Smith files Deaf Child’s Bill of Rights Act

[Passivist]

Oh, so we're talking about two completely different populations.
Yeah, I'll grant you that the issues of the relatively late deafened folks, are very different from those who have always been deaf. But the postlingal childhood dhh population is very small. I mean I can totally 100% undy why they see deafness as a handicap. They had hearing and, know what its like....they acknowledge the absense of a sense. But I mean, there are some posties (especially those who might have had progressive losses) who feel like they fit in to the deaf world!
I can understand...........but the thing is........one wonders if a lot of the ones who started out with hoh losses, might be simply suffering from "oral is the best thing in the world" philosophy. Maybe if we equipted them with a full toolbox, they'd be a lot happier. Sure, that wouldn't help the kids who suffer sudden losses, postlingally........but then again the postlingal population is very very small. And I mean even with those kids, ASL and Deaf culture might be of benifit. There have always been postie kids, who thrive on Deaf culture. It's a very indivdual thing.........hey, there are kids who have always been dhh, who don't really find ASL/Deaf culture to be benifical. You really can't paint with a broad brush.
It's like........someone who's always been in a wheelchair, doesn't miss walking..........but someone who was in an accident at five or six or who became a wheechair user has a different perspective. Your perspective is really really widely different from those of us who have ALWAYS been dhh.
It took me a long long time to realize that..........I'm a fence sitter, but that doesn't mean that I don't belong in the deaf or the hearing world..........it just means I get the best of both worlds! I can hear and speechread a conversation..........but at the same time, I can turn my hearing aids off when there's sound I don't want to hear.

I think a lot miss the point. Acquired deaf see any campaign or gripe by 'born deaf' (i.e. those who never really had any useful hearing, and for whom deafness IS a norm), as very upsetting, neither side really can find real middle ground with each other, at some point they will oppose each other it's inevitable. Oral usage by deaf of any ilf would be supported by acquired deaf so would implantations, gene research and the rest of it, anything that would in the end they hope, lead to hearing again.

The 'Deaf' would obviously see this as 'genocide' (A rather strong term), of their people and culture, an undermining of their way of life, they probably have never known any other. The battle is to find middle ground,but 'rights' means never having to do that does it ? AD's have a right to oppose any promotion of the deaf status quo, because they have lost hearing, the 'Deaf' have a right to preserve the only thing they know, and has removed Isolation realtively for them. When rights collide what is the answer..War ? It's what usually happens. The constant attempt to blur sectors and establish an 'image' is a red flag to a bull with AD's, this is the major area of contention at present, D and d. I'm totally pessimistic there is any answer, and that contention is always going to exist. Sign may unite cultural deaf, but it hasn't united AD's. They'll hold back that final full stop because they have no choice. I Know AD's who have gone 'cultural', then seen them afterwards bemoaningthe fact they cannot hear anything, and supporting campaigns against areas of the people they have just finished socialising with. DItto born deaf will argue against children with AD getting oral help,because both sides see deafness entirely dfferently,one as a norm and a vital culture, the other as a miserable and isolated life, created by hearing loss, where even other deaf people put obstacles in front of you.

 

[shel90]

I think a lot miss the point. Acquired deaf see any campaign or gripe by 'born deaf' (i.e. those who never really had any useful hearing, and for whom deafness IS a norm), as very upsetting, neither side really can find real middle ground with each other, at some point they will oppose each other it's inevitable. Oral usage by deaf of any ilf would be supported by acquired deaf so would implantations, gene research and the rest of it, anything that would in the end they hope, lead to hearing again.

The 'Deaf' would obviously see this as 'genocide' (A rather strong term), of their people and culture, an undermining of their way of life, they probably have never known any other. The battle is to find middle ground,but 'rights' means never having to do that does it ? AD's have a right to oppose any promotion of the deaf status quo, because they have lost hearing, the 'Deaf' have a right to preserve the only thing they know, and has removed Isolation realtively for them. When rights collide what is the answer..War ? It's what usually happens. The constant attempt to blur sectors and establish an 'image' is a red flag to a bull with AD's, this is the major area of contention at present, D and d. I'm totally pessimistic there is any answer, and that contention is always going to exist. Sign may unite cultural deaf, but it hasn't united AD's. They'll hold back that final full stop because they have no choice. I Know AD's who have gone 'cultural', then seen them afterwards bemoaningthe fact they cannot hear anything, and supporting campaigns against areas of the people they have just finished socialising with. DItto born deaf will argue against children with AD getting oral help,because both sides see deafness entirely dfferently,one as a norm and a vital culture, the other as a miserable and isolated life, created by hearing loss, where even other deaf people put obstacles in front of you.

Are u saying that in general, hearing people see us deaf people as living miserable lives in isolation? I am just curious cuz if that is the case, I will have to laugh cuz it is such a huge misconception of deaf people.

 

[deafdyke]

DItto born deaf will argue against children with AD getting oral help,because both sides see deafness entirely dfferently,one as a norm and a vital culture, the other as a miserable and isolated life, created by hearing loss

Actually you're
incorrect on the oral and implantation. Some extremists are very pro-seperatist, (ASL only) but attitudes are changing. Many Deaf are OK with oral training, as an additional tool.....they just don't want it to be the ONLY tool used. You really are reinforcing pointless stereotypes. Yes, many AD hate being deaf..........but it's purely b/c they want their old sociological norms back. It's just like how many GLB folks wish they were hetrosexual.
Maybe if AD simply learned to ADAPT to their differences, instead of sitting in the corner whining about it, a lot of the issues would simply vanish. They are used to only interacting in the hearing world. When something comes along to upset that norm, people get all upset.
Oh, and what's with the multiple posts?

