Putting your deaf children in which schools...and why?

[faire_jour]

In my opinion, I think it is fear. If it wasnt, why do the parents say stuff like "If my child learns ASL, will he/she be able to talk?"..."My child wont be able to communicate with the hearing world"...and other comments..

There are some who are brave enough to expose their children to both but a majority of them seem to show fear of ASL.

I disagree. I know several parents that have toured deaf schools and looked at the reading and writing levels of the kids, and THEN decided not to send their children there. If a child learns ASL as their first language, English is ALWAYS be learned as a second language, and as with learning any second language, it can be fraught with difficulties. Yes, many many Deaf people read and write perfectly, but as a parent, when you visit a school and so many kids aren't, what are you supposed to think? I think one of the major reasons that parents choose listening and spoken language is because English will be the child's language, and that translated to reading and writing as well.

 

[shel90]

I disagree. I know several parents that have toured deaf schools and looked at the reading and writing levels of the kids, and THEN decided not to send their children there. If a child learns ASL as their first language, English is ALWAYS be learned as a second language, and as with learning any second language, it can be fraught with difficulties. Yes, many many Deaf people read and write perfectly, but as a parent, when you visit a school and so many kids aren't, what are you supposed to think? I think one of the major reasons that parents choose listening and spoken language is because English will be the child's language, and that translated to reading and writing as well.

How do they know the kids' reading and writing levels? Isnt that breaking confidentiality laws?

I still stand by my theory. Again, you are putting English as the superior language. Are you sure you are an advocate for ASL?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



Yes, in order to learn a language you must be exposed to it, all day long.

it takes the average hearing child 5 times of hearing a word to learn it, the average deaf child, 50. the point of an oral education is two-fold, first the make sure they hear the word the extra 45 times, and then through therapy and auditory skills training, to lower the number of times it takes for the child to learn the word.

no, you can't pretend the child is hearing and mainstream them without services but you also can't pretend that an hour a week of pullout speech therapy will get the same results as an oral approach with targeted, high quailty services.

Excellent reaons for NOT relying on oral communication as the first priority.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Shel, when i visit schools they always show me the level of work that the kids in her grade level are doing. they show me samples of work, and there is always work being displayed in addition to what the teachers show me.

and if you are asking if i value reading and writing over asl....i might have to say yes. i think that a child MUST be able to read and write to get information in the world. how will they learn without the ability to read? or get a job? or communicate with the world. i value asl for language and communication but literacy opens up the entire world.

maybe you disagree, but i don't know how any person, hearing or deaf can be successful in life without being able to read and write.

but of course, you don't have to choose between literacy and asl, you can clearly do both!

 

[jillio]

I don't think this comment is fair imo.

I mean, one got to admit that oral education is a gamble especially with deaf children. One can't deny that there are already many failed cases with deaf children. After all, we were working on their weakest sense. Yes, we understand there are many many deaf children who thrives from this and become successful adults who hear and speak. But what about the unlucky ones? So for the unlucky ones, they lose out... everything from speech to even knowledge itself. The lost years can't be redeemed. What do we say to them? "Geez, sorry others were successful accord to the professionals, so I assumed you will be too."?

Where with those that choose not to pursue speech, well they still have visual, the strongest sense among deafies. So they may lose out ability to speak, BUT they don't lose out the knowledge of language at least, wait... heck not just that but...the knowledge in general. I have never heard of one failed case with deaf children who gained signing skill first instead of speech skill, all because of skill they gained. I mean there got to be a reason that hearing parent of hearing children are learning baby signs to communicate with hearing children, even. This, what I find to be the greatest irony, unfortunately.

I think this is what many deaf people feared, the risky...gamble that parent took upon their deaf children. I think this is the battle that is being fought between two sides.

I am not saying oral education is wrong, just that it's awful risky gamble to take on deaf children. I understand the critical period for the brain of the youth before it changes to visual, but eh...

I mean if I got deaf children, of course I would try and see if they can develop speech and hearing aspect of their brain. Just that... I acknowledge the importance of offering both and I am not gonna worry too much if they can't speak. As long as they got knowledge, while the world may be harsh on em or that they may hate me for not help them develop the speech skill...I know they will survive as long as they got knowledge and it will give em a fighting chance regardless. I can't say that for those who got speech skills, but no knowledge to back em up. Knowledge in the end, probably will always outweigh the speech skills.

Acknowledging all of that is important I would think.

~

Very well said.

 

[jillio]

I think I disagree, but I may be an exception. As long as I wore my hearing aids (or in Miss Kat's case, her CI) I always had brain/auditory stimulation. I could hear all my teachers, classmates, family at home, and everywhere else. I don't think that really changes over time. It is a natural reaction (for me, at least) to listen to what you're hearing - I think you as a hearing person likely takes that for granted (no offense meant) because you have the ability to tune out repetitive sounds so you don't necessarily have to "listen" for stuff. Just my 2 cents.

