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

[shel90]

I would have to say be taught in both approaches. I am HOH - not quite deaf, not quite hearing. I can hear without my aids, but it is indistinguishable unless you are very close. I was heavily immersed into the hearing world except for one year at a school for the deaf, which I still have vivid memories of. By the time I got to high school, I had lost attention. It was very hard to follow in loud, large classrooms and to follow teachers whose backs were turned like you say. I dropped out in 10th grade and unfortunately fell into a rough crowd, but came back around, into a small alternative school whereI got one on one and was able to use a computer to learn and I quickly outpaced my fellow students that way. Now, I'm 30 and just now learning sign and learning about deaf culture. It's a side I need to know and a side that was always forced into the mainstream. I think it's caused a lot of insecurities because large crowds seriously intimidate me, ironically since I'm a journalist. I'd love to become fluent in sign so that I could even report more deaf news because now that I've "discovered" the language, I am absolutely fascinated. My son and husband are hearing and are both learning sign with me. My son may have a slight loss, but we haven't determined yet since he's three, but I want him to know both. As for profoundly deaf, but with little hearing, I think they should still be given the opportunity to learn to speak so that they are able to connect to the hearing world if they can.

If Helen Keller could communicate, anyone can.

A

When u say that are u referring to the fact she can speak that anyone can or just communication in general?

 

[Aorora111]

When u say that are u referring to the fact she can speak that anyone can or just communication in general?

Probably both because she learned to speak, and she learned to communicate through oral, written and through hands. I spent 12 years in speech therapy to learn how to communicate well. I used to stutter, lisp, miss sounds and if I had my aids out, forget it. Not once, ever, was I introduced to sign language as a possible means of communication. I learned letters later on my own, and except for the brief experience at the deaf school, which I was promptly pulled from the following year, never really exposed to other deaf people. I felt like the only one on the planet and no one understood my world. I was always told I was shady because I didn't look at people's eyes, but at their lips because they didn't understand, and I think if I signed, they might have understood more. I am all about communication. It's my essence, and I would have taken to it. I can't learn other languages that are verbal because the struggle just to learn English was tough, to verbalize another one is almost impossible because of my hearing. I can read other languages and understand some of it, but I can't follow aurally (sp?).

Children who are hard of hearing should be introduced to both so they can figure out which works for them. My parents meant well, and I am grateful for their proactiveness in helping me learn to hear and speak well, but I would have loved the additional opportunity to sign early on as another means to communicate and express myself.

 

[angelstar819]

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.

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.

 

[Foxrac]

Depends on methods that would make deaf children to feel comfortable like that.

 

[shel90]

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.

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.

Ohh..

Good luck on getting all deaf children in being successful in developing oral language.

I see too often times children get language deprived because they were unable to develop oral skills. I am very against that cuz it is not fair to the children to expose them to an auditory language and then oops, they couldn't pick up on it and then expose them to ASL at 4, 5 or 6 years old causing them to be at least 4 years delayed in language. They have to start at square one like infants at the age when they r supposed to be learning how to read and write. That's why I believe in exposing the child to both languages...oral language for speech and auditory development and ASL for language development.

Also, if ASL makes peoiple's grammar bad, then why do so many deaf children from deaf families have good English grammar?

 

[SJCSue]

Ohh..

Good luck on getting all deaf children in being successful in developing oral language.

I see too often times children get language deprived because they were unable to develop oral skills. I am very against that cuz it is not fair to the children to expose them to an auditory language and then oops, they couldn't pick up on it and then expose them to ASL at 4, 5 or 6 years old causing them to be at least 4 years delayed in language. They have to start at square one like infants at the age when they r supposed to be learning how to read and write. That's why I believe in exposing the child to both languages...oral language for speech and auditory development and ASL for language development.

Also, if ASL makes peoiple's grammar bad, then why do so many deaf children from deaf families have good English grammar?

 

[jillio]

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.

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.

PLEASE, educate yourself on the issues before making such broad and innacurate statements such as this.

 

[jillio]

Ohh..

Good luck on getting all deaf children in being successful in developing oral language.

I see too often times children get language deprived because they were unable to develop oral skills. I am very against that cuz it is not fair to the children to expose them to an auditory language and then oops, they couldn't pick up on it and then expose them to ASL at 4, 5 or 6 years old causing them to be at least 4 years delayed in language. They have to start at square one like infants at the age when they r supposed to be learning how to read and write. That's why I believe in exposing the child to both languages...oral language for speech and auditory development and ASL for language development.