 

[deafdyke]

Oh and Passifist, you do have the right to express what you think would be good for the postlingal deaf population.........BUT, you don't have the right to express what you think would be good for most childhood dhh, b/c you're a postie. Posties ARE indeed "hearing impaired".....I wouldn't speak for a postie at ALL.(except for the progressive loss gang)......but, I feel that I can speak for the prelingals, since I am one, and I've actually experianced what its like to be a prelingal. You know what its like to be hearing, and you do experiance it as something very negative. Nothing wrong with that at all.....but you have to realize that many of us prelingally deaf and even HOH folks don't feel that way. Hey, even us hoh folks have never heard like a hearing person. We simply don't see it as a negative or as an impairement.....it's just something that's a part of us.
I agree.......older posties (like those who went deaf later and remember what its like to hear) are more of the typical SHHH member (focused on rehabilition and being totally in the hearing world) However, there are posties out there who are 100% FINE with being dhh. Being a postie and being culturally Deaf is not totally incompatible. We used to have a member here, who was postlingally deaf....BUT, she was also very pro ASL and Deaf culture! I know of at least two OTHER posties who are that way as well. I dunno......maybe some really intensive counseloing and learning about ways to adapt, would work wonders for a lot of posties.

 

[Passivist]

Are u saying that in general, hearing people see us deaf people as living miserable lives in isolation? I am just curious cuz if that is the case, I will have to laugh cuz it is such a huge misconception of deaf people.

No, I'm saying most acquired deaf see it this way.

Deafdyke: Many AD's do need intensive counselling that's true, but to come to terms with the loss, NOT to suggest deaf culture is the answer for them, the problem in the UK, is when someone loses hearing (Totally), and has problems they are pointed only to deaf clubs and sign-language here, and I KNOW, many reject that 'counselling' then, or don't follow it through, I wouldn't !

Basically it is because the loss issue has NOT been seen or addressed first from the ex-hearing side, but seen only, as a 'treatable' issue, via immersion into what is a totally different language, culture and lifestyle, so that's TWO Issues they then have to contend with. AD's can't cope with this, they end up back in no-man's land. FIRST they need help to come to terms with no more hearing, THEN, offered communication lessons. classes and help so they can exhibit some choice then.

I keep stating this and it's not always getting through, sign language is only suitable for SOME deaf, it is NOT suitable for all, and I think AD's do have issues with sign language, NOT because it IS sign par se, but the lifestyle that has to go with it. Many AD's do sign but they don't use it within the deaf community. For many AD's it is not a lifestyle they want, or feel they can fit in to, as they are still 'hearing' oriented. If lip-reading was easier to learn (It's very difficult), then I doubt many AD's would ever sign. I think perhaps some are upset they can't lip-read and take it out on the signing aspect, because they may feel that's the only option left to them.

The fact those that did sign weren't intitally made very welcome, set up a hard core of AD's who are very anti-culture, very pro-CI's, very anything that doesn't 'limit' or ally them to a deaf community. I'm not a fan personally of teaching HI children sign language, it causes problems in later adult life, it caused problems with me in adult life, especially on the vocal side. So long as these children have fairly useful hearing, they are not going to be accepted by the 'Deaf' no matter how well they sign. A part of them will not belong they will always feel that.

 

[shel90]

No, I'm saying most acquired deaf see it this way.

Deafdyke: Many AD's do need intensive counselling that's true, but to come to terms with the loss, NOT to suggest deaf culture is the answer for them, the problem in the UK, is when someone loses hearing (Totally), and has problems they are pointed only to deaf clubs and sign-language here, and I KNOW, many reject that 'counselling' then, or don't follow it through, I wouldn't !

I agree

Basically it is because the loss issue has NOT been seen or addressed first from the ex-hearing side, but seen only, as a 'treatable' issue, via immersion into what is a totally different language, culture and lifestyle, so that's TWO Issues they then have to contend with. AD's can't cope with this, they end up back in no-man's land. FIRST they need help to come to terms with no more hearing, THEN, offered communication lessons. classes and help so they can exhibit some choice then.

I keep stating this and it's not always getting through, sign language is only suitable for SOME deaf, it is NOT suitable for all, and I think AD's do have issues with sign language, NOT because it IS sign par se, but the lifestyle that has to go with it. Many AD's do sign but they don't use it within the deaf community. For many AD's it is not a lifestyle they want, or feel they can fit in to, as they are still 'hearing' oriented. If lip-reading was easier to learn (It's very difficult), then I doubt many AD's would ever sign. I think perhaps some are upset they can't lip-read and take it out on the signing aspect, because they may feel that's the only option left to them.

I know two ADs who went through that and then realized that it was just too difficult to "fit" in the hearing world and learned ASL. Now, they are involved in both worlds and very happy. They do not think twice about their deafness anymore. I think once a person accepts his/her deafness and his/her limitations, life becomes easier for them. I was born deaf but I was taught to be like "hearing" with the oral only approach and I spent the first 28 years of my life feeling this sense of isolation, emptiness, and low self-worth until I finally accepted that I am deaf and I will never be "hearing". Since then, my life is full and I feel contended about myself. In fact, I went to two deaf events this weekend and I was thinking about the things u said at those deaf events. U know what? It is great cuz I dont have to worry about catching what everyone is saying, feeling left out and bored, or worrying about making sure my speech is clear. I can just be myself and be who I am...and I am sure the other deaf people at the events feel the same way too. No, the deaf community is not perfect but what culture or communities are perfect anyway?

