What approach should be used in the educational setting for deaf education?

[shel90]

As many of you probably know, I grew up with the oral-only approach in the educational setting. I really wish I had both for two reasons...ASL for learning new concepts and to ensure that my language and literacy development skills are at par with my hearing counterparts and oral for learning speech/lipreading skills to communicate with hearing people cuz let's face facts, the majority of hearing people will not accodmodate their communication methods to meet our deaf needs.

I felt that I missed out on so much information and learning was so boring for me. I spent most of my time in the classrooms (middle school and high school) just staring at the clock, looking at my classmates, memorizing all of the presidents, and staring at the wall in a daze. I got into trouble so many times for not paying attention in class so I felt awful. Looking back, if I knew now, I would have said to the teachers "How the fuck do u expect me to pay attention to class if u are jabbering away with your back turned to me?" Should deaf children spend their educational time staring at walls or to be able to engage in classroom discussions fully?

When I entered Gallaudet, FOR the first time in MY life, being in a classroom wasnt so boring and I learned so much in those two years at Gallaudet than I ever did in my 6 years of middle school, high school and my 4 years at ASU (even though I had a terp).


My brother went to a deaf school since he was in kindergarten after not succeeding in the oral-only approach at my elementary school. He described his classes and what everyone discussed. They sure did sound like fun and engaging. I cant even tell anyone what happened in my classes cuz I was just too phased out from boredom. I envy my brother for enjoying school so much but nothing I can do about it.

Now, as a teacher, I am seeing many deaf children being sent to our school from the mainstreamed programs (some oral only, some with terps, and other approaches) because they were unable to keep up with their hearing classmates. Their reading and writing levels are so many years delayed. All I could was thinking to myself, "If they had full access to language, this wouldnt have happened."

I am not putting the blame on anyone but I honestly think having ASL/English approach (BI BI) would work the best but I see so many oral-only programs popping up everywhere now that more and more children are being implanted and I am concerned that without a visual language in the classroom setting, these children would miss out a lot like I did. If CIs work that well for the children to be able to distinguish every word being spoken by everyone in the classroom, then wow that's great. Is that really happening? As many members stated that even CI users still rely on terps..isnt that going against the concept of LRE (Least Restrictive Environment)?

I just want to know why some people think the oral only approach is the best? Is it because being around hearing people will give those children more success in the real world than being around other deaf children?

I am just doing a lot of thinking and I just wanted to start a poll to see what others think of how all deaf education programs should be set up?

 

[sr171soars]

I didn't vote simply because I'm still in the process of figuring the best approach to this question. In recent years, I have become more aware there is no easy answer for what is the best approach to education for deaf children regardless of their deafness.

I can see for those who really don't have a chance to learn the oral route that ASL would be best. I can see those with mild/severe losses as a HOH should be best served learning the oral route. Those in between are probably best serve with a "bilingual" approach. The problem is the determination factor deciding which is best for a child isn't always evident at young ages. Some kids need lots of assistance to really get going regardless of the "tools" while others take off once given the right "tools".

I know in my case, that the oral route was the correct choice. I was "geared" naturally toward it as it fitted me to a "T". I will admit that it wasn't easy and I had my struggles at times but I did average to above average in academics. I had one advantage over some kids...I had an inner drive to succeed (I didn't need to be pushed) and I was going to do it no matter what the cost. Oh...I paid for the choice but I have no regrets as it got me where I wanted to be. Would I recommend that for others? Umm...I don't know as not everybody is capable of doing that and paying the price for it.

So, here I am decades later knowing full well that that there are no easy answers to this ongoing question. If push come to shove, I would probably say give them both and push both so they can choose which is better for them when they are capable of deciding that (they are going to do that anyway). I will say one thing why I even cringe making this statement...people tend to choose the easy way nine out of ten times over the hard way. This is true even when the rewards are greater going the hard way. Like I said, I paid but at least I did it and it served me very well. I never ever regretted my choice. I admit that I was in a position to make that choice whereas many are not. Is that fair? Well, life isn't fair and one must make use of one abilities as one can.

Whether or not doing the oral approach will provide success for any child is rather problematical. It depends on whether that child can make use of the oral approach sufficiently enough to make it worthwhile. Some can and some can't. Back in full circle again...no easy answers indeed.

