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

[shel90]

I am a hearing parent of 2 deaf oral teenagers.
I think that ASL would not interfer with their learning academics. In the early years say below 8 years old if they are being raised orally and are being successful in developing oral language, I would not introduce any sign language. I do think that if a deaf child is above the age of 4 or 5 years and has been raised orally and is not having much success then parents need to switch to ASL or a form of sign language.

I dont agree with that because that means the chidlren were deprived of full access to language and then switching to ASL, have to learn a new language, and try to read and write when they dont have a strong L1 foundation. That makes them language delayed and it is not right at all. I dont see the justification for putting deaf children at risk for being language delayed just to see if they develop oral skills or not. I see that too many times with my students after years of struggling with oral language. finally, they get full acess to a language which is ASL but because they are past the critical years of language development, it is tough for them and not to mention they have to learn to read and write in another language. I am sorry...I strongly stand by my opinion that both should be exposed right from the start not one language later and have the children play catch up. It is not right because that gives them a lifetime of struggles with literacy skills.



My children are now teenagers and have been very successful in using oral language. They have learn sign language more socially. I think sign language is a positive for my chldren now.
Knowing what I know now I wouldn't change a thing in my children's education.
But I have seen childrens being raised orally that do need to change and parents are just no open to it.
I think partly because we oral parents have heard so much about how the Deaf culture thinks we are wrong. I think both sides needs to listen each otehr and respect each other more.

For me, literacy skills comes first than oral skills. I would rather see a deaf person who is a signer only with literacy skills at a Harvard level than see a deaf person who can speak and hear so well but read at an 8th grade level. By telling Deaf children that being oral is better is giving the wrong message (not that u are saying it but that's the general attitude out there). We should be sending a message of the importance of literacy skills. U mentioned in another thread that there are more opportunities if deaf people develop oral skills. I think we need to change that attitude cuz if the children were unable to develop oral skills and they get that message, that will make them feel like failures.

 

[shel90]

I noticed that people who believe in the oral philosophy say that ASL or sign language may not work for all deaf children. I am curious..how can ASL not work for any deaf children since it is a visual language? Heck, even hearing children acquire ASL if exposed to it. It is visually accessible to any children and tactually accessible for blind children too maing ASL fully accessible as opposed to spoken language not being 100% accessible for all deaf/hoh children.

 

[shel90]

=angelstar819;777416]i disagree with total communication--both oralism and ASL. the reason is that the child's speech will be drastically delayed if s/he is learning ASL, and would refuse to use their voice and just sign.
I agree with you when a deaf child is young like 1 to 3 years old that if a parent has chosen the oral parth and has made an informed decision then they should just focus on oral language. But these parents need to know that thier child might not be able to oral and in a year look at their decsion closely and see how their child is progressing and make changes if they need too
so if you want your child to learn to talk, do oralism ONLY in order to maximize their auditory and speaking skills. s/he can ALWAYS learn to sign later on. while it's NEVER too late to learn to sign, it can be too late to learn to speak and listen well.

of course, another advantage of oralism is better grammar and reading comprehension. ASL users tend to have poor grammar, because of the whole ASL syntax.

I think you wrong with the tendency of poor grammer. While ASL deaf might have poorer grammer in spoekn Engish it is just like a Spanish speaker learning English later on in life their English skills are not going to be the same as a native speaker. I know that when I sign which I do not very well I make lots of mistakes but because I am not a fluent signer[/QUOTE]


Research as shown that deaf children from deaf families or children from hearing families who learn sign language do better in literacy skills than those children who are deprived of full access to a language during their formative years. I have met so many deaf people who learned ASL since they were babies whether they were from hearing or deaf families and their writing skills are up to par...heck, some of them have better writing skills than I do. It is all about full access to language during the first 5 years.

People think ASL causes the children to have poor literacy skills but it is the total opposite.

 

[Barbaro]

I have not read the whole thread. I am not sure I would want to vote either "oral and signing approach" or "use whatever methods work for the child." I am starting to lean toward "use whatever methods work for the child."

I'm profoundly deaf and do lip-read. I have been wearing hearing aids since I was almost two years old. I grew up orally until I was nine years old when my parents sent me to the public elementary school (Deaf / HOH program) to learn sign language (SEE). It was a different world for me and I did feel awkward because I had no idea what they talked about in sign language. It took me about one year to learn SEE, before I can socialize and communicate with deaf students easily. I also have had been attending my private speech therapy for thirteen years to learn to speak and recognize the sounds.