The fact those that did sign weren't intitally made very welcome, set up a hard core of AD's who are very anti-culture, very pro-CI's, very anything that doesn't 'limit' or ally them to a deaf community. I'm not a fan personally of teaching HI children sign language, it causes problems in later adult life, it caused problems with me in adult life, especially on the vocal side. So long as these children have fairly useful hearing, they are not going to be accepted by the 'Deaf' no matter how well they sign. A part of them will not belong they will always feel that.

I dont know if that is the case in the UK deaf community but here in America, that is not true. It is usually the people who grew up not knowing about deaf culture, not knowing ASL, or whatever that are not usually accepted right away but that was 10 years ago when I experienced that. I started noticing that the deaf community is more accepting of people with different linguistic backgrounds. Heck, there were a few CI users at both of the deaf events and nobody batted an eyelash. They didnt sit in isolation, away from the group..they were chatting with everyone else. Nobody even brought up any snide remarks about their CIs. 10 years ago, it was a big issue and snide remarks about CIs were pretty common. I am just glad that it is becoming less of a big deal now.

As for hearing loss levels, that is not an issue. I cant speak for hoh people here on how they feel about fitting in with deaf people but as far as I know, nobody really cares about the degree of hearing loss a person has. I have a few friends who have minimal hearing losses but they are very involved in deaf culture and ASL.

U mentioned that u are not a fan of teaching HI children sign language and that it would cause problems later on. I dont know how signing can cause problems for children. Even hearing children of deaf parents learn ASL and they dont have any problems. They can always choose one over the other or choose both. It is not a big deal. The big deal is the deaf or hoh child has a FULL 100% access to language during the first 5 critical years of their lives.

I am assuming that u are deaf but really want to be hearing?

 

[deafdyke]

I'm not a fan personally of teaching HI children sign language, it causes problems in later adult life, it caused problems with me in adult life, especially on the vocal side. So long as these children have fairly useful hearing, they are not going to be accepted by the 'Deaf' no matter how well they sign. A part of them will not belong they will always feel that.

Sigh............ Really? Then how come there are hearing kids with non-hearing related disabilites,(eg apraxia, cerebal palsy, tracheostomies, to name a but a few) who use ASL as a second language, and who are 100% accepted by the culturally Deaf crowd? Being culturally Deaf isn't about having a certain audiogram....Why does the presense of residual hearing automaticly mean that a kid can't ID as culturally Deaf? It really is about being more VISUAL, rather then being without hearing. There are profoundly and severely deaf people out there who don't really ID as Deaf.
What kind of problems does it cause? I don't know...........I mean I think that there may be some problems I'm not thinking of..........but, overall the benifit is a lot better then NOT giving them that tool. It should be the CHILD"S choice what tools they have access to. If a parent exposes a kid to both ASL and speech, and the kid tells the parent that they don't want to sign any more....that's FINE. But adults shouldn't be the ones making those sorts of choices. Adults should only decide which language should be the kid's first language!
Oh, and if more hoh kids learned sign, orally skilled dhh kids wouldn't BE in the minority. Besides not learning or being exposed to Sign and Deaf culture, just b/c they don't fit in 100% is dumb...Bisexual people say that they don't feel like they fit in 100%, in the GLB world, but yet bisexual people are still very involved in GLB culture. Same with other "dual minorities" That is actually THE ISSUE with older kid sudden loss posties. They are a minority, simply b/c most posties had hearing, in contrast to most childhood dhh, who either lost their hearing early, or who never had it in the first place! It's hard to serve them speicficly b/c they are such a tiny minority in the larger dhh population.
There are organizations and things out there for people who had hearing and who lost it......SHHH/HLAA is one. Granted most of their memebrs are old people, with old age losses.......but there are some members who lost their hearing as teens/adults/older kids. I think part of the reason why their needs have never really been specificly addressed is b/c, orgs like AG Bell and SHHH/HLAA, tend to really really push assimulation into the hearing world. Also, maybe the reason why it hasn't been addressed is b/c maybe someone founded a seperate org, but they just got tired of going over and over the same old "Hearing Health 101 stuff" (which is pretty dull) I agree........a postie's need is different from a prelingally dhh kid's need. However there's really no hard and fast rule. There are posties who have progressive losses/ lost their residual hearing later on, and who feel 100% comfortable in both hearing and deaf socieitys.
Not exposing dhh kids to Sign, isn't going to magically make the dhh kid a part of hearing society. It's just going to make the inequalities that they face in hearing society much worse.