 

[shel90]

I didn't vote simply because I'm still in the process of figuring the best approach to this question. In recent years, I have become more aware there is no easy answer for what is the best approach to education for deaf children regardless of their deafness.

I can see for those who really don't have a chance to learn the oral route that ASL would be best. I can see those with mild/severe losses as a HOH should be best served learning the oral route. Those in between are probably best serve with a "bilingual" approach. The problem is the determination factor deciding which is best for a child isn't always evident at young ages. Some kids need lots of assistance to really get going regardless of the "tools" while others take off once given the right "tools".

I know in my case, that the oral route was the correct choice. I was "geared" naturally toward it as it fitted me to a "T". I will admit that it wasn't easy and I had my struggles at times but I did average to above average in academics. I had one advantage over some kids...I had an inner drive to succeed (I didn't need to be pushed) and I was going to do it no matter what the cost. Oh...I paid for the choice but I have no regrets as it got me where I wanted to be. Would I recommend that for others? Umm...I don't know as not everybody is capable of doing that and paying the price for it.

So, here I am decades later knowing full well that that there are no easy answers to this ongoing question. If push come to shove, I would probably say give them both and push both so they can choose which is better for them when they are capable of deciding that (they are going to do that anyway). I will say one thing why I even cringe making this statement...people tend to choose the easy way nine out of ten times over the hard way. This is true even when the rewards are greater going the hard way. Like I said, I paid but at least I did it and it served me very well. I never ever regretted my choice. I admit that I was in a position to make that choice whereas many are not. Is that fair? Well, life isn't fair and one must make use of one abilities as one can.

Whether or not doing the oral approach will provide success for any child is rather problematical. It depends on whether that child can make use of the oral approach sufficiently enough to make it worthwhile. Some can and some can't. Back in full circle again...no easy answers indeed.

U said there is no easy answer so what's the harm in doing both so that way deaf/HOH kids can benefit from both and know what it is like to use both approaches. That way they can choose one over the other or just stay with both when they r older? Not only that, hearing parents' needs can be met too?

What's so bad about exposing both to children with a varying of hearing losses? If it doesn't harm hearing kids learning both then how harmful can be exposing both to deaf/hoh children?

Iam just struggling to understand the need of oral-only programs in the educational setting. I know many parents want their deaf children to learn how to "listen" and speak like hearing people but no visual language in the educational setting where it is critical for their social/intelligentual/literacy development is what I have trouble finding justification for.

I understand the inner drive and that is why I was able to do so well in my academics despite not understanding what was discussed in my classes most of the time. It is scary to think what could have had happened if I didn't have that inner drive. Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it but, unfortunately, many children are not like us (my brother for one) and they suffer. If all deaf kids were like us, then we probably wouldn't have all these kids who couldn't keep up with their hearing peers.

Let me ask this to the hearing parents of deaf children in oral-only programs. Do u feel that by your children being taught via ASL as well as English would interfere with their ability to learn like their hearing peers? Or is it all about speech and listening skills? Help me understand here cuz I really do not get it at all.

 

[sr171soars]

You bring up valid points. I don't have a problem with teaching deaf kids both approaches "per se". My problem is that only some can really make full use of both and fewer will gravitate toward the "harder" one. Is that the optimal situation we want? Some kids can do it but they opt to skip out on what opportunities they could possibly have to take the easy route. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking ASL but rather looking at it from what the reality is out there in the world.

This is where my dilemma comes from. I didn't mind doing the harder approach at all as I could see what it would do for me. Of course like I said earlier, I could do it too.

I think it comes to hearing parents wanting their child to do well in the world they know well...the hearing world. I mean where are the most opportunities? In the hearing world of course! How do most people communicate? Verbially of course! None of this is new to you or anybody else. What does a parent "do" with a child that may never be able to do that? Okay, so they learn sign and work with the child...fine. Now what? There will always be two worlds to deal with and many times it is "twain will they meet".

 

[deafdyke]

That's easy...........oral AND signing. I really think that initially dhh kids should be put in an EI program that really pushes both speech and Sign, so that they can find the best fit for them.
There are kids who are introduced to Sign early on, and who say they don't want to Sign any more.............and that's good. B/c it's THEIR choice. Like I'd love to see oral programs introduce Sign on an enrichment basis. Like "Oh your child can hear and speak..........but here's another tool that might be very helpful as well" I don't think kids should be left alone to "discover" AS: and deaf culture on their own.

