Psycho-social issues

[jillio]

Deaf Ed definitely does need standards.

And not just regarding the curriculum. Hearing children develop social skills and learn to relate to the world around them in large part through their educational environment. Deaf children need the same experience. The whole school experience is important.

 

[dreama]

I've spent thousands of dollars in therapy due to being raised as an oralist.

I know the feeling. Although I've never spent anything in counciling I did spend 3 weeks at a special mental hospital for the deaf. I've heard a lot of them are oral failures, and even soem oral 'successes' too like me.

 

[deafbajagal]

What throws people off about me is that I am considered as a success in terms of achieving great speech in spite of being born profoundly deaf.

I paid dearly for it.

 

[Jiro]

I don't know about my post having any influence at that level, but they certainly should be using the research we have to create standards for deaf ed. What I posted took me about 15 minutes in my own library of research. I have much, much more, and I don't have everything. Its obvious that we have the information we need.

now what's next is having your state's department of education to listen to you for 15 min.....

 

[Buffalo]

When I get together with my Deaf friends, they talk and share stories of being in the Deaf community growing up such as ASL stories, games, memories and etc, I feel envious of them cuz I don't have that either. It is like I grew up without any connection anywhere except for softball.

Funny, I am envious of Deaf people who have at least one Deaf sibling!

 

[deafbajagal]

I'm envious of Deaf people who grew up using manual communication in which everyone understood each other. How nice it must be.

 

[jillio]

What throws people off about me is that I am considered as a success in terms of achieving great speech in spite of being born profoundly deaf.

I paid dearly for it.

That success often exacts a huge price in other areas for many people.

 

[Daredevel7]

I don't know about my post having any influence at that level, but they certainly should be using the research we have to create standards for deaf ed. What I posted took me about 15 minutes in my own library of research. I have much, much more, and I don't have everything. Its obvious that we have the information we need.

I do think that we need to create standards for deaf ed. However, I don't think bashing oralism in the presence of parents is effective.

To me, if there are no standards for deaf education, then doesn't it make sense for there to be oralism?

 

[Moon-child]

Great thread guys, got me thinking, which is a good thing, thanks!

 

[jillio]

I do think that we need to create standards for deaf ed. However, I don't think bashing oralism in the presence of parents is effective.

To me, if there are no standards for deaf education, then doesn't it make sense for there to be oralism?

Pointing out the cons of a system can hardly be classified as "bashing". You might want to keep in mind without standards for deaf ed, there are no standards for oralism, either. That is a huge problem.

Regarding academics, the vast majority of states are now using the state mandated curriculum. Where the standards are sadly lacking, is when we accept an environment that hinders the psycho-social growth and development process of a select group of students. Deaf schools have measures to insure this growth written into their mission statements, and they, by and large, have programs to facilitate such. Mainstream schools have such programs available to hearing students. The need for deaf students to have these needs addressed equitably is what has to be addressed. Self contained programs do a better job than do full inclusion situations, but they are often still lacking.

BTW....this thread was not intended to "bash" anything. It's purpose is to support that which some oralists continue to maintain does not exist. Obviously, these conditions do exist, they continue to impact negatively the educational and psycho-social development of many, many deaf children, and they need to be addressed, not ignored.

 

[Daredevel7]

Pointing out the cons of a system can hardly be classified as "bashing". You might want to keep in mind without standards for deaf ed, there are no standards for oralism, either. That is a huge problem.

Regarding academics, the vast majority of states are now using the state mandated curriculum. Where the standards are sadly lacking, is when we accept an environment that hinders the psycho-social growth and development process of a select group of students. Deaf schools have measures to insure this growth written into their mission statements, and they, by and large, have programs to facilitate such. Mainstream schools have such programs available to hearing students. The need for deaf students to have these needs addressed equitably is what has to be addressed. Self contained programs do a better job than do full inclusion situations, but they are often still lacking.

BTW....this thread was not intended to "bash" anything. It's purpose is to support that which some oralists continue to maintain does not exist. Obviously, these conditions do exist, they continue to impact negatively the educational and psycho-social development of many, many deaf children, and they need to be addressed, not ignored.

