Should ASL be Banned from Deaf Ed programs?

[Liza]

It is absolutely inane to ban use of ASL in teaching deaf children, CI or not.

 

[rockdrummer]

Look at the thread, "Should spoken language or ASL be taught first?" Someone mentioned it. People have said it out IRL too.

Ok .. so people have said it now your suspicians are true. I still don't think their opinion matters when some kids benefit from it.

The problem is how do we know which kid will be successful with which approach? That's the "wait and see" approach in which many kids end up falling behind cuz they were tried out all the other approaches before resorting to ASL and that is not fair to the kids.

exactly! Nobody has a crystal ball and nobody will know which kid will be successful with any approach. That's why I say they are all wait and see approaches. If the first approach (no matter which one) tried is not successful then yes the kids end up falling behind. That is in my opinion a sad truth.

 

[shel90]

Ok .. so people have said it now your suspicians are true. I still don't think their opinion matters when some kids benefit from it.

exactly! Nobody has a crystal ball and nobody will know which kid will be successful with any approach. That's why I say they are all wait and see approaches. If the first approach (no matter which one) tried is not successful then yes the kids end up falling behind. That is in my opinion a sad truth.[/QUOTE]

That is what I want to prevent. What's wrong with preventing that? Why put deaf children in situations like these? Can we do to the same to hearing kids so fair is fair?

 

[Babyblue]

If it's ASL with proper grammar, then it's no longer "ASL".

What I meant is the proper written grammar
Sign ASL... but for the teachers and parents to reinforce the writen English.

 

[shel90]

What I meant is the proper written grammar
Sign ASL... but for the teachers and parents to reinforce the writen English.

That's why SEE is used as a teaching tool to show the grammar of English but ASL is used as language/concept/literacy/and cognitive development.

Using SEE to model grammar in a Writing class is not harmful as long as the children already has a strong first language. I believe the same thing about CS too. Use them as a teaching tool but for classroom instruction of new concepts, discussions between the teachers and students, debates, and etc, use ASL since it is the language everyone has full acess to equally.

 

[Liza]

Norway recognizes 4 languages officially as a law: Bokmaal (Dani-norwegian), New Norwegian, Sami, and Norwegian Sign Language.

Having a preference in having only English in USA only reveals cultural laziness and ignorance in not respecting other commonly used languages in USA. ASL has been around for a long time and it is used as a primary language by countless US citizens.

Just my 1 c.

 

[shel90]

Norway recognizes 4 languages officially as a law: Bokmaal (Dani-norwegian), New Norwegian, Sami, and Norwegian Sign Language.

Having a preference in having only English in USA only reveals cultural laziness and ignorance in not respecting other commonly used languages in USA. ASL has been around for a long time and it is used as a primary language by countless US citizens.

Just my 1 c.

I agree with u.

 

[Babyblue]

That's why SEE is used as a teaching tool to show the grammar of English but ASL is used as language/concept/literacy/and cognitive development.

Using SEE to model grammar in a Writing class is not harmful as long as the children already has a strong first language. I believe the same thing about CS too. Use them as a teaching tool but for classroom instruction of new concepts, discussions between the teachers and students, debates, and etc, use ASL since it is the language everyone has full acess to equally.

I can understand using SEE as a teaching tool. But CS is a whole different ball game.

I don't quite understand the method of CS. But I think SEE is more similar to ASL than CS.

 

[rockdrummer]

If the first approach (no matter which one) tried is not successful then yes the kids end up falling behind. That is in my opinion a sad truth.

That is what I want to prevent. What's wrong with preventing that? Why put deaf children in situations like these? Can we do to the same to hearing kids so fair is fair?

Prevent what? The first choice not providing positive results?? How would you prevent that? Which approach can boast 100% success rates?

 

[shel90]

Prevent what? The first choice not providing positive results?? How would you prevent that? Which approach can boast 100% success rates?

By exposing the kids with a language that is fully accessible to them using their eyes. Spoken English is not fully accessible to them as ASL is because spoken English is meant to be processed auditorally while ASL is not. So by, providing all deaf children a full acess to language using their strongest sense (their eyes), they are guaranteed to develop a strong first language like hearing kids are guaranteed to develop a strong first language through spoken language (we know hearing kids can develop a strong first language through a visual language too) and then capitalize on that strong first language to acquire the 2nd language which is English in the written form and in a lot of cases, in the spoken form as well so that way those who werent able to pick up orall skills can have a strong first language already.

 

[shel90]

I can understand using SEE as a teaching tool. But CS is a whole different ball game.

I don't quite understand the method of CS. But I think SEE is more similar to ASL than CS.

SEE and CS are visual respresentatives of English or MCEs. ASL is a whole separate language.

 

[Bottesini]

SEE and CS are visual respresentatives of English or MCEs. ASL is a whole separate language.

MCEs?

MCES Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (Minnesota)
MCES Marine Corps Engineer School
MCES Multi-Carrier Energy System Probably not any of these?

I really don't know.

 

[Babyblue]

Doesn't hearing infants pick up ASL before they are able to speak?

Something to ponder.

 

[shel90]

Doesn't hearing infants pick up ASL before they are able to speak?

Something to ponder.

Yep...there was a video called "The Greatest Irony" talking about how signing classes for hearing babies are popping up all over but yet, deaf children are denied the language they need.

 

[shel90]

MCEs?

Manually Coded English..

Manually Coded English - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bottesini]

Thanks Shel90

 

[Phillips]

Voted No.. with Babyblue's post

 

[Liza]

Yep...there was a video called "The Greatest Irony" talking about how signing classes for hearing babies are popping up all over but yet, deaf children are denied the language they need.

Oh my! How awful.

 

[rockdrummer]

....Nobody has a crystal ball and nobody will know which kid will be successful with any approach. That's why I say they are all wait and see approaches.If the first approach (no matter which one) tried is not successful then yes the kids end up falling behind. That is in my opinion a sad truth.

That is what I want to prevent. What's wrong with preventing that? Why put deaf children in situations like these? Can we do to the same to hearing kids so fair is fair?

Prevent what? The first choice not providing positive results?? How would you prevent that? Which approach can boast 100% success rates?

By exposing the kids with a language that is fully accessible to them using their eyes. Spoken English is not fully accessible to them as ASL is because spoken English is meant to be processed auditorally while ASL is not. So by, providing all deaf children a full acess to language using their strongest sense (their eyes), they are guaranteed to develop a strong first language like hearing kids are guaranteed to develop a strong first language through spoken language (we know hearing kids can develop a strong first language through a visual language too) and then capitalize on that strong first language to acquire the 2nd language which is English in the written form and in a lot of cases, in the spoken form as well so that way those who werent able to pick up orall skills can have a strong first language already.

And that has proven 100% successful? I think you are throwing around the word "guarantee" a bit loosely. Assuming this approach has higher success rates, why aren't there more schools using it?

 

[shel90]

And that has proven 100% successful? I think you are throwing around the word "guarantee" a bit loosely. Assuming this approach has higher success rates, why aren't there more schools using it?

Because of the restistance and stereotypings against ASL as "broken" English, parents preference for oral-only, and so on. Too much resistance out there but it is a lot better back then.

Do some hearing kids fail and and some succeed in developing spoken language?