 

[shel90]

You bring up valid points. I don't have a problem with teaching deaf kids both approaches "per se". My problem is that only some can really make full use of both and fewer will gravitate toward the "harder" one. Is that the optimal situation we want? Some kids can do it but they opt to skip out on what opportunities they could possibly have to take the easy route. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking ASL but rather looking at it from what the reality is out there in the world.

This is where my dilemma comes from. I didn't mind doing the harder approach at all as I could see what it would do for me. Of course like I said earlier, I could do it too.

I think it comes to hearing parents wanting their child to do well in the world they know well...the hearing world. I mean where are the most opportunities? In the hearing world of course! How do most people communicate? Verbially of course! None of this is new to you or anybody else. What does a parent "do" with a child that may never be able to do that? Okay, so they learn sign and work with the child...fine. Now what? There will always be two worlds to deal with and many times it is "twain will they meet".

Ok..let's say, for the sake of the argument, which would u rather to see happening...a deaf person who can communicate with hearing people verbally but has poor English skills or a deaf person who can communicate with hearing people via print with strong English skills?

The opportunities that are given in the hearing world is why I support speech and lipreading/listening skills. Due to the problem and risks associated of not being sure if the oral approach will work for this or that child is my reason for my belief in having both approaches in the educational setting so that way the children can be sure to have at least one strong L1 language if not in both. It is better than having no strong L1 language.

I know so many kids whose ASL is so weak due to missing out a lot trying to learn how to speak and listen during their formative years and they are having trouble learning another language in printed form so having said that, what is the point of having good speech skills if they can barely read or write clearly?

For me, it is not about deaf power or anything...it is all about ensuring that these kids have full access to language in order to be able to develop their literacy skills at the same rate as hearing children.

If I wasnt a teacher, my experience would have clouded my judgement on this issue but because I am seeing just too many situations of deaf children who have a weak L1 language trying to learn a 2nd language, I feltl I needed to say something and get other people's different points of views. Maybe I will agree and maybe I wont but I just want to understand why this is happening and how do people allow this to happen for so long?

Are u saying that ASL is the easy route? If it makes it easier for children to grasp the concept of reading and writing in another language, sure I would go for it! Why make things so much harder for children who are already struggling in their L1 language? I have seen so many older kids just lose motivation. I was taught during my studies that u start out with easy lessons for the students to give them the confidence and then build up the difficult tasks to challenge the students but not to make it too difficult that they get frustrated and give up.

 

[sr171soars]

Ok..let's say, for the sake of the argument, which would u rather to see happening...a deaf person who can communicate with hearing people verbally but has poor English skills or a deaf person who can communicate with hearing people via print with strong English skills?

The opportunities that are given in the hearing world is why I support speech and lipreading/listening skills. Due to the problem and risks associated of not being sure if the oral approach will work for this or that child is my reason for my belief in having both approaches in the educational setting so that way the children can be sure to have at least one strong L1 language if not in both. It is better than having no strong L1 language.

I know so many kids whose ASL is so weak due to missing out a lot trying to learn how to speak and listen during their formative years and they are having trouble learning another language in printed form so having said that, what is the point of having good speech skills if they can barely read or write clearly?

For me, it is not about deaf power or anything...it is all about ensuring that these kids have full access to language in order to be able to develop their literacy skills at the same rate as hearing children.

If I wasnt a teacher, my experience would have clouded my judgement on this issue but because I am seeing just too many situations of deaf children who have a weak L1 language trying to learn a 2nd language, I feltl I needed to say something and get other people's different points of views. Maybe I will agree and maybe I wont but I just want to understand why this is happening and how do people allow this to happen for so long?

Are u saying that ASL is the easy route? If it makes it easier for children to grasp the concept of reading and writing in another language, sure I would go for it! Why make things so much harder for children who are already struggling in their L1 language? I have seen so many older kids just lose motivation. I was taught during my studies that u start out with easy lessons for the students to give them the confidence and then build up the difficult tasks to challenge the students but not to make it too difficult that they get frustrated and give up.

You are very persuasive in your arguments and I can see the reasoning behind what you say. I can agree that probably in many if not most situations, the best thing for deaf kids is the dual approach. Give them the tools to succeed in life.