If a child grows up orally and receives extensive speech therapy for years, and is doing well, that's great. Of course, they vary due to the hearing loss level from severe to profound. I know several deaf people who grew orally without learning sign language and are doing fine. Most of them took ASL classes at college later, so they can socialize and communicate with deaf people.

If other child still struggles learning oral skills, a child needs to learn sign language right away. Personally, I have to admit I would not recommend SEE. Either PSE or ASL would be fine. SEE makes it harder to sign because of the tenses, pronouns, and adverbs. You know what I mean. Children are so curious and very impatient because their brains grow and want to learn and talk so fast! I remember in the classes we had to sign SEE slowly. Some of us didn't like it because it was slow and boredom. It tend to tune us out, which discourage some of us from not interesting in the subjects. During the recesses and lunches, we were free from classes and sign so fast which make it easier for us to communicate each other. That's my personal observation and experience.

 

[jillio]

I am a hearing parent of 2 deaf oral teenagers.
I think that ASL would not interfer with their learning academics. In the early years say below 8 years old if they are being raised orally and are being successful in developing oral language, I would not introduce any sign language. I do think that if a deaf child is above the age of 4 or 5 years and has been raised orally and is not having much success then parents need to switch to ASL or a form of sign language.
My children are now teenagers and have been very successful in using oral language. They have learn sign language more socially. I think sign language is a positive for my chldren now.
Knowing what I know now I wouldn't change a thing in my children's education.
But I have seen childrens being raised orally that do need to change and parents are just no open to it.
I think partly because we oral parents have heard so much about how the Deaf culture thinks we are wrong. I think both sides needs to listen each otehr and respect each other more.

And on exactly what facts are you basing all of this opinion? Research into langauge acquisition, cognitiveprocessing and psychological development all say you are very, very wrong in your opinions. It has absolutley nothing to do with Deaf Culture, and if you had a true understanding of the issues, you would see that. Its good that you support your children's use of sign language now. I would venture to say that you probably don't have much choice in the matter, as your children chose to learn it on their own because they obviously realized that oral language did not fulfill all of their communication requirements. The approach of waiting until a child is 4 or 5 is exactly waht is resposnible for deaf children being language deprived and language delayed, and those two issues continue to cause problems for children that will get worse as they get older. Just as your daughter is now experiencing at the high school level, academic issues, these issues did not occur overnight but are the direct result of cummulative issues surrounding an impoverished linguistic atmosphere.

You claim that you are an educator of the deaf. Where did you receive your degree in deaf education? Is it udergrad, or grad level?

 

[jillio]

Maybe you haven't found someone like that because you are not looking. I have 2 deaf kids. My son does not use any visual cues. He is profoundly deaf with a cochlear implant
My daughter who has a bit more hearing then my son does use visual cues like lip reading and knows more signs then my son,

I have yet to find and would to find a profoundly deaf student that was raised orally with sign language from the very beginning of their lives that has good oral skills that can function without an interpeter in the hearing sommunity.
If you know of a couple I would love to communicate with them

Sweetie, I am the mother of a profoundly deaf son, and have been involved wit the deaf community for over 20 years. I work as a therapist for deaf adolescents who are experiencing so many of the problems that the strictly oral philosophy has created, and my graduate assistantship is being spent advocating for and providing accommodations for deaf and other disabled students at a well known state college.

Which is it? Does your son use visual cues or doesn't he? First you say no, then you say yes. Make up your mind, because you are refuting your own claims.

And I've got a profoundly deaf individual that I am personally very close to that was raised with sign from the very beginning that can, if necessary, function without an interpreter. He is my son. And I know many many other sign based deaf people who can and do function on a daily baisis without the use of an interpreter. A terp is not necessary for most day to day communications. Are you aware of the the technological advances untilized my deaf individuals to facilitate communication?

 

[jillio]

=angelstar819;777416]i disagree with total communication--both oralism and ASL. the reason is that the child's speech will be drastically delayed if s/he is learning ASL, and would refuse to use their voice and just sign.
I agree with you when a deaf child is young like 1 to 3 years old that if a parent has chosen the oral parth and has made an informed decision then they should just focus on oral language. But these parents need to know that thier child might not be able to oral and in a year look at their decsion closely and see how their child is progressing and make changes if they need tooso if you want your child to learn to talk, do oralism ONLY in order to maximize their auditory and speaking skills. s/he can ALWAYS learn to sign later on. while it's NEVER too late to learn to sign, it can be too late to learn to speak and listen well.

of course, another advantage of oralism is better grammar and reading comprehension. ASL users tend to have poor grammar, because of the whole ASL syntax.