 

[Passivist]

Sigh............ Really? Then how come there are hearing kids with non-hearing related disabilites,(eg apraxia, cerebal palsy, tracheostomies, to name a but a few) who use ASL as a second language, and who are 100% accepted by the culturally Deaf crowd? Being culturally Deaf isn't about having a certain audiogram....Why does the presense of residual hearing automaticly mean that a kid can't ID as culturally Deaf? It really is about being more VISUAL, rather then being without hearing. There are profoundly and severely deaf people out there who don't really ID as Deaf.
What kind of problems does it cause? I don't know...........I mean I think that there may be some problems I'm not thinking of..........but, overall the benifit is a lot better then NOT giving them that tool. It should be the CHILD"S choice what tools they have access to. If a parent exposes a kid to both ASL and speech, and the kid tells the parent that they don't want to sign any more....that's FINE. But adults shouldn't be the ones making those sorts of choices. Adults should only decide which language should be the kid's first language!
Oh, and if more hoh kids learned sign, orally skilled dhh kids wouldn't BE in the minority. Besides not learning or being exposed to Sign and Deaf culture, just b/c they don't fit in 100% is dumb...Bisexual people say that they don't feel like they fit in 100%, in the GLB world, but yet bisexual people are still very involved in GLB culture. Same with other "dual minorities" That is actually THE ISSUE with older kid sudden loss posties. They are a minority, simply b/c most posties had hearing, in contrast to most childhood dhh, who either lost their hearing early, or who never had it in the first place! It's hard to serve them speicficly b/c they are such a tiny minority in the larger dhh population.
There are organizations and things out there for people who had hearing and who lost it......SHHH/HLAA is one. Granted most of their memebrs are old people, with old age losses.......but there are some members who lost their hearing as teens/adults/older kids. I think part of the reason why their needs have never really been specificly addressed is b/c, orgs like AG Bell and SHHH/HLAA, tend to really really push assimulation into the hearing world. Also, maybe the reason why it hasn't been addressed is b/c maybe someone founded a seperate org, but they just got tired of going over and over the same old "Hearing Health 101 stuff" (which is pretty dull) I agree........a postie's need is different from a prelingally dhh kid's need. However there's really no hard and fast rule. There are posties who have progressive losses/ lost their residual hearing later on, and who feel 100% comfortable in both hearing and deaf socieitys.
Not exposing dhh kids to Sign, isn't going to magically make the dhh kid a part of hearing society. It's just going to make the inequalities that they face in hearing society much worse.

AD's need their own thing I think ! perhaps they need to dump the hearing and deaf worlds and do it their way ? they have the numbers, they'd use whatever they want and to hell with what others say, I believe most do anyway, as they have been forced into that situation. What does 'exposed' to deaf sign and culture mean ? sounds ominous ! Post curricular I see no issue, educationally, I might have doubts, schools work on basic skills building up what abilities children show, there is a strong sense of feeling the deaf community is isolatory or too self-contained to promote impetus for deaf children to work/communicate outside of it. Sign language has affected the ability to oralise when that ability is there, I'm not advocating oralism for those that would not benefit anyway, but all means must be offered.

More opprotunities will exist in mainstream than the deaf world as we know, should we deprive deaf children of the means if possible of getting out there ? I don't go with the "trying to make hearing out of deaf children" comments frankly. I see it as offering more choices and opportunities for the deaf to break out of their isolation, and to meet the needs of these children. The deaf world ISN'T enough, it is a valuable fall back, but shouldn't be all there is. Sign ? oralism ? paper bags ? who cares ? Deaf adults shoul dgo back to school too, to gain more communication and literay ability, too many stop bothering on leaving school, thus limiting options further.

These deaf then get entrenched in view, and highly dependant on the 'deaf way', it's a vicous circle. Keep ALL Options open.

 

[shel90]

AD's need their own thing I think ! perhaps they need to dump the hearing and deaf worlds and do it their way ? they have the numbers, they'd use whatever they want and to hell with what others say, I believe most do anyway, as they have been forced into that situation. What does 'exposed' to deaf sign and culture mean ? sounds ominous ! Post curricular I see no issue, educationally, I might have doubts, schools work on basic skills building up what abilities children show, there is a strong sense of feeling the deaf community is isolatory or too self-contained to promote impetus for deaf children to work/communicate outside of it. Sign language has affected the ability to oralise when that ability is there, I'm not advocating oralism for those that would not benefit anyway, but all means must be offered.

More opprotunities will exist in mainstream than the deaf world as we know, should we deprive deaf children of the means if possible of getting out there ? I don't go with the "trying to make hearing out of deaf children" comments frankly. I see it as offering more choices and opportunities for the deaf to break out of their isolation, and to meet the needs of these children. The deaf world ISN'T enough, it is a valuable fall back, but shouldn't be all there is. Sign ? oralism ? paper bags ? who cares ? Deaf adults shoul dgo back to school too, to gain more communication and literay ability, too many stop bothering on leaving school, thus limiting options further.

These deaf then get entrenched in view, and highly dependant on the 'deaf way', it's a vicous circle. Keep ALL Options open.

Regarding to AD doing it their own way. If it makes them happy, I see nothing wrong with it.

As for signing having an impact on the child's ability to have oral skills, I disagree. I used to think the same but during my language acquistion classes for my grad school studies, research showed no correlation between oral abilities and signing. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the child learns asl or not, their motivation to learn oral skills depends on the child. Matter of fact, I was able to see proof of that at my job. I have seen children whose first language is ASl show curiousity and interests in the speech classes. Some of them did end up with speechreading and oral skills good enough to communicate with hearing people.

What u said about the deaf community is your opinion but I do not agree with mainstreaming deaf children with only hearing children. That happened to me and I didn't benefit from it socially and emotionally. A lot of my deaf coworkers and friends grew up mainstreamed and now they r more comfortable in a signing environment around other deaf people or hearing people who can sign.

If u don't like the deaf community, that's your personal preference and I respect that but to say that children won't benefit from the deaf community is totally wrong.

 

[jillio]

Regarding to AD doing it their own way. If it makes them happy, I see nothing wrong with it.