I will say one thing though...I wouldn't be so successful in the hearing world if I got sidetracked with ASL growing up. This is the dichotomy that stinks about dual ASL and spoken language. The best practicers of ASL and spoken language are those hearing or near hearing. It is a one way street no matter how one slices and dices it. The hearing already have a leg up having both hearing and sight and it is not so difficult to go between the worlds and be either one. It is so much more difficult for the deaf to do that and for obvious reasons. I'm not referring to written language either but the give and take of spoken langauge. The only way to be good at it is to do it all the time. Maybe I'm a rarity in this respect...I don't know. All I do know is that it took me until I was in my early twenties that I finally arrived in their world.

 

[shel90]

You are very persuasive in your arguments and I can see the reasoning behind what you say. I can agree that probably in many if not most situations, the best thing for deaf kids is the dual approach. Give them the tools to succeed in life.

I will say one thing though...I wouldn't be so successful in the hearing world if I got sidetracked with ASL growing up. This is the dichotomy that stinks about dual ASL and spoken language. The best practicers of ASL and spoken language are those hearing or near hearing. It is a one way street no matter how one slices and dices it. The hearing already have a leg up having both hearing and sight and it is not so difficult to go between the worlds and be either one. It is so much more difficult for the deaf to do that and for obvious reasons. I'm not referring to written language either but the give and take of spoken langauge. The only way to be good at it is to do it all the time. Maybe I'm a rarity in this respect...I don't know. All I do know is that it took me until I was in my early twenties that I finally arrived in their world.

That's so true and I can understand. However, if that is the case, then why was I still limited in a lot of ways in the working field with hearing people before I learned ASL? I wasnt taken seriously and it seemed like many people treated me as the "poor deaf" girl even though I had excellent lipreading and speaking skills. Honestly, for me, unless I became a total bitch and really voiced my opinions loudy in the hearing world, it was a no win situation for me cuz I felt I wasnt really taken seriously in the hearing world growing up.

I cant imagine being in the oral-only world full time ever again. It was just too difficult for me. Maybe it is so much easier for u hence your different perspective.

I just dont want more deaf children to graduate with poor literacy skills. If it has been proven that deaf children from deaf families or hearing families that learned ASL and are in education programs where new concepts are taught in ASL/English are able to develop strong literacy skills, then why not do that for all deaf/hoh children to ensure that there are no risks for any of the children to struggle with their literacy skills?

Then again, it seems that speech and listening skills are much more important to many people out there so I will just keep on teaching those children to the best of my ability and pray that they all will get caught up after missing out on language development. It will be a challenge but one that I am willing to take on. Just would be nice if everyone can recognize that it is a serious problem and all work together to provide the full toolbox for future deaf children. *signs*

 

[jillio]

The fact of the matter is, if you offer both you provide opportunities for a child to develop fluency in which ever language is most natural and conducive to learning. The second language comes much easier if a strong base language is developed.

I have yet to meet an hh kid or adult that does not use visual cues to some extent to matter how oral they are. Even those who are AD and use HA will rely on visual cues. Knowing this, why do we want to deny children that advantage?

 

[sr171soars]

The fact of the matter is, if you offer both you provide opportunities for a child to develop fluency in which ever language is most natural and conducive to learning. The second language comes much easier if a strong base language is developed.

I have yet to meet an hh kid or adult that does not use visual cues to some extent to matter how oral they are. Even those who are AD and use HA will rely on visual cues. Knowing this, why do we want to deny children that advantage?

I can agree on your first paragraph.

As for your second paragraph, I agree I use some visual cues but it depends whether or not I need them. For instance, if is noisy and voices aren't being easily picked by my CI. In general environments that are quiet, I just really don't need them and I pick up the impromptu remarks very easily without the obligatory "huh!". The longer I have my CI the more I focus on "listening" skills and I have become even more like the hearing. It is almost scary compared to my HA days. The greatest benefit is that I can listen all day long without being exhausted.

Lastly, I don't think there really is any understanding "out there" what deaf children really need as you and Shel90 have mention in various threads. I don't think there is a deliberate attempt either to deny children all the tools that would assist them. They simply have no idea what they are dealing with and when confronted with the evidence, inertia is in the way. What a sad state of affairs!

