Feelings on how a Deaf child should be taught

rick48 said:
It is not my measure of success, however, if you cannot see the value of being able to effectively and fluently communicate orally with the other over 99% of the population who use oral communication as either their primary or only means of communication, then that is your problem, not mine and definitely not my daughter's.

However, still waiting.....
Rick
Click to expand...

Mind enlightening us as to how you came up with that "over 99%"? Highly innacurate.
 
Actually, the studies show that ASL helps literacy not hinder it, especially when compared to SEE or some other manually coded English.
 
faire_jour said:
Actually, the studies show that ASL helps literacy not hinder it, especially when compared to SEE or some other manually coded English.
Click to expand...


Right, but some people disregarded the studies calling them biased or whatevwer. It is sad cuz I have personally seen how much ASL really lead to improved literacy rates.
 
Bottesini said:
How many deaf people are there in the United States

Not on the other side Jillio, but I think this link from Gallaudet supports the figure. Sorry..
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry. Rick's statement was regarding oral communication, and there are any other number of communication disorders that restrict the ability to communicate with spoken language. So that even within the hearing population, there are sub-populations that cannot or do not communicate with spoken language. Those must be figured in when giving a percentage of the population that communicates with spoken language as their primary form of communication. To leave this significant sub-population out is intentionally skewing the percentage.
 
jillio said:
No need to be sorry. Rick's statement was regarding oral communication, and there are any other number of communication disorders that restrict the ability to communicate with spoken language. So that even within the hearing population, there are sub-populations that cannot or do not communicate with spoken language. Those must be figured in when giving a percentage of the population that communicates with spoken language as their primary form of communication. To leave this significant sub-population out is intentionally skewing the percentage.
Click to expand...

Got it! Sorry anyway, I do support the ASL side of the argument.
 
Deborah, have you looked into Model Secondary School for the Deaf? That's supposed to be a VERY good Deaf School. I have a friend who goes there, and she LOVES it. She also said that there's a lot of hoh kids there too. I'm so hardcore about Deaf Schools or nonmainstream placements,(for kids with other kinds of disabilites) since jr high and high school can be SO miserable.
Also, believe it or not, the number of folks who are out there who are stereotypical Deaf seperatist is VERY small. Most of the Deafies I know are very glad that they had speech training. Most dhh folks have HAD speech training. I remmy reading Volta Voices (my alma mater-a hearing college near Clarke School for the Deaf, had a subscription) and someone painted "deaf schools" as being almost Deaf seperatist utopias.
That's not nessarily true. Overall most kids have gotten intensive speech and language training. However, it might not have been as good as kids who attended oral schools or who had the benifit of very talented auditory verbal therapists etc. It really is the private school vs. public school effect.
Also, there have always been kids who just picked up speech with hearing aids/CIs without really intensive intervention.
That doesn't mean that EVERY kid can do that. As a matter of fact, last week on the way home from Texas, a mom with a daughter with CI got on on St. Louis. You'd think in this day and age with all the "OMG CI can work worders" that the gross majority of kids would be able to hear and speak pretty well with CI. This daughter could only speak a hnadful of words and she was four or five. I also recall from the time I lurked at Hearing Exchange , that there are still many kids who while they can aquire some speech skills, they still need Sign. Not all kids are super high achievers. It does seem like the reason why a lot of families are sucesfully orally, are b/c they are steroetypical suburban high achiever families. Like the families that go in for intensive SAT prep courses and where its expected that the kids will go off to be a doctor or lawyer or something even more prestigious.
 
