Rock & a Hard Place

[deafdyke]

here are lots of activities, camps and special services for the oral deaf. Who do you know that complains? They might be far away and expensive, but they sure are there. Plus, isn't the point of having English as your child's first language that they can participate in the same activites as hearing kids with few modifications?

There are for LITTLE kids yes. And virtually all of those are theraputic (gotta improve speech speech speech) There's very few expressively for older oral only deaf kids.
And trust me... I know many people who complain. I know AG Bell folks who complain b/c those of us who Sign, get access to 'terps, but there's NOTHING specificly for them.
And yes, the point of having spoken English for an option for a deaf kid is supposed to help with hearing world accessibilty....I know that. But theory doesn't always translate into good practice.

 

[Buffalo]

I was thinking someone should bite her on the ankle right now. She sounds like an awful control freak.

Plus she isn't going to be able to control his interactions after he gets to school.

Joey (the dog) would have the honor of biting her on the ankle.

I agree with WB, especially the title "Rock and a hard place". That is where the hearing people (educators and doctors who are pro-oral) put us in.

 

[shel90]

That sound sad. But I wouldn't compare evolution of technologies like Ham Radio (and even CI/Hearing aids) to cultural deaf who communicate with ASL.

Totally agree. That's the medical pointview that this person holds.

 

[Berry]

Early, gotta gota work. Didn't have time read all posts. My suggest:

Tell that woman, and anyone else, "Thank you very much for your opinion but I believe in being myself and permitting others to do the same. No, I will not change my ways, nor will I ask you too. But thank you anyway."

My mother passed this approach on to me and I passed it on to my children. It works.

 

[faire_jour]

Actually, what you said was the primary reason for English as a first language was so the child could engage in the same activities as hearing peers with some modifications.

Plus, isn't the point of having English as your child's first language that they can participate in the same activites as hearing kids with few modifications?

Just pointing out that English isn't necessary for kids to participate in the same activities with few modifications, so that is obviously not a guiding motive.

With few, not with a few. There is a difference. The first would imply not having modifications, or having very minor differences, the section would mean a few changes. The wording is different for a reason.

Now stop trying to pick a fight :roll:

 

[jillio]

And just what is "his own kind" Does he walk on four legs? two legs? have purple hair? black,white,yellow,red? Lets face it, it's all about communication. All I read on here know English pretty well and write reasonably well. That is communication of one kind. Majority use some kind of sound. minority doesn't. Strength in numbers. Most opportunity is in the numbers. If one can get themselves in the numbers = more opportunity. I have been a licensenced ham for over 40 years, we used to use CW and it used to be required. Had/has lots of advantages but now not required. It's been put way back on the back burner due to technology. Newer and better ways to communicate. They are making use of research and advancements. Some day there may not be any CI's and maybe they will be able to construct or re-construct the normal? ear/hearing. Are we going to say then, No I don't want it? I pref err to be in my own little world. I don't think so.

A bit of a flaw in your logic. More numbers actually results in decreased opportunity, as you have a greater number of people vying for the same opportunity.

You are assuming that hearing or assisted hearing results in greater opportunity and is superior to no hearing. Exactly the stuff the audist philosophy is made of.

 

[jillio]

Early, gotta gota work. Didn't have time read all posts. My suggest:

Tell that woman, and anyone else, "Thank you very much for your opinion but I believe in being myself and permitting others to do the same. No, I will not change my ways, nor will I ask you too. But thank you anyway."

My mother passed this approach on to me and I passed it on to my children. It works.

Excellent.

 

[jillio]

With few, not with a few. There is a difference. The first would imply not having modifications, or having very minor differences, the section would mean a few changes. The wording is different for a reason.

Now stop trying to pick a fight :roll:

Not trying to pick a fight. Merely pointing out the flaws in your logic. Actually, there is only ONE modification needed for the ASL using child. Interpretation. The orally based child is the one that requires more than one accommodation.

 

[deafdyke]

ctually, there is only ONE modification needed for the ASL using child. Interpretation. The orally based child is the one that requires more than one accommodation.

Yes. AG Bell is fixtated on " Our kids don't have to be "dependant" on ASL 'terps." But if AG Bellers see the use of a 'terp as "limiting" then why do they use oral 'terps or cued speech translitrators? It is using English yes....but they are still dependant on 'terps.
Also, fair joure your hypothesis is based on the assumption that an oral only kid has easy to understand speech, and can easily understand their peers, and is in a controlled listening sittuion. Many kids can do well one on one, but b/c variables affect performance theroy really doesn't translate well into practice here.

 

[Mountain Man]

Yes. AG Bell is fixtated on " Our kids don't have to be "dependant" on ASL 'terps."

As an interpreter in training, I can tell you that my view of my profession is not that Deaf people are dependent on us. A Deaf person can communicate with a hearing person without an interpreter provided each one is willing and cooperative, which unfortunately isn't always the case. But regardless, an interpreter can make the process smoother and the flow of information easier for both parties. Many people forget that we are interpreters for the Deaf and the hearing. If Deaf people are "dependent" on us to communicate with the hearing then the hearing are also "dependent" on us to communicate with the Deaf.

 

[TWA]

And just what is "his own kind" Does he walk on four legs? two legs? have purple hair? black,white,yellow,red? Lets face it, it's all about communication. All I read on here know English pretty well and write reasonably well. That is communication of one kind. Majority use some kind of sound. minority doesn't. Strength in numbers. Most opportunity is in the numbers. If one can get themselves in the numbers = more opportunity. I have been a licensenced ham for over 40 years, we used to use CW and it used to be required. Had/has lots of advantages but now not required. It's been put way back on the back burner due to technology. Newer and better ways to communicate. They are making use of research and advancements. Some day there may not be any CI's and maybe they will be able to construct or re-construct the normal? ear/hearing. Are we going to say then, No I don't want it? I pref err to be in my own little world. I don't think so.

:roll: Your post is completely unrelated to what I posted.

 

[jillio]

As an interpreter in training, I can tell you that my view of my profession is not that Deaf people are dependent on us. A Deaf person can communicate with a hearing person without an interpreter provided each one is willing and cooperative, which unfortunately isn't always the case. But regardless, an interpreter can make the process smoother and the flow of information easier for both parties. Many people forget that we are interpreters for the Deaf and the hearing. If Deaf people are "dependent" on us to communicate with the hearing then the hearing are also "dependent" on us to communicate with the Deaf.

Yes! I have said it before as well. An interpreter provides services to both.