 

[sr171soars]

That's so true and I can understand. However, if that is the case, then why was I still limited in a lot of ways in the working field with hearing people before I learned ASL? I wasnt taken seriously and it seemed like many people treated me as the "poor deaf" girl even though I had excellent lipreading and speaking skills. Honestly, for me, unless I became a total bitch and really voiced my opinions loudy in the hearing world, it was a no win situation for me cuz I felt I wasnt really taken seriously in the hearing world growing up.

I dealt not being taken seriously as well especially when younger so I know what you are talking about. It seemed to be less of an issue as I got older and my ability to carry on good conversations. Just prior to my CI when my hearing was going south, it reared it ugly head sometimes. Now after the CI, it isn't an issue anymore again. I guess the more you are like them, the less it is an issue. It brings up how important the ability to communicate like them with the "give and take" which you have spoke of before.

I cant imagine being in the oral-only world full time ever again. It was just too difficult for me. Maybe it is so much easier for u hence your different perspective.

Yes, it is much easier for me and my CI gives even more of an edge now. I can't believe how much easier it is for me these days.

I just dont want more deaf children to graduate with poor literacy skills. If it has been proven that deaf children from deaf families or hearing families that learned ASL and are in education programs where new concepts are taught in ASL/English are able to develop strong literacy skills, then why not do that for all deaf/hoh children to ensure that there are no risks for any of the children to struggle with their literacy skills?

I'm with you 100% on this.

Then again, it seems that speech and listening skills are much more important to many people out there so I will just keep on teaching those children to the best of my ability and pray that they all will get caught up after missing out on language development. It will be a challenge but one that I am willing to take on. Just would be nice if everyone can recognize that it is a serious problem and all work together to provide the full toolbox for future deaf children. *signs*

As I said in the first paragraph, it is very important to the hearing world no doubt about it. It is unfortunate for you to deal with the reality of these kids.

 

[shel90]

I dealt not being taken seriously as well especially when younger so I know what you are talking about. It seemed to be less of an issue as I got older and my ability to carry on good conversations. Just prior to my CI when my hearing was going south, it reared it ugly head sometimes. Now after the CI, it isn't an issue anymore again. I guess the more you are like them, the less it is an issue. It brings up how important the ability to communicate like them with the "give and take" which you have spoke of before.



Yes, it is much easier for me and my CI gives even more of an edge now. I can't believe how much easier it is for me these days.



I'm with you 100% on this.



As I said in the first paragraph, it is very important to the hearing world no doubt about it. It is unfortunate for you to deal with the reality of these kids.

Thanks for reading this and keeping an open mind cuz I know I can come across as harsh when I believe in something so strongly about.

I am glad that the CIs are making life for u easier in the hearing world. If I had a job working with all hearing people, I probably would consider getting it. Who knows but I would never drop my identity as a deaf person who values ASL and Deaf culture.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I vote oral and signing.

I can't follow someone signing without mouth movement.

American, I met at birthday party last Saturday, had told me that Americans use ASL without mouth movement. To his view, German Sign language is slower than ASL. I got him to ASL me... :Ohno: I don't understand and got him to use mouth movement (oral)... He laughed.

Here in Germany, use signing with oral (mouth movement) which is easier for us to understand their lipread when they signing...

 

[jillio]

I can agree on your first paragraph.

As for your second paragraph, I agree I use some visual cues but it depends whether or not I need them. For instance, if is noisy and voices aren't being easily picked by my CI. In general environments that are quiet, I just really don't need them and I pick up the impromptu remarks very easily without the obligatory "huh!". The longer I have my CI the more I focus on "listening" skills and I have become even more like the hearing. It is almost scary compared to my HA days. The greatest benefit is that I can listen all day long without being exhausted.

Lastly, I don't think there really is any understanding "out there" what deaf children really need as you and Shel90 have mention in various threads. I don't think there is a deliberate attempt either to deny children all the tools that would assist them. They simply have no idea what they are dealing with and when confronted with the evidence, inertia is in the way. What a sad state of affairs!

That's my whole point. If a child needs the visual cues, and they are available, they will use them. If they happen to be in a situation where understanding is achieved without visual cues, they will ignore them. But better to have them available when they are not needed, than for the child to need them and not have them available.

There is sufficient research out there to guide educators regarding the educational situations and type of language environments in which a dea child is able to flourish. Its the individuals who want to hang onto outdated philiosphies, or those who refuse to see the whole picture, that stand in the way of effective education for our deaf children. I agree with you 100%--it is a sad state of affairs. Those whom parents rely on to give accurate and appropriate advise regarding education are the very ones who are guilty of holding our children back.