My severely hearing impaired son is mainstreamed, very verbal and outperforming most kids his age academically but I'm not sure I understand the emotional challenges.
Click to expand...
Even very high achoieving kids can have signficent emotional-social challenges. One option might be to enrich your son's social life by doing things like sending him to a Deaf School camp.....Gally university actually even had a summer program for oral dhh kids who wanted to learn Sign. Believe me, he won't be alone....there are tons of kids out there who learn Sign for the social aspects. I know a lot of hearing parents go into things being kind of afraid that their kids will be osctrcized b/c of being oral. The key is to be openminded. Most people will welcome you into the community if you make an effort to want to learn Sign, and if you're not all "Oh I'm better educated" the way some people can be.
Oh.....rick and Deborah, one thing........you're so sure that speech therapy will always acheive clear speech or perfect language. It doesn't always you know. I know plenty of dhh folks who can hear and speak, but the clarity of their speech tends not to be great (and these were kids who were orally educated) or they make very English As a Second Language errors with their syntax or vocab.
 
deafdyke said:
Even very high achoieving kids can have signficent emotional-social challenges. One option might be to enrich your son's social life by doing things like sending him to a Deaf School camp.....Gally university actually even had a summer program for oral dhh kids who wanted to learn Sign. Believe me, he won't be alone....there are tons of kids out there who learn Sign for the social aspects. I know a lot of hearing parents go into things being kind of afraid that their kids will be osctrcized b/c of being oral. The key is to be openminded. Most people will welcome you into the community if you make an effort to want to learn Sign, and if you're not all "Oh I'm better educated" the way some people can be.
Oh.....rick and Deborah, one thing........you're so sure that speech therapy will always acheive clear speech or perfect language. It doesn't always you know. I know plenty of dhh folks who can hear and speak, but the clarity of their speech tends not to be great (and these were kids who were orally educated) or they make very English As a Second Language errors with their syntax or vocab.
Click to expand...

Since my name was mentioned I thought I would respond. I never said ALL kids who benefit from hearing aids or CIs learn to speak well--some do and some don't, that is definitely true. I will never assume ALL this or that--there are too many variables. Sadly, there are some people who DO speak in terms of ALL--or at least MOST--I have met a lot of people who overgeneralize when it comes to hearing loss and deafness. People who seem to have no problem hearing or speaking saying ALL deaf people can do that--people who cannot hear anything and do not speak at all saying ALL deaf people are like that--too much overgeneralizing on both sides. As far as the hearing and speaking, I have met deaf people who do or do not do these things on many different levels. I have met deaf people who seem to hear EVERYTHING--whispers, quiet sounds, etc.--some refer to their "bionic ears" and it is amazing what they can hear. These people often, but not always, have wonderful speech skills because they hear so well. AND--I have met deaf people who hear "okay or fairly well"--sometimes how well they hear reflects on how well they speak, sometimes not. If you cannot hear yourself speak, it is hard to monitor how your voice sounds--some may perceive it very differently than others who are listening to them speak. AND--I have met deaf people who do not hear anything, or hear very little--it is completely understandable that those who cannot hear much speech also cannot produce it very well. Having said all of that, there are still many exceptions and many variations--even some who hear very well do not always have excellent speech. AND--there may be some who hear very little who somehow manage to produce good speech anyway--I'm not sure how except maybe if they are late deafened. This comment is only in reference to the part about some people who hear well with hearing aids or CIs still not being able to speak very well--yes, I agree--some do not--and some do. I never said that ALL people who are "orally educated" have the same results--not every person will have "clear speech or perfect language"--some, maybe many, will not. BUT--people also should not assume that ALL deaf/hh kids hear nothing and cannot obtain excellent hearing and speech. Some have overgeneralized--some have said that it almost impossible for deaf/hh kids to hear well enough to learn to speak well in a natural way by listening through their hearing aids or CIs. Some have assumed that, because THEY do not hear that well that ALL deaf/hh people do not. Some have assumed that, because THEY do not hear well enough to pick up enough of speech through listening, that ALL deaf/hh people cannot. While it is true that there will be deaf/hh people who do not hear very well and therefore do not speak very well, it is also true that some do. I, for one, do not overgeneralize--some can/will/do and some can't/won't/don't--it is never an all or nothing case.
 
