Oral school

Is it ok?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 29.7%

  • No

    Votes: 31 48.4%

  • Maybe or sometimes

    Votes: 14 21.9%
  • Total voters
    64
Status
Not open for further replies.
I should mention that both my sister and I have the love for music. We would put on our headphones and just listen to it for hours.
 
kokonut said:
Circumstances vary. That is dependent on the person with hearing loss and amount and type of hearing loss. It's also a parental thing and the ultimate decision rests with them. One cannot say "yes" or "no" to this question since hearing loss range from mild to profound and how soon they are exposed to sound and words early on in their life. Secondly, technology has a come a long, long way that can address a lot of the communication gaps. It's become a more gray issue than a black and white one.
Click to expand...


Good post and welcome back!
Rick
 
Circumstances vary. That is dependent on the person with hearing loss and amount and type of hearing loss. It's also a parental thing and the ultimate decision rests with them. One cannot say "yes" or "no" to this question since hearing loss range from mild to profound and how soon they are exposed to sound and words early on in their life. Secondly, technology has a come a long, long way that can address a lot of the communication gaps. It's become a more gray issue than a black and white one.
Click to expand...
Rick and kokonut, on the other hand...........Very few dhh folks are anti-speech therapy. We just think that speech should be used as part of a full toolbox approach, rather then it being the sole "tool" that a dhh kid uses.
Early Intervention needs to be structured so that dhh kids can develop good quality abilty in both ASL and speech.
I know a lot of kids who grew up oral sucesses and it was thought that they didn't "need" ASL. They discovered it late in life and still wish they had been introduced to it as kids.
(and these are kids who had more hoh losses) ASL shouldn't be thought of as a "special needs" crutch, but rather as a useful second language.
 
deafdyke said:
Rick and kokonut, on the other hand...........Very few dhh folks are anti-speech therapy. We just think that speech should be used as part of a full toolbox approach, rather then it being the sole "tool" that a dhh kid uses.
Early Intervention needs to be structured so that dhh kids can develop good quality abilty in both ASL and speech.
I know a lot of kids who grew up oral sucesses and it was thought that they didn't "need" ASL. They discovered it late in life and still wish they had been introduced to it as kids.
(and these are kids who had more hoh losses) ASL shouldn't be thought of as a "special needs" crutch, but rather as a useful second language.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree.

Do you agree, Rick and Kokonut? Should ASL be eliminated if one wants a deaf child to develop speech skills? Does it have to be one or the other?
 
jillio said:
You are going to have to clarify what you mean by "spoken language track" at MSSD, and offer some support that would show this to be true. There certainly isn't anything that says anything about a "spoken language track" anywhere in their program description or department descriptions.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've been away for days due to seeing my little sister get married and going to Oracoke Island so I'm catching up on this tread.

I attended MSSD in the 80s and I certainly don't recall anything like that in the MSSD programs and I don't think they would have ever put such a thing in their program as it would go against their philosophy.
 
don't worry, I'm done here and moving on to another subject. I agree with DD. I am glad to communicate with families, but I would love to see ASL. It is a deaf right to have some visual aids. I never could understand this why it is required to provide deaf children visual aids in school but not ASL.
 
It's also a parental thing and the ultimate decision rests with them. Secondly, technology has a come a long, long way that can address a lot of the communication gaps. It's become a more gray issue
Click to expand...
I'm all for final parental decision on how they want to raise their kids.....BUT, it does seem like a lot of the parents who chose oral only aren't fully aware of the downsides of oral only.
Granted I've seen a lot more parents of newly dx dhh kids be more openminded as to ASL as a second language when they chose oral only.
But a lot of the parents who chose oral only are unaware that life doesn't have to be a complete and total speech therapy session.
And yes, we have improved technology............but on the other hand technology doesn't give freedom. The same parents who are all " My kid can hear and speak and doesn't need to depend on a 'terp, seem not to realize that their kids are technology and good healthcare dependant.
Sure it's good that wittle Smashlie can carry on a convo..........but what about when her CI or hearing aid fails her? what is she gonna do when she grows up and needs a source of good health care? Health care is incredibily expensive in the US now.
 
It is a parental choice, but the fact of the matter is, whether you are priviledged or not, doesn't matter. I came from a very very poor home and was educated with everything my parents ever had. So even though I didn't have a lot of technology, I had the same hearing aids for years, I still made it a point to be educated and furthermore I also made it a point to learn how to talk...I mean that's why I am very capable now and am able to go out to the world and really make my mark. It's not that I think people who are orally educated have an advantage, it's just that they have a better chance. I have many friends who are deaf like me, but cannot speak and they really battle it out...really, really do...It pains me so.
 
deafdyke said:
Rick and kokonut, on the other hand...........Very few dhh folks are anti-speech therapy. We just think that speech should be used as part of a full toolbox approach, rather then it being the sole "tool" that a dhh kid uses.
Early Intervention needs to be structured so that dhh kids can develop good quality abilty in both ASL and speech.
I know a lot of kids who grew up oral sucesses and it was thought that they didn't "need" ASL. They discovered it late in life and still wish they had been introduced to it as kids.
(and these are kids who had more hoh losses) ASL shouldn't be thought of as a "special needs" crutch, but rather as a useful second language.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking both oral and aural successes that don't need sign language (as opposed to simply "ASL"). There are a lot of factors involved here. Just because one has a hearing loss doesn't mean one MUST or need to learn sign language. In many other cases it's a good idea to incorporate sign language as part of the overall communication package. Just as true in the opposite sense of those who do much, much better with ASL/sign language than attempt at oral and/or aural communication. You have your extremes (with successes) and then you have the middle or even the grey area.
 