 

[sara1981]

im learn sign languages at ages 5 years old

 

[nightcrickets]

As many of you probably know, I grew up with the oral-only approach in the educational setting. I really wish I had both for two reasons...ASL for learning new concepts and to ensure that my language and literacy development skills are at par with my hearing counterparts and oral for learning speech/lipreading skills to communicate with hearing people cuz let's face facts, the majority of hearing people will not accodmodate their communication methods to meet our deaf needs.

I felt that I missed out on so much information and learning was so boring for me. I spent most of my time in the classrooms (middle school and high school) just staring at the clock, looking at my classmates, memorizing all of the presidents, and staring at the wall in a daze. I got into trouble so many times for not paying attention in class so I felt awful. Looking back, if I knew now, I would have said to the teachers "How the fuck do u expect me to pay attention to class if u are jabbering away with your back turned to me?" Should deaf children spend their educational time staring at walls or to be able to engage in classroom discussions fully?

When I entered Gallaudet, FOR the first time in MY life, being in a classroom wasnt so boring and I learned so much in those two years at Gallaudet than I ever did in my 6 years of middle school, high school and my 4 years at ASU (even though I had a terp).


My brother went to a deaf school since he was in kindergarten after not succeeding in the oral-only approach at my elementary school. He described his classes and what everyone discussed. They sure did sound like fun and engaging. I cant even tell anyone what happened in my classes cuz I was just too phased out from boredom. I envy my brother for enjoying school so much but nothing I can do about it.

Now, as a teacher, I am seeing many deaf children being sent to our school from the mainstreamed programs (some oral only, some with terps, and other approaches) because they were unable to keep up with their hearing classmates. Their reading and writing levels are so many years delayed. All I could was thinking to myself, "If they had full access to language, this wouldnt have happened."

I am not putting the blame on anyone but I honestly think having ASL/English approach (BI BI) would work the best but I see so many oral-only programs popping up everywhere now that more and more children are being implanted and I am concerned that without a visual language in the classroom setting, these children would miss out a lot like I did. If CIs work that well for the children to be able to distinguish every word being spoken by everyone in the classroom, then wow that's great. Is that really happening? As many members stated that even CI users still rely on terps..isnt that going against the concept of LRE (Least Restrictive Environment)?

I just want to know why some people think the oral only approach is the best? Is it because being around hearing people will give those children more success in the real world than being around other deaf children?

I am just doing a lot of thinking and I just wanted to start a poll to see what others think of how all deaf education programs should be set up?

I was in the same boat as you were. I pick both ASL and Oral.

 

[nightcrickets]

A

I just want to know why some people think the oral only approach is the best? Is it because being around hearing people will give those children more success in the real world than being around other deaf children?

In my opinion, it is very rare for HOH who used Oral only approach and be very successful. If he/she did, she is intelligent in the first place. But the average HOH/Deaf who used oral only approach end up with low paying jobs anyhow. My severe HOH older sister is very intelliegent but used the oral only approach in the 70's and early 80's. She went to a two years college and another 2 years at Liberty. She made C's and D's in school and C's in college due to her hearing.

She wanted to be a counselor. And she did have a job at a social service, but she couldn't communicate with hearing people effectively, and had to use the phone alot. She ended up working for the post office (because it didn't require alot of communciation) and learn ASL. My thought on this, What the point of forcing someone to use oral only communication when your child will end up using ASL and a low paying job anyhow. I think Deaf would be more successful if they could work together in a community.

She suffer depression over her deafness too. She feel like she can't do it.

 

[Aleser]

Depends on the child, their needs, and their parents wishes. I am nobody to say what is "correct" for some other person. Personally, I'd prefer it if all deaf/hh students were exposed to both, so they could accomidate the hearing world while still being exposed to their culture and maintaining effective communication skills with both Deaf peers and hearing ones.

 

[BearBeauty]

I voted for both.. My reasons i'm sure everyone already knows from other threads... I grew up with both.. so the decision is a easy one for me. but i can understand why some people would have a hard time.

 

[nightcrickets]

all I can say is that Helen Keller learn ASL before she learned how to speak. She did not learn to speak before learning ASL. It just goes to shows how important for us to learn about the world around us is more important than learning how speak well. We should learn from her.