ignore the success stories out of various programs. You also cant ignore the fact that there are many experts in the area of deaf eduation and amongst them there is no consensus. You also can't ignore the inconsistancies within the various programs.

The fact that many so called Bi-Bi programs are not really Bi-Bi. I have heard from deaf adults on this board that have said the Bi-Bi program they went through was a joke. And I am reasonably sure those inconsistancies apply within TC and other programs as well.

So assuming all of the programs are in fact what they say they are, there is still division amongst those that cliam to be experts. How does one reconcile that. For me it suggests that one size doesn't fit all. It tells me there is no silver bullet. My own research and personal experience indicate success and failures out of all camps.

To me, that clearly indicates differences in learning styles and learning needs. It also suggests that some programs within a given model are better than others. I'm quite sure there are great Bi-Bi programs out there and that those programs are in fact Bi-Bi as defined. I'm also quite sure there are many that fall woefully short at the expense the childs education. And that applies to all programs. Not just Bi-Bi. Much of that also has to do with politics within the educational system and some has to do with the individual teachers themselves. Assuming each program is well defined and equally implemented, I'm sure you will still see varying results out of each program.

Each parent has to make many choices regarding their deaf child and they make those choices based on many variables. While it would be nice to limit those variables, the reality is when it comes to education, at this particular point in time, it can't be done.

 

[rockdrummer]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)
Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

Outstanding points especially about how much hearing loss a person has. I'm quite sure that also influences the individuals learning style and needs. While I am no expert I would imagine that the teaching techniques would be a bit different towards a profoundly deaf child than they would towards a child that is HOH.