My 8 years old son is taking Spanish right now at school. He is required to learn it. Replace Spanish with ASL for deaf oral students. I don't see the harm to it.
 
kashveera said:
I have many friends who are deaf like me, but cannot speak and they really battle it out...really, really do...It pains me so.
Click to expand...

Because they are oral failures. It causes language delays. ASL is all they've got.

So while you managed without sign language you need to understand that signing is important too at an infant level before speaking is introduced not as a prop for those that fail the system. Who knows you too may have been even more successful with a fuller range of tools.
 
dreama said:
Because they are oral failures. It causes language delays. ASL is all they've got.

So while you managed without sign language you need to understand that signing is important too at an infant level before speaking is introduced not as a prop for those that fail the system. Who knows you too may have been even more successful with a fuller range of tools.
Click to expand...

Define "more successful" and in what context.
 
kokonut said:
Define "more successful" and in what context.
Click to expand...

The oral only system forces deaf people to go through life depending on a failing system. If they become bookworms like Shel or have visual props of some kind of another it does help them, but at the end of the day they are still being deprived of equal communication.

The sad thing is that oralists will allow a deaf person to go for years and years of failure. Then spit them out and you get someone who can't communicate very well. Then the oralist people will point to them and use them as an example of what signing does for you. But That's not true. It was oralism that turned them out that way in the first place.

For a better example of signing deaf you have to look at those who were not language deprived such as signing deaf children of deaf adults who are able to express themselves better then I can.
 
If they become bookworms like Shel or have visual props of some kind of another it does help them, but at the end of the day they are still being deprived of equal communication.
Click to expand...

When I read, I hardly ever talk to a book to get a response (my main access to the world). Using props and technologies is the same thing. Actually, I feel like one of the chimp with a dummy mommy... the type experiment they had way back to see how much nourishment a baby chimp can get from a dummy as long as they get food and water?
 
I'm thinking both oral and aural successes that don't need sign language (as opposed to simply "ASL"). There are a lot of factors involved here. Just because one has a hearing loss doesn't mean one MUST or need to learn sign language
Click to expand...
On the other hand............ I mean I do know oral-aural sucesses who were offered ASL as small kids via EI, and they CHOSE to drop the ASL. They consciously decided that they didn't need ASL, and would prefer speech.
I disagree with the " ASL is only for oral failures" way of thinking.
For too long it's been assumed that since someone was an oral sucess or was just hoh, that they didn't need sign. Granted there are people who don't really identify all that much with ASL and deaf culture, but it does seem like most of those people were perilingally (lost hearing while learning language) or postlingally deaf.....
I think we need to stop the debate over which language should be a dhh kid's first language, and concentrate on providing GOOD early intervention so that the KID themselves can decide which methodology they need.
 
The teachers at my son's school would not even dare let my son drop out of Spanish class. He have been taking it since Junior Kindergarten. They are thinking about French next year for his grade level. They should treat ASL the same.. Grade them for it.
 
deafskeptic said:
Ok, I've been away for days due to seeing my little sister get married and going to Oracoke Island so I'm catching up on this tread.

I attended MSSD in the 80s and I certainly don't recall anything like that in the MSSD programs and I don't think they would have ever put such a thing in their program as it would go against their philosophy.
Click to expand...

Congrats to the little sis, and welcome back!
 
kokonut said:
I'm thinking both oral and aural successes that don't need sign language (as opposed to simply "ASL"). There are a lot of factors involved here. Just because one has a hearing loss doesn't mean one MUST or need to learn sign language. In many other cases it's a good idea to incorporate sign language as part of the overall communication package. Just as true in the opposite sense of those who do much, much better with ASL/sign language than attempt at oral and/or aural communication. You have your extremes (with successes) and then you have the middle or even the grey area.
Click to expand...

Another great post, that's pretty much how I feel.
Rick
 
dreama said:
The oral only system forces deaf people to go through life depending on a failing system. If they become bookworms like Shel or have visual props of some kind of another it does help them, but at the end of the day they are still being deprived of equal communication.

The sad thing is that oralists will allow a deaf person to go for years and years of failure. Then spit them out and you get someone who can't communicate very well. Then the oralist people will point to them and use them as an example of what signing does for you. But That's not true. It was oralism that turned them out that way in the first place.

For a better example of signing deaf you have to look at those who were not language deprived such as signing deaf children of deaf adults who are able to express themselves better then I can.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but my daughter is far from a bookworm and communicates fluently, effortlessly and equally with those who rely on spoken language. Be careful with simple generalizations just to use some hyperbole, i.e. "depending on a failing system" for as I just demonstrated--you are wrong.

Why not accept the fact that there are different methods available to deaf children and that for some, they are using the method that is best for them. I would rather encourage parents to constantly monitor their child's progress and to have the sense to switch if the method they chose is not helping their child.
Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top