I think you wrong with the tendency of poor grammer. While ASL deaf might have poorer grammer in spoekn Engish it is just like a Spanish speaker learning English later on in life their English skills are not going to be the same as a native speaker. I know that when I sign which I do not very well I make lots of mistakes but because I am not a fluent signer[/QUOTE]
If sign based education and communication are responsible for poor grammar, I just have to ask....were you raised orally?

 

[jillio]

You are making a very broad statement of oral successes. Where my daughter does at time have play catch up.
My son who is profoundly deaf does not. He is oral. He scores in the advance category on the state test, he is fully mainstream half load honors classes. Wheh his teacher teach at times he raises his hands and tells the teacher he has a different way teaching a problem that would make it easier for his hearing peers to understand.
Your view is very narrow.
I know of several oral deaf children like my daughter that they do need to play catch up
I also know of other children like my son that do not.
Especially now a days with new born screenings. Many many oral deaf students being diagnosis at birth are able to be at the same level completely with their hearing peers because they get diagnosis early and wear better hearing aides then there were before or get implanted by the age 1 and then they do not have to get catch because of short time frame.

PLEASE keep an open mind

I also know of a lot of success stories of people being raised only in a signing world.
So if an oralist can keep an open mind why can't you

Oralist and open mind are diametrically opposed terms. And I do possess an extremely open mind. Just not so open that I allow my brains to fall out while I continue to speak.

 

[jillio]

I know you use say you have reserch to support your point I also have research to support my opinion and my point is that some deaf children can be successful with using just oral language. Now I am not saying all deaf children should be oral. I know some children really sign to help them. And I also know that some deaf children should only use sign and others a combination approach. As I am sure you know you can always find some research article to support your opinion.

Please refer me tothat research. I will not accept, as reseach anecdotal evidence, and that is all you have offered thus far. I will be more than happy to read any academic, valid, credible research that you can offer, and will refute with my own.

 

[jillio]

We should find a middle ground

Total Communication and Bi-Bi education is that middle ground. The oralist philosophy is not.

 

[BearBeauty]

We all have a different view of what works and what does not work.. Can't you guys just accept that you each have your own views on which approach you use?

I know some think oral works, others think ASL only works, and still others feel the Bi Bi works, or TC works and so on and so forth.. Why don't we all find a middle ground that we can all agree upon? THat each approach works for different people, and there are No 1 approach that works for everybody?

 

[shel90]

We all have a different view of what works and what does not work.. Can't you guys just accept that you each have your own views on which approach you use?

I know some think oral works, others think ASL only works, and still others feel the Bi Bi works, or TC works and so on and so forth.. Why don't we all find a middle ground that we can all agree upon? THat each approach works for different people, and there are No 1 approach that works for everybody?

I dont agree with gambling with deaf children's language development like that. I will never agree to that.

 

[jillio]

I dont agree with gambling with deaf children's language development like that. I will never agree to that.

And I agree with you. And the problem with leeway is that the school systems often use that as the guide when making policy decisions that affect other kids needing different approaches. The old, Because the oral approach worked for this student with CI, then all students we have with CI should be educated orally. Erroneous reasoning.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

We all have a different view of what works and what does not work.. Can't you guys just accept that you each have your own views on which approach you use?

I know some think oral works, others think ASL only works, and still others feel the Bi Bi works, or TC works and so on and so forth.. Why don't we all find a middle ground that we can all agree upon? THat each approach works for different people, and there are No 1 approach that works for everybody?

This all the I am trying to say is that some things work for some people and other things work for other people. And that we should an open mind to being to change things in case one way doesn't work.

As an oral parent when I come across with people that are so against I am turn around run the other way. What I would to see is a bit more acceptance so that when changes have to be made parents to find comfortable and not judge to seek advice.

I have been posting for a week and I am so turn off my all the negative comments that I seriously feel so awful and turn off even more then before

 

[jackiesolorzano]

I am wondering I am sure a lot of you are going to get really mad with this comment. Is that the Deaf culture is scared of losing members. Times have changed. I know how hard it was for some people be orally by just relying on lip reading. I know that is hard and trying. But now a days there is some many techonological advances such as digital hearings aids and cochlear implants. The age of implanting is becoming younger and younger. I know of a little implant at the age of 6 years. Because of these changes it is much easier to be oral if that is what the parent wants and makes an informed decision. The chances for a deaf profoundly implanted baby are so great because of the hearing age of that baby.

