Psycho-social issues

How did Sweden get a standardized deaf education?
 
Daredevel7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, Vicky. And yes, I do understand what you are going for here. And I am showing you why what you are going for is really not going to be effective. This isn't about statistics. It is about providing the information that shows that there are certain effects to an oral only environment whose existence is being denied by a good many oralists. When I provide that information without a citation, I am railroaded for not citing a source. When I provide the actual research that supports what I say, I am accused of relying too heavily on statisitics. The problem here is not whether the information is available, it is whether people will accept it. First it's nothing but opinion, then it is nothing but statistics. It could be supported 1,000,0000 different ways, and there are those that would still try to find a way to discount that which has been supported and studied over and over and over again, simply because it interferes with the little schema they refuse to let go of. There are those that will refuse to synthesize information simply because it is too uncomfortable for them to revise their fundamental beliefs, no matter how innacurrate those beliefs can be shown to be.

And I am about action as well. I not only present the information, I act on the information.
 
Daredevel7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

well hello Vicky of Alabama. I'm Jiro from NJ and I was raised orally too. so you're that type - "Less Talk, More Action" :cool2:
 
How about if the parents of deaf enroll at a local baby sign programme. Since that is getting more popular with hearing babies then a mother of a deaf baby will have those classes to go to too.

Then when the baby knows a few signs and if mother has busy sceducle their is the possiblility of looking into the local deaf club. I don't know if deaf clubs have mother and toddler sessions but if not it would be a good idea to start. Plus for deaf adults to help with deaf infants from hearing families. It's great if parents can learn to sign but beyond baby signs and finger spelling it's not always a reality. Oralists will use that excuse not to bother, but I think that if signing yourself really is out of the question there is nothing to stop you hiring someone else to do it. A fluent signer from the deaf community would be ideal. Signing deaf adults should consider getting work as baby sitters.

It might still mean sending a child away to deaf school depending on the area.

I'd agree with Vicky about not bashing parents though. Although it can be frustrating when they keep trying to promote a failing system. I guess one has to be patient.

Another point is that some parents just will cling to oralism whatever. Take my friend K's dad. I mean her daughter is deafblind. The staff at Queen Alexander Blind college used signing and deafblind manual with K as it was the best way to communicate other then spending endless time repeating yourself like a parrot and K still not getting it. The staff used signs as it was easier for them. K's father still made a complaint about them signing with his daughter though. It seems some parents just don't know when to give up on a system that just isn't working.
 
One woman I knew really promoted oral education for ALL deaf children. She was a LEA...one day I was invited to attend an IEP meeting (more than 100 miles away from my home) concerning a deaf child who was being raised orally.

This LEA and I walked to the playground to get the child so he could attend the meeting for a short period of time (he was only nine years old). I never met this kid before in my life...never had even been to the area before. I immediately pointed him out and waved for him to come to us. The LEA was astonished and asked me how did I know which kid he was.

I replied with a very heavy heart, fighting back tears. Because he was the one playing alone on the playground, oblivious to the world around him.
 
Daredevel7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think that parents who choose an oral only route look at the pros and cons and decide that they think that it is worth it. They think that being able to communicate in the mode used by 99% of the world's population is worth a little loneliness in school.

EVERY choice has a negative.
 
jillio said:
Okay, Vicky.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :D

I really am not trying to argue. I do want to improve deaf education. I just think that when we improve deaf education, the idea of oralism will be a memory.

More to come, but I have to study for my ASL final exam tonight. :D ("Omg did the oralist say that she's taking asl class?! wth?")
 
dreama said:
How about if the parents of deaf enroll at a local baby sign programme. Since that is getting more popular with hearing babies then a mother of a deaf baby will have those classes to go to too.
Click to expand...

I like this.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Thank you. :D

I really am not trying to argue. I do want to improve deaf education. I just think that when we improve deaf education, the idea of oralism will be a memory.

More to come, but I have to study for my ASL final exam tonight. :D ("Omg did the oralist say that she's taking asl class?! wth?")
Click to expand...

I doubt seriously that we will ever break free of oralism completely. Too much ethnocentricsm to combat in the process.:P

I would simply like to see a major shift of oralism to oracy, as included in the programs that provide a full tool box for our kids.

Good luck with that exam.
 
deafbajagal said:
One woman I knew really promoted oral education for ALL deaf children. She was a LEA...one day I was invited to attend an IEP meeting (more than 100 miles away from my home) concerning a deaf child who was being raised orally.

This LEA and I walked to the playground to get the child so he could attend the meeting for a short period of time (he was only nine years old). I never met this kid before in my life...never had even been to the area before. I immediately pointed him out and waved for him to come to us. The LEA was astonished and asked me how did I know which kid he was.

I replied with a very heavy heart, fighting back tears. Because he was the one playing alone on the playground, oblivious to the world around him.
Click to expand...

Sad story, but one that could be repeated again and again, I'm sure.
 
faire_jour said:
I agree with this. I think that parents who choose an oral only route look at the pros and cons and decide that they think that it is worth it. They think that being able to communicate in the mode used by 99% of the world's population is worth a little loneliness in school.

EVERY choice has a negative.
Click to expand...

Do the parents have to endure that loneliness on a daily basis? Especially as a child with no understanding of why he/she cant understand what's happening around him/her but her friends/peers can? I dont think so.
 
shel90 said:
Do the parents have to endure that loneliness on a daily basis? Especially as a child with no understanding of why he/she cant understand what's happening around him/her but her friends/peers can? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Nor do I shel, nor do I. And the fact of the matter is, an oral upbringing does not seem to provide that social inclusion in hearing society that so many hearing parents keep insisting it will.

Why, oh why, can't we seem to get past the ears and the mouth and realize that deaf children have the same emotional and developmental needs that any other child has. Why do we continue to punish them for being deaf by denying them the atmosphere that will provide for that?
 
If the child is lonely...it means the communication mode (most likely being oral) is not readily accessible or at the child's comfort level.

Loneliness is a serious psychological effect. No child should ever have to endure that feeling of being in a glass box, watching the rest of the world go by. It's a horrible feeling.
 
It's a missconception that a signing deaf person can't be orally successful too. I know some people who are successful at both, and others who are successful at neither.
 
Back
Top