What I meant was that it seems like in order to make a "difference", we have to get it through the parents. I think this is a wrong way to go.

I could be wrong, but I think parents know more than you (general you) give them credit for. Sometimes it seems like people have the illusion that when they find out their child is deaf, then the evil audiologists/doctors/people force oralism down their throats, then they blindly accept it without looking at any other alternative. I don't think it's that simple.

Take Sweden for example. Seems like there's great education progress for the deaf there, right? Is this because more parents demanded sign language as the primary instruction for their kids? Or is it because Sweden developed a plan the deaf education and the parents saw it happening in the flesh and liked it?

Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

 

[jillio]

What I meant was that it seems like in order to make a "difference", we have to get it through the parents. I think this is a wrong way to go.

I could be wrong, but I think parents know more than you (general you) give them credit for. Sometimes it seems like people have the illusion that when they find out their child is deaf, then the evil audiologists/doctors/people force oralism down their throats, then they blindly accept it without looking at any other alternative. I don't think it's that simple.

Take Sweden for example. Seems like there's great education progress for the deaf there, right? Is this because more parents demanded sign language as the primary instruction for their kids? Or is it because Sweden developed a plan the deaf education and the parents saw it happening in the flesh and liked it?
Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

Given the incidence of deafness, the fact that 90% of deaf kids are born to hearing parents, and the vast majority of those have never had any kind of exposure to a deaf individual at the time of diagnosis, the medical perspective that is prevalent in first contact professionals, and a hearing parent's quite predictable and well documented initial reaction to receiving a diagnosis of deafness in their child, it is not so much that they "blindly accept", but that they are not provided sufficient and accurrate information regarding alternatives.

And no, it is because Sweden looked at the needs of their deaf students from a holistic perspective, instituted the programs that have been shown to be of the biggest benefit, and then set up a system that provides the programs necessary to achieve the goals. It is not a parental issue in Sweden. It is a greater societal issue in Sweden.

How exactly would you get the message out to parents who are insisting that problems do not exist within oral education?

 

[Daredevel7]

How exactly would you get the message out to parents who are insisting that problems do not exist within oral education?

Who says they aren't aware? This is what I am saying. It's generally assumed that parents think that oralism has NO problems. I am saying most of them are AWARE of the repercussions, but choose to deem it as a sacrifice "for the greater good". They feel that the benefits of oralism outweighs the risks. Yes I understand that the risks outweigh the benefits in oralism but there seems to be no point in arguing in something they already know about. To make an impact, they need to know the benefits of a different program rather than the cons of a program. All programs have cons.

 

[Jiro]

Who says they aren't aware? This is what I am saying. It's generally assumed that parents think that oralism has NO problems. I am saying most of them are AWARE of the repercussions, but choose to deem it as a sacrifice "for the greater good". They feel that the benefits of oralism outweighs the risks. Yes I understand that the risks outweigh the benefits in oralism but there seems to be no point in arguing in something they already know about. To make an impact, they need to know the benefits of a different program rather than the cons of a program. All programs have cons.

hmmm... so which one has better cons than others? ASL-first program or Oral-first program?

 

[jillio]

Who says they aren't aware? This is what I am saying. It's generally assumed that parents think that oralism has NO problems. I am saying most of them are AWARE of the repercussions, but choose to deem it as a sacrifice "for the greater good". They feel that the benefits of oralism outweighs the risks. Yes I understand that the risks outweigh the benefits in oralism but there seems to be no point in arguing in something they already know about. To make an impact, they need to know the benefits of a different program rather than the cons of a program. All programs have cons.

Unfortunately, when one attempts to relate the benefits of another program, those benefits are countered with unrealistic and innaccurate claims regarding how oralism is for the "greater good" and will faciliate entrance into hearing culture in a way no other method can or will.

When one encounters innacurracies stated in this way, DD, the only way to counter act them is with accurate statements regarding other programs, and to substantiate exactly why these statements are innacurrate. How exactly do you propose to tell another that their ideas are innaccurate without showing them how they are innacurrate?