 

[shel90]

I am wondering I am sure a lot of you are going to get really mad with this comment. Is that the Deaf culture is scared of losing members. Times have changed. I know how hard it was for some people be orally by just relying on lip reading. I know that is hard and trying. But now a days there is some many techonological advances such as digital hearings aids and cochlear implants. The age of implanting is becoming younger and younger. I know of a little implant at the age of 6 years. Because of these changes it is much easier to be oral if that is what the parent wants and makes an informed decision. The chances for a deaf profoundly implanted baby are so great because of the hearing age of that baby.

I can't speak for others but if u r refering to the signing community changing into an oral community then I guess it will happen. I can't predict nor worry about the future. It won't do me any good...yes, I mentioned that I may lose my job in the near future due to oral education and I have already stated my plans. Will find a different career. I never let anything stop me but I wouldn't want to be teaching oral deaf ed. My only concern right now is just eliminating the low literacy levels of deaf/hoh children and I strongly believe by using both approaches will do the job. Nothing to do with Deaf culture. I will just continue to teach those who r language delayed until they no longer need me. I can't predict the future. In the meantime, I will enjoy each day working with our students.

As for losing members of the signing community, I got my friends and family that I can still use ASL with so the day ASL is completely wiped out will probably happen after I am dead so why worry about it? If CIs prove to be 100% successful for all deaf children, great but right now it is not. I can't say what the future wil bring..

 

[jillio]

This all the I am trying to say is that some things work for some people and other things work for other people. And that we should an open mind to being to change things in case one way doesn't work.

As an oral parent when I come across with people that are so against I am turn around run the other way. What I would to see is a bit more acceptance so that when changes have to be made parents to find comfortable and not judge to seek advice.

I have been posting for a week and I am so turn off my all the negative comments that I seriously feel so awful and turn off even more then before

And if you expose a child to both, then they can take from that experience that which provides them the most benefit. They cannot do that when exposed to only one method. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, don't you think?

 

[jillio]

I am wondering I am sure a lot of you are going to get really mad with this comment. Is that the Deaf culture is scared of losing members. Times have changed. I know how hard it was for some people be orally by just relying on lip reading. I know that is hard and trying. But now a days there is some many techonological advances such as digital hearings aids and cochlear implants. The age of implanting is becoming younger and younger. I know of a little implant at the age of 6 years. Because of these changes it is much easier to be oral if that is what the parent wants and makes an informed decision. The chances for a deaf profoundly implanted baby are so great because of the hearing age of that baby.

The chance of success for a profoundly deaf baby are not dependent upon oral skills or surgical intervention. And a deaf baby does not have a "hearing age". They will always be deaf, just assisted.

Deaf Culture does not have a hell of a lot to do with this discussion. We are not talking about culture, we are discussing educational opportunity and method. This has nothing to do with membership in a community. And the fact is, CI has been around for 20 years, and Deaf Culture still exists, so that argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[jillio]

I can't speak for others but if u r refering to the signing community changing into an oral community then I guess it will happen. I can't predict nor worry about the future. It won't do me any good...yes, I mentioned that I may lose my job in the near future due to oral education and I have already stated my plans. Will find a different career. I never let anything stop me but I wouldn't want to be teaching oral deaf ed. My only concern right now is just eliminating the low literacy levels of deaf/hoh children and I strongly believe by using both approaches will do the job. Nothing to do with Deaf culture. I will just continue to teach those who r language delayed until they no longer need me. I can't predict the future. In the meantime, I will enjoy each day working with our students.

As for losing members of the signing community, I got my friends and family that I can still use ASL with so the day ASL is completely wiped out will probably happen after I am dead so why worry about it? If CIs prove to be 100% successful for all deaf children, great but right now it is not. I can't say what the future wil bring..

As we post, ASL is one of the most taught languages on college campuses according tot he Modern Language Association. Isn't it ironic that ASL is becoming more and more popular jsut as some hang on to their claims that CI will make it obsolete?

 

[Gemma]

The chance of success for a profoundly deaf baby are not dependent upon oral skills or surgical intervention. And a deaf baby does not have a "hearing age". They will always be deaf, just assisted.

Deaf Culture does not have a hell of a lot to do with this discussion. We are not talking about culture, we are discussing educational opportunity and method. This has nothing to do with membership in a community. And the fact is, CI has been around for 20 years, and Deaf Culture still exists, so that argument just doesn't hold water.

BRILLIANTLY SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!