Also, if ASL makes peoiple's grammar bad, then why do so many deaf children from deaf families have good English grammar?

As you already know, I completely agree with you, and the research supports your view. I think we just found another oralists who doesn't have the facts to support the viewpoint, and bases their ideas only on the fact that they "think" hearing is superior, and therefore, sign is inferior. Some people just refuse to learn the error of their ideas.

 

[Aorora111]

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.

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 would disagree about oralism only. My son is hearing (we believe but are checking) and we have done "oralism" naturally since both my husband and I are just learning sign, but he is picking up both because I am teaching him as I learn (I learn faster as I teach him). The signing has actually helped him learn the words better. I don't know why, but he is picking up both and loves doing it.

At a young age, children are sponges, so I think it would be most effective to teach both at a young age when they have the ability to learn so quickly. My son uses both - ie at the park the other day he told me about the airplane he saw both verbally and with his hands.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

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.

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.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

=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.[/QUOTE]
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

 

[jackiesolorzano]

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?

I think you feel that way because that is what you have seen. I have seen many oral deaf students working at grade level in their teenage years and I have also many working at a 3rd grade being in the 10 th grade. Last year at our local high school that had 9 deaf students graduating only one passed the high school exit exam and that one was a oral deaf student. The signing students didn't pass the test. I am not saying that oral is better I am saying that it really depends on what type of support that deaf student had and what type of parents they had

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*

We should find a middle ground

 

[jackiesolorzano]

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?

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

 

[jackiesolorzano]

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.

I am an oral teacher of the deaf and have raised 2 oral deaf teenagers. I would vote for both if I could find a large base study that showed that using both oral and signing in beginning would lead for a profoundly deaf child to have good oral skills good enough that they can undestand and be understood in the hearing community.
I haven't found deaf adult raised both orally and signing since the beginning. I found many people like Shel that was raised orally then learned sign language.
My thoughts were always for my children if possible to be oral and then later say in their teenage years to learn sign language.
I always thought and research that a deaf child raised orally can shut off their voice whenever they wanted but say I raised my children using sign language and then when they were teenagers wanted to learn oral language they would not be able too.
My daughter has a friend who was raised just with signing. This young lady is fully mainstream in honors classes with an interpeter. She told my daughter I wish my parents taught me to talk like your mom. Because you can talk and sign and I can only sign.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

I can agree for most deaf kids that is probably best way. For those like me, it would have never let me develop my speech and hearing/listening abilities I have today. The harder route paid in spades but I also know I'm in the minority. There are some kids that can do the same thing I did but maybe we will never know who they are...and that what saddens me. I guess it is better the greatest good the greatest number.

This is what I am trying to say that one approach is not right for all children. My children have amazing oral skills. But I have been there for every step of their education

 

[jackiesolorzano]

While that may be true there are always two sides to the coin. What about the deafies that did well orally or with a CI? Just playing devils advocate here. There has to be balance. I have personally read posts from others here that did just fine through their lives without sign language. What about them? Doesn't their experience count? And please don't take that wrong as I hope you know my position on the subject. I am and advocate of choice and in order to make an informed decision one must have a balance of all aspects of the issue. I often get the impression that several that participate in these discussions feel that their way is the best way. While that may be true for them, you have to remember everyone is different and will react and respond differently. Balance is key.

I am more of an oralist but I know that oral doesn't work for everyone. I am all for making informed decision and knowing that if oral is not working you need to switch over quickly.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

You run that risk no matter what approach you take. That is why I believe that quick assessment and modifications should be made at regular intervals. Even then you run a risk of delayed language aquisition depending on the child and their needs. There is no silver bullet.

Right on

 

[jackiesolorzano]

The sad fact of the matter is that the deaf/hh child who is raised orally is constantly playing catch up in language acquisition, communication skills, social skills, and educational achievement. That include the so called oral successes.

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

 

[jackiesolorzano]

PLEASE, educate yourself on the issues before making such broad and innacurate statements such as this.

Originally Posted by angelstar819
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.

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.

While you are right angelstar819 needs educate herself you also need too. I know that you feel because you are in this line of work you know it all but you really need to open your mind just and she does. What works well for one does not work well for all

 

[jackiesolorzano]

As you already know, I completely agree with you, and the research supports your view. I think we just found another oralists who doesn't have the facts to support the viewpoint, and bases their ideas only on the fact that they "think" hearing is superior, and therefore, sign is inferior. Some people just refuse to learn the error of their ideas.

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.