As for signing having an impact on the child's ability to have oral skills, I disagree. I used to think the same but during my language acquistion classes for my grad school studies, research showed no correlation between oral abilities and signing. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the child learns asl or not, their motivation to learn oral skills depends on the child. Matter of fact, I was able to see proof of that at my job. I have seen children whose first language is ASl show curiousity and interests in the speech classes. Some of them did end up with speechreading and oral skills good enough to communicate with hearing people.

What u said about the deaf community is your opinion but I do not agree with mainstreaming deaf children with only hearing children. That happened to me and I didn't benefit from it socially and emotionally. A lot of my deaf coworkers and friends grew up mainstreamed and now they r more comfortable in a signing environment around other deaf people or hearing people who can sign.

If u don't like the deaf community, that's your personal preference and I respect that but to say that children won't benefit from the deaf community is totally wrong.

And rather than signing having a negative impact on a child learning oral skills--that is a myth perpetrated by the oralist to give validity to their philosophy. In reality, Sign assists in the learningof other languages--spoken English included, because the child has been given a striong foundation on which to build their skills. That is exactly whay so many parents are now teaching sign to their hearing infants.

 

[deafdyke]

More opprotunities will exist in mainstream than the deaf world as we know, should we deprive deaf children of the means if possible of getting out there ? I don't go with the "trying to make hearing out of deaf children" comments frankly. I see it as offering more choices and opportunities for the deaf to break out of their isolation, and to meet the needs of these children. The deaf world ISN'T enough, it is a valuable fall back, but shouldn't be all there is.

Passcifist, NOBODY is arguing that we should only do ASL and deaf culture. You know, only a VERY small percentage of dhh kids Sign only. There are very few kids "stuck" in the deaf-world. Some do choose to be seperatist, but many can interact between the hearing and the deaf world. It should be THEIR choice. Sure, you find the Deaf world not that helpful............and I do understand. You're not Deaf the way most people who have been dhh for their whole lives are. Yes, Deaf adults should make sure that dhh kids have all the oppertunties possible........but it isn't their choice to make, about how the dhh kids should communicate, or what worlds they want to be a part of!

 

[deafdyke]

Hmmmmmm......Passcifist,if the Deaf world is so"limiting" then how come so many dhh oral/mainstreamed kids find it "freeing?" and a whole new world?
I know you're thinking that the problem has to do with deaf kids automaticly getting ASL and Deaf culture, as part and parcel of the course. In other words its superfical enrichment that dhh kids "don't really need. But only a relatively small number of dhh kids, get exposure to ASL and Deaf culture as an "enrichment" platform. Most get it either as a supplement, b/c maybe their spoken language isn't too sophiscated, or they are left to find out about ASL and deaf culture on their OWN.

 

[Passivist]

Hmmmmmm......Passcifist,if the Deaf world is so"limiting" then how come so many dhh oral/mainstreamed kids find it "freeing?" and a whole new world?
I know you're thinking that the problem has to do with deaf kids automaticly getting ASL and Deaf culture, as part and parcel of the course. In other words its superfical enrichment that dhh kids "don't really need. But only a relatively small number of dhh kids, get exposure to ASL and Deaf culture as an "enrichment" platform. Most get it either as a supplement, b/c maybe their spoken language isn't too sophiscated, or they are left to find out about ASL and deaf culture on their OWN.

I suggest this is guesswork deafdyke, there's so much variation in world deaf and HI education that is supposition too. CHILDREN are different, sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact. It creates confusion in the border-line deaf particularly. ASL is a VISUAL language, (so they keep telling me !), it is suggested verbals, orals, are no part or basis of it.

For those children with an ability to oralise as WELL, (NOT ONLY !), this is going to cause, and does, conflict, you are subconciously made to choose. As an ADULT I found this after a hearing background, I did the sign classes and was told to shut up, (i.e. not use speech too much, because this confuses other deaf people), and classes in BSL in the UK STILL advocate this approach to HEARING students of sign language too. My mother saw it first, she said after 3 months of learning sign language my voice was going, I was not using it anywhere near what I used to. I had no idea.

I Panicked ! I stopped signing for a year to get my voice back to what it was, sign language is VERY deceptive ! it creeps up on you ! Now I would never use sign language without speech as well, I use SE too to maintain the ideal....and this has set me apart from the 'community', because I also split my social time more evenly between hearing and deaf interaction, I don't want to lose my voice again, if it happens to an adult, you can well imagine a child as yet not learning the basics could be seduced into silence via a sign only approach never to regain it. Speech is like sign, you use it, or LOSE IT !

My way is to ensure I Keep up both but it is a daily and lifetime of intense concentration to maintain that... I don't want to end up mute..... I don't want to abdiacte from the hearing world. Hence I wouldn't want deaf children that way either if the remotest chance exists they don't have to. I'd always oppose any sign only approach based on facts, it affects your voice. I'm not a rampant oralist/audist or whatever the current name the Americans have invented, I am stating a FACT, it happens.

It was stated in Milan too, but the deaf never looked at anything but the sign ban.... (Which was probably a mistake it detracted from the info the people of that time gave out), the education of deaf children remains the same, we can't offer deaf children direct and conflicting modes of communication without some line being drawn. Or you force them into A or B and no-one is...

 

[deafdyke]

sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact.