How can one make a reasonable comparison without all of the information? How does one know that the benefits they seek are best achieved through that means if the benefits of another means has not been compared accurately?
If they KNEW the risks outweighed the benefits, particularly from the wider perspective, I doubt seriously that they would make the decision that the sacrifice of their child's well being is "worth it".

These discussions are necessary. Parents need to hear it all. To attempt to block any information that might be valuable to their child is just not acceptable. To present innacuracies to other parents simply as a way to justify an individual's decision is not acceptable. The information regarding the psycho-social development of deaf children in various environments is important information for a parent to have and to consider. I for one will not hide it.

 

[Daredevel7]

Unfortunately, when one attempts to relate the benefits of another program, those benefits are countered with unrealistic and innaccurate claims regarding how oralism is for the "greater good" and will faciliate entrance into hearing culture in a way no other method can or will.

When one encounters innacurracies stated in this way, DD, the only way to counter act them is with accurate statements regarding other programs, and to substantiate exactly why these statements are innacurrate. How exactly do you propose to tell another that their ideas are innaccurate without showing them how they are innacurrate?

How can one make a reasonable comparison without all of the information? How does one know that the benefits they seek are best achieved through that means if the benefits of another means has not been compared accurately?
If they KNEW the risks outweighed the benefits, particularly from the wider perspective, I doubt seriously that they would make the decision that the sacrifice of their child's well being is "worth it".

These discussions are necessary. Parents need to hear it all. To attempt to block any information that might be valuable to their child is just not acceptable. To present innacuracies to other parents simply as a way to justify an individual's decision is not acceptable. The information regarding the psycho-social development of deaf children in various environments is important information for a parent to have and to consider. I for one will not hide it.

Are you sure about the bolded above? A very common reason why parents do oralism is because the quality deaf schools are really far. So you either have to move or send them to a residential school.

Is oralism SO BAD, SO HORRIBLE, SO HORRIFYING? Enough to make most parents to move away from family, change jobs, etc.?

"the greater good" is not always only about speaking well.

 

[Daredevel7]

hmmm... so which one has better cons than others? ASL-first program or Oral-first program?

Oral first program definitely has more risks.

 

[Jiro]

Are you sure about the bolded above? A very common reason why parents do oralism is because the quality deaf schools are really far. So you either have to move or send them to a residential school.

Is oralism SO BAD, SO HORRIBLE, SO HORRIFYING? Enough to make most parents to move away from family, change jobs, etc.?

"the greater good" is not always only about speaking well.

unfortunately true...... it's sad that quite a handful of parents out there are not willing to make dramatic change in their life (such as moving, changing job, etc.) for their deaf kids

 

[jillio]

Are you sure about the bolded above? A very common reason why parents do oralism is because the quality deaf schools are really far. So you either have to move or send them to a residential school.

Is oralism SO BAD, SO HORRIBLE, SO HORRIFYING? Enough to make most parents to move away from family, change jobs, etc.?

"the greater good" is not always only about speaking well.

I don't know Daredevel. Do you know a lot of parents that would knowingly sacrifice their child's psycho social development for the sake of speech if they knew all of the implications?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that a child does not have to be in a residential program, or even in a deaf school, to not be in an oral program.

Why must everything become an emotionally charged discussion with you? Again with the extremes. It seems to be a clear pattern with oralists. All this either/or thinking is exactly what causes the divides, both educationally and psycho-socially.

 

[Daredevel7]

I don't know Daredevel. Do you know a lot of parents that would knowingly sacrifice their child's psycho social development for the sake of speech if they knew all of the implications?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that a child does not have to be in a residential program, or even in a deaf school, to not be in an oral program.

Why must everything become an emotionally charged discussion with you? Again with the extremes. It seems to be a clear pattern with oralists. All this either/or thinking is exactly what causes the divides, both educationally and psycho-socially.

My name is Vicky and I am not an oralist. I was raised orally. There is a difference. I hate labels with a passion, except for my name.

It seems like you don't understand what I am going for here. I am giving you reasons why parents do what they do (in terms of raising kids orally). I am giving the opinion what parents would more likely respond to (which is a realistic alternative to oralism that doesn't involve drastic life changing events). I am more about action than showing statistics that could be easily interpreted in different ways.