Bottesini said:
How many deaf people are there in the United States

Not on the other side Jillio, but I think this link from Gallaudet supports the figure. Sorry..
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point not that it really required to be proved as I think most of us, except that individual who continues to argue any point for argument's sake no matter how wrong she is, realize and accept that while it may not be exactly 99% there is no denying the fact that nearly all people in the US communicate orally as their primary means of communciation.
Rick
 
rick48 said:
Thanks for proving my point not that it really required to be proved as I think most of us, except that individual who continues to argue any point for argument's sake no matter how wrong she is, realize and accept that while it may not be exactly 99% there is no denying the fact that nearly all people in the US communicate orally as their primary means of communciation.
Rick
Click to expand...

Actually, your point was disproven.

Re: the bolded statement: So, since nearly all do, it means that oral communication should also be forced on the population that finds it much less than effective for complete access, or, in many cases, completely impossible?

The last time I checked, the U.S. was a democracy. One of the fundamental principles of a democracy is majority rule with minority rights. People who choose manual communication, for whatever reason, are a cultural and linguistic minority, and therefore, their rights are protected in a democracy.

In addition, the ADA specifically protects the communication choice of the deaf/Deaf and those with other communication choices, and provides for their equal access in the educational and employment arenas.

It would appear that your belief in oral only communcation for all is in direct opposition to the democratic principle and in violation of the ADA, and, in fact, is nothing more than ethnocentricsm...in this case, better known as audism.
 
shel90 said:
People who arent fluent in ASL shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about ASL. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.
Click to expand...

shel90- This also holds true.

People who arent fluent in SEE shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about SEE. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in CS shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about CS. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in Rochester Method shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about Rochester Method. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

ETC......
 
loml said:
shel90- This also holds true.

People who arent fluent in SEE shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about SEE. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in CS shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about CS. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in Rochester Method shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about Rochester Method. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

ETC......
Click to expand...


and the point of this post is....?
 
loml said:
shel90- That your statement holds true when the word ASL is replaced with: SEE, CS, Rochester Method etc.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok..thanks for clarifying. True too about other systems.
 
loml said:
shel90- This also holds true.

People who arent fluent in SEE shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about SEE. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in CS shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about CS. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

or

People who arent fluent in Rochester Method shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about Rochester Method. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.

ETC......
Click to expand...


loml,

So true, so true but why stop there:

People who do not have cochlear implants for either themselves or for their children shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about cochlear implants. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.


But then, how would they fill the empty voids in thier lives constantly arguing about a device that they have not chosen for either themselves or for their children?
Rick
 
rick48 said:
loml,

So true, so true but why stop there:

People who do not have cochlear implants for either themselves or for their children shouldnt make assumptions nor form opinions about cochlear implants. When they do, incorrect assumptions are too often made.


But then, how would they fill the empty voids in thier lives constantly arguing about a device that they have not chosen for either themselves or for their children?
Rick
Click to expand...


Only you would say that..remember, for the millionth time, it is not the cochlear implants that I have an issue with but the philosophy behind them that any children implanted shouldnt be exposed to ASL at all. I have seen too many children with CIs come to our programs so delayed just like those without CIs.

It is the oral-only and AVT approach that I feel that puts too many Deaf children at risk but of course, I know what your response would say that.

However, when it comes to CIs..I still say what I have always said..."It is not my business if parents want to implant their children."

Now, for others who are against CIs...I cant speak for them.
 
shel90 said:
Only you would say that..remember, for the millionth time, it is not the cochlear implants that I have an issue with but the philosophy behind them that any children implanted shouldnt be exposed to ASL at all. I have seen too many children with CIs come to our programs so delayed just like those without CIs.

It is the oral-only and AVT approach that I feel that puts too many Deaf children at risk but of course, I know what your response would say that.

However, when it comes to CIs..I still say what I have always said..."It is not my business if parents want to implant their children."

Now, for others who are against CIs...I cant speak for them.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. And, I might add, those who have no experience with the educational methods that have been employed and failed deaf children should not make assumptions. Not those who have no knowledge of linguistics, educational psychology, developmental psychology, testing, research, etc.etc.etc. unless it is those who have directly experienced said methods as a deaf individual and can directly relate their experience and the effects that experience has had on them.
 
Back
Top