Um no..........its an OPINON!!!!!! Its a "fact" pushed by HEARING professionals, who want dhh kids to only speak. Kids CAN AND DO have the abilty to grow up BILINGAL!!!! If growing up speaking two spoken languages, doesn't cause delays or anything like that, then how the hell does growing up using Sign and spoken language cause delays?
It DOES NOT confuse kids..............Kids can easily "code switch" from languages.

 

[shel90]

I suggest this is guesswork deafdyke, there's so much variation in world deaf and HI education that is supposition too. CHILDREN are different, sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact. It creates confusion in the border-line deaf particularly. ASL is a VISUAL language, (so they keep telling me !), it is suggested verbals, orals, are no part or basis of it.

For those children with an ability to oralise as WELL, (NOT ONLY !), this is going to cause, and does, conflict, you are subconciously made to choose. As an ADULT I found this after a hearing background, I did the sign classes and was told to shut up, (i.e. not use speech too much, because this confuses other deaf people), and classes in BSL in the UK STILL advocate this approach to HEARING students of sign language too. My mother saw it first, she said after 3 months of learning sign language my voice was going, I was not using it anywhere near what I used to. I had no idea.

I Panicked ! I stopped signing for a year to get my voice back to what it was, sign language is VERY deceptive ! it creeps up on you ! Now I would never use sign language without speech as well, I use SE too to maintain the ideal....and this has set me apart from the 'community', because I also split my social time more evenly between hearing and deaf interaction, I don't want to lose my voice again, if it happens to an adult, you can well imagine a child as yet not learning the basics could be seduced into silence via a sign only approach never to regain it. Speech is like sign, you use it, or LOSE IT !

My way is to ensure I Keep up both but it is a daily and lifetime of intense concentration to maintain that... I don't want to end up mute..... I don't want to abdiacte from the hearing world. Hence I wouldn't want deaf children that way either if the remotest chance exists they don't have to. I'd always oppose any sign only approach based on facts, it affects your voice. I'm not a rampant oralist/audist or whatever the current name the Americans have invented, I am stating a FACT, it happens.

It was stated in Milan too, but the deaf never looked at anything but the sign ban.... (Which was probably a mistake it detracted from the info the people of that time gave out), the education of deaf children remains the same, we can't offer deaf children direct and conflicting modes of communication without some line being drawn. Or you force them into A or B and no-one is...

Speech is obviously very valuable to u. To me, it is not as valuable as children having 100% access to language. What is the point of having speech skills if the child has little or no concept of how the world works?

Speech is not language. ASL or other sign languages and English are both languages and my primary goal is the children becomes fully acquired in both to ensure they have high lieracy skills especially in reading and writing.

Speech and lipreading skills didn't do shit for me. I missed out so much growing up in the hearing world so I was delayed in concepts and skills as compared to my peers. Even with my excellent speech skills, I still do not get full access to language when I am around hearing people cuz I am unable to keep up with everyone chattering away. Not worth it for me so I have no desire to socialize in a non-signing environment. I grew up straining my eyes trying to catch everything and ended up missing out a lot. With ASL, I don't miss out so of course I want to be in an environment where I am fully involved in the conversations.

I will play devil's advocate here...ok let's say we teach all deaf babies oral skills with no exposre to sigh language and 5 years later, half of the children start kindergarten with little or no language due to not being able to pick up on spoken English even with some residual hearing. How do u justify that? The poor children will suffer academically cuz they have to learn ASL after all the parents and specialists realize that the children will never acquire speech or lipreading/listening skills. At this point the children already lost those first 5 critical years of language development so at age 5, they have to learn ASL and at the same time learn to understand printed concepts.

Trust me on that cuz I see it at my job all the time. Speech is the least of my worries. Language development is the most important thing we all can give to these deaf children and to deny them just for the sake of developing speech skills so they can "interact" with hearing people is just plain tragic.

Sign language has NO negative impact on the children's ability to read and write. Just as deafdyke stated, children can switch from 1 language to another IF they have a STRONG language foundation to begin with!

How do deaf or HOH children from deaf families are able to read and write just fine??

If u value speech for yourself, that's your business and nobody else's but to say that deaf or hoh children priority is to learn speech skills is not right.

We will probably will always disagree on this.

 

[shel90]

I suggest this is guesswork deafdyke, there's so much variation in world deaf and HI education that is supposition too. CHILDREN are different, sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact. It creates confusion in the border-line deaf particularly. ASL is a VISUAL language, (so they keep telling me !), it is suggested verbals, orals, are no part or basis of it.

For those children with an ability to oralise as WELL, (NOT ONLY !), this is going to cause, and does, conflict, you are subconciously made to choose. As an ADULT I found this after a hearing background, I did the sign classes and was told to shut up, (i.e. not use speech too much, because this confuses other deaf people), and classes in BSL in the UK STILL advocate this approach to HEARING students of sign language too. My mother saw it first, she said after 3 months of learning sign language my voice was going, I was not using it anywhere near what I used to. I had no idea.

I Panicked ! I stopped signing for a year to get my voice back to what it was, sign language is VERY deceptive ! it creeps up on you ! Now I would never use sign language without speech as well, I use SE too to maintain the ideal....and this has set me apart from the 'community', because I also split my social time more evenly between hearing and deaf interaction, I don't want to lose my voice again, if it happens to an adult, you can well imagine a child as yet not learning the basics could be seduced into silence via a sign only approach never to regain it. Speech is like sign, you use it, or LOSE IT !