You are absolutely correct. The myth of "auditory pathways" is something used by those promoting oral only as a type of fear tactic. This is actually a gross misrepresentation of the function of auditory pathways and the brain.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

Swd, my only point was that both sets of parents would be "limiting" their child's future options.

dd, there was a recent study that disagrees with you. it followed a group of ci kids and compared them to hearing kids in math, reading, language, speech and self esteem, and at the end of 5 years there was no difference between the groups in any of the areas.

Citation for that study, please.

 

[jillio]

I disagree. I know several parents that have toured deaf schools and looked at the reading and writing levels of the kids, and THEN decided not to send their children there. If a child learns ASL as their first language, English is ALWAYS be learned as a second language, and as with learning any second language, it can be fraught with difficulties. Yes, many many Deaf people read and write perfectly, but as a parent, when you visit a school and so many kids aren't, what are you supposed to think? I think one of the major reasons that parents choose listening and spoken language is because English will be the child's language, and that translated to reading and writing as well.

If a child has ASL as their L1 language, it does not interfere with their ability to learn English to fluency any more than having Spanish as an L1 will lead to an inability to develop English to fluency. That is absurd. The opposite, in fact, is true. Having ASL as an L1 language actually enhances a child's ability to learn English, and any other language, to fluency. It is all about acquiring language and then those skills are transferred to any other language learned. A child that does not acquire an L1 language is stunted in their use of any language. What interferes with fluency is delayed language acquisition.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

My point was that they will forever be reading and writing in their l2. no, having spanish as your l1 does not preclude you from learning to read and write english, but it does prevent you from reading and writing english as your l1.

no language is better or worse than another, but asl does not have a written form, so in order to become literate, asl users must learn to read in a language other than their first and native language.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

My point was that they will forever be reading and writing in their l2. no, having spanish as your l1 does not preclude you from learning to read and write english, but it does prevent you from reading and writing english as your l1.

no language is better or worse than another, but asl does not have a written form, so in order to become literate, asl users must learn to read in a language other than their first and native language.

Having any L1 language precludes you having another L1 language. The second language is L2. And it can be learned to fluency and used in all forms to fluency, including written mode. In fact, a strong L1 acquisiton guarantees greater fluency in an L2.

Just because English is a deaf child's only language does not mean that they have native use of that language. They are generally not fluent in English as a result of delays and are unable to use the language for critical thinking and abstractions. That is where the old myth that deaf people are all concrete thinkers came into being. It started with the oral only education movement. English was the only language these people had, and they could not use it as a native language due to the delays in acquisition experienced and the fact that it has to be a taught language rather than a naturally acquired language as ASL is.

 

[shel90]

FairJour..before it was about speech skills and now you are implying that deaf children whose first language is ASL will never gain fluency in English hence making them illeterate?
Isn't that offensive to those ADers whose first language is ASL?
U just put down a lot of Deaf people there.

 

[Frisky Feline]

and called mommys a "lazy" who feels that deaf kids would be comfortable focusing on ASL more importantly than taking a speech lesson.

 

[shel90]

and called mommys a "lazy" who feels that deaf kids would be comfortable focusing on ASL more importantly than taking a speech lesson.

To be fair, I believe it wasn't FJ who said that but another ADer who is a strong oral-only advocate.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

FairJour..before it was about speech skills and now you are implying that deaf children whose first language is ASL will never gain fluency in English hence making them illeterate?
Isn't that offensive to those ADers whose first language is ASL?
U just put down a lot of Deaf people there.

Where did i say anything like that? i said that english is their second language, there is no judgement in that.

as i said in the past, the reasons that parents choose various placements for their children is complicated and each parent has different reasons, and most of them are not "speech skills" alone.

 

[jillio]

and called mommys a "lazy" who feels that deaf kids would be comfortable focusing on ASL more importantly than taking a speech lesson.

Guess I'm one of those "lazy" moms! Anyone who was around when my kid was growing up can attest to the fact that I was anything but "lazy".

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



Where did i say anything like that? i said that english is their second language, there is no judgement in that.

as i said in the past, the reasons that parents choose various placements for their children is complicated and each parent has different reasons, and most of them are not "speech skills" alone.

Not as complicated as most would have you believe.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

and called mommys a "lazy" who feels that deaf kids would be comfortable focusing on ASL more importantly than taking a speech lesson.

Excuse me? where did i say that?

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



Excuse me? where did i say that?

Shel already clarified.

 

[Frisky Feline]

To be fair, I believe it wasn't FJ who said that but another ADer who is a strong oral-only advocate.

Wirelessly posted



Excuse me? where did i say that?

It is possible that FJ did not say it for her own, but she did say to me that what others told her then FJ told me about calling lazy mom.

I tried searching the link but can't find one and try to search for it. I notice the months are missing between Jan 2010 to may 2010.
Sign Language & Oralism - Page 4 - AllDeaf.com

 

[shel90]

It is possible that FJ did not say it for her own, but she did say to me that what others told her then FJ told me about calling lazy mom.

I tried searching the link but can't find one and try to search for it. I notice the months are missing between Jan 2010 to may 2010.
Sign Language & Oralism - Page 4 - AllDeaf.com

Well, that would be something I would remember so apparently I never saw it.

I clearly remember when another ADer told Jillio she took the easy way out by taking the ASL route with her son. I was like "whoa!!"