My way is to ensure I Keep up both but it is a daily and lifetime of intense concentration to maintain that... I don't want to end up mute..... I don't want to abdiacte from the hearing world. Hence I wouldn't want deaf children that way either if the remotest chance exists they don't have to. I'd always oppose any sign only approach based on facts, it affects your voice. I'm not a rampant oralist/audist or whatever the current name the Americans have invented, I am stating a FACT, it happens.

It was stated in Milan too, but the deaf never looked at anything but the sign ban.... (Which was probably a mistake it detracted from the info the people of that time gave out), the education of deaf children remains the same, we can't offer deaf children direct and conflicting modes of communication without some line being drawn. Or you force them into A or B and no-one is...

Speech is obviously very valuable to u. To me, it is not as valuable as children having 100% access to language. What is the point of having speech skills if the child has little or no concept of how the world works?

Speech is not language. ASL or other sign languages and English are both languages and my primary goal is the children becomes fully acquired in both to ensure they have high lieracy skills especially in reading and writing.

Speech and lipreading skills didn't do shit for me. I missed out so much growing up in the hearing world so I was delayed in concepts and skills as compared to my peers. Even with my excellent speech skills, I still do not get full access to language when I am around hearing people cuz I am unable to keep up with everyone chattering away. Not worth it for me so I have no desire to socialize in a non-signing environment. I grew up straining my eyes trying to catch everything and ended up missing out a lot. With ASL, I don't miss out so of course I want to be in an environment where I am fully involved in the conversations.

I will play devil's advocate here...ok let's say we teach all deaf babies oral skills with no exposre to sigh language and 5 years later, half of the children start kindergarten with little or no language due to not being able to pick up on spoken English even with some residual hearing. How do u justify that? The poor children will suffer academically cuz they have to learn ASL after all the parents and specialists realize that the children will never acquire speech or lipreading/listening skills. At this point the children already lost those first 5 critical years of language development so at age 5, they have to learn ASL and at the same time learn to understand printed concepts.

Trust me on that cuz I see it at my job all the time. Speech is the least of my worries. Language development is the most important thing we all can give to these deaf children and to deny them just for the sake of developing speech skills so they can "interact" with hearing people is just plain tragic.

Sign language has NO negative impact on the children's ability to read and write. Just as deafdyke stated, children can switch from 1 language to another IF they have a STRONG language foundation to begin with!

How do deaf or HOH children from deaf families are able to read and write just fine??

If u value speech for yourself, that's your business and nobody else's but to say that deaf or hoh children priority is to learn speech skills is not right.

We will probably will always disagree on this.

 

[shel90]

I suggest this is guesswork deafdyke, there's so much variation in world deaf and HI education that is supposition too. CHILDREN are different, sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact. It creates confusion in the border-line deaf particularly. ASL is a VISUAL language, (so they keep telling me !), it is suggested verbals, orals, are no part or basis of it.

For those children with an ability to oralise as WELL, (NOT ONLY !), this is going to cause, and does, conflict, you are subconciously made to choose. As an ADULT I found this after a hearing background, I did the sign classes and was told to shut up, (i.e. not use speech too much, because this confuses other deaf people), and classes in BSL in the UK STILL advocate this approach to HEARING students of sign language too. My mother saw it first, she said after 3 months of learning sign language my voice was going, I was not using it anywhere near what I used to. I had no idea.

I Panicked ! I stopped signing for a year to get my voice back to what it was, sign language is VERY deceptive ! it creeps up on you ! Now I would never use sign language without speech as well, I use SE too to maintain the ideal....and this has set me apart from the 'community', because I also split my social time more evenly between hearing and deaf interaction, I don't want to lose my voice again, if it happens to an adult, you can well imagine a child as yet not learning the basics could be seduced into silence via a sign only approach never to regain it. Speech is like sign, you use it, or LOSE IT !

My way is to ensure I Keep up both but it is a daily and lifetime of intense concentration to maintain that... I don't want to end up mute..... I don't want to abdiacte from the hearing world. Hence I wouldn't want deaf children that way either if the remotest chance exists they don't have to. I'd always oppose any sign only approach based on facts, it affects your voice. I'm not a rampant oralist/audist or whatever the current name the Americans have invented, I am stating a FACT, it happens.

It was stated in Milan too, but the deaf never looked at anything but the sign ban.... (Which was probably a mistake it detracted from the info the people of that time gave out), the education of deaf children remains the same, we can't offer deaf children direct and conflicting modes of communication without some line being drawn. Or you force them into A or B and no-one is...

Speech is obviously very valuable to u. To me, it is not as valuable as children having 100% access to language. What is the point of having speech skills if the child has little or no concept of how the world works?

Speech is not language. ASL or other sign languages and English are both languages and my primary goal is the children becomes fully acquired in both to ensure they have high lieracy skills especially in reading and writing.

Speech and lipreading skills didn't do shit for me. I missed out so much growing up in the hearing world so I was delayed in concepts and skills as compared to my peers. Even with my excellent speech skills, I still do not get full access to language when I am around hearing people cuz I am unable to keep up with everyone chattering away. Not worth it for me so I have no desire to socialize in a non-signing environment. I grew up straining my eyes trying to catch everything and ended up missing out a lot. With ASL, I don't miss out so of course I want to be in an environment where I am fully involved in the conversations.

I will play devil's advocate here...ok let's say we teach all deaf babies oral skills with no exposre to sigh language and 5 years later, half of the children start kindergarten with little or no language due to not being able to pick up on spoken English even with some residual hearing. How do u justify that? The poor children will suffer academically cuz they have to learn ASL after all the parents and specialists realize that the children will never acquire speech or lipreading/listening skills. At this point the children already lost those first 5 critical years of language development so at age 5, they have to learn ASL and at the same time learn to understand printed concepts.

Trust me on that cuz I see it at my job all the time. Speech is the least of my worries. Language development is the most important thing we all can give to these deaf children and to deny them just for the sake of developing speech skills so they can "interact" with hearing people is just plain tragic.

Sign language has NO negative impact on the children's ability to read and write. Just as deafdyke stated, children can switch from 1 language to another IF they have a STRONG language foundation to begin with!

How do deaf or HOH children from deaf families are able to read and write just fine??

If u value speech for yourself, that's your business and nobody else's but to say that deaf or hoh children priority is to learn speech skills is not right.

We will probably will always disagree on this.

 

[Berry]

I suggest this is guesswork deafdyke, there's so much variation in world deaf and HI education that is supposition too. CHILDREN are different, sign language DOES affect speech it's a well-known and documented fact. It creates confusion in the border-line deaf particularly. ASL is a VISUAL language, (so they keep telling me !), it is suggested verbals, orals, are no part or basis of it.

For those children with an ability to oralise as WELL, (NOT ONLY !), this is going to cause, and does, conflict, you are subconciously made to choose. As an ADULT I found this after a hearing background, I did the sign classes and was told to shut up, (i.e. not use speech too much, because this confuses other deaf people), and classes in BSL in the UK STILL advocate this approach to HEARING students of sign language too. My mother saw it first, she said after 3 months of learning sign language my voice was going, I was not using it anywhere near what I used to. I had no idea.

I Panicked ! I stopped signing for a year to get my voice back to what it was, sign language is VERY deceptive ! it creeps up on you ! Now I would never use sign language without speech as well, I use SE too to maintain the ideal....and this has set me apart from the 'community', because I also split my social time more evenly between hearing and deaf interaction, I don't want to lose my voice again, if it happens to an adult, you can well imagine a child as yet not learning the basics could be seduced into silence via a sign only approach never to regain it. Speech is like sign, you use it, or LOSE IT !

My way is to ensure I Keep up both but it is a daily and lifetime of intense concentration to maintain that... I don't want to end up mute..... I don't want to abdiacte from the hearing world. Hence I wouldn't want deaf children that way either if the remotest chance exists they don't have to. I'd always oppose any sign only approach based on facts, it affects your voice. I'm not a rampant oralist/audist or whatever the current name the Americans have invented, I am stating a FACT, it happens.

It was stated in Milan too, but the deaf never looked at anything but the sign ban.... (Which was probably a mistake it detracted from the info the people of that time gave out), the education of deaf children remains the same, we can't offer deaf children direct and conflicting modes of communication without some line being drawn. Or you force them into A or B and no-one is...

I feel sad you had such a horrible personal experience in modern times. It sounds as tho the U.K. is 60 years behind the U.S. when it comes to understanding sign language and the people who use it (In Fremont, California, half the signing community is hearing people. It is hard to find someone there who does not sign -- From personal experience.)

What you suffered is comparable to what deaf people suffered in the U.S. before William Stokoe proved ASL should be recognized as a real language.

When I first learned signs my best friend was CODA and every time we would use signs in school we were suspended for 3 days. This was in the '50s. Now my hearing grand daughter signs openly in class with her friend who is deaf. Other hearing children ask to learn it from them.

Deaf people have a right to know and be proud of the fact they not only are not "dumb", their ancestors were so inteligent they invented a fully developed language in spite of extreme opposition. Deaf people have a right to know this language and be proud of using it.

Hearing people who learn it should approach it with the same love, respect, and admiration they would have for any other language.

 

[deafdyke]

Yes, and even a significent percentage of orally trained kids still need 'terps (and NOT oral 'terps) in educational or beyond one on one situiouns. Also, even many kids who develop oral skills, still have significent expressive language issues. Like they say " How many spiders have legs? " for "how many legs do spiders have?"
Plus, I don't think you can really appreciate how BORING and frustrating speech therapy is. It provides a useful skill yes...........but it's still not something that totally equalizes deaf or even HOH kids. God, even unilateral dhh kids are at a disadvantage in crowd situions or localizing sounds!
You're lucky.........you learned to speak before you went deaf. I think if you'd been born deaf or went deaf early on, you'd have a very different perspective on things. WHy is having a full toolbox so bad? I mean, my friend Lucilla didn't give up speaking Spanish just b/c she moved here to the US from PR. She speaks Spanish and English, even thou here she doesn't "need" it.

 

[jillio]

Um no..........its an OPINON!!!!!! Its a "fact" pushed by HEARING professionals, who want dhh kids to only speak. Kids CAN AND DO have the abilty to grow up BILINGAL!!!! If growing up speaking two spoken languages, doesn't cause delays or anything like that, then how the hell does growing up using Sign and spoken language cause delays?
It DOES NOT confuse kids..............Kids can easily "code switch" from languages.

**nodding agreement.** If sign affects speech so adversely, how do you account for the Cods who grew up with ASL as their first language, but manage to have a fluent grasp of spoken and written English at the same time?

It is a proven fact that kids who have a strong foundation in a primary language, be it sign or spoken language, easily code switch from one language to another. Numerous studies on the cognitive processing of bilingual deaf children prove this.

If you found sign was interfering with your ability to voice, perhaps it is because, as HH, your brain was trying to tell you that processing a visual language was more conducive to comprehension.