Why can't we have Deaf Ed like this in the US?

[BecLak]

The implication was not that they are lowering the standards. The implication is that they become proficient in spoken language and sign language. I see nothing wrong with that. If a child is DHH, and has the ability to develop spoken language so be it. If spoken language is not in the Childs future, then that's fine too. It depends on the individual.

Again, your emphasis is spoken language first then sign language, plus you throw in the other 'tools'.

I have come to the conclusion that genuine Sign Language such as ASL, Auslan, BSL etc are complete in and of itself for the education and communication of D/deaf. If a d/Deaf person wants to learn to speak then there are Speech therapists outside of schools. Oral should not be a criteria in any education for D/dhh children.

 

[Bottesini]

Hard if hearing kids do need spoken language support. The deaf school isn't the place for that...for deaf culture reasons. In these cases, there should be specialized programs for kids who benefit from spoken language.

In my opinion, some deaf/hard of hearing kids benefit from spoken language skills. But ALL kida can benefit from ASL.

^^^^^^^^^ See bolded.

Again, your emphasis is spoken language first then sign language, plus you throw in the other 'tools'.

I have come to the conclusion that genuine Sign Language such as ASL, Auslan, BSL etc are complete in and of itself for the education and communication of D/deaf. If a d/Deaf person wants to learn to speak then there are Speech therapists outside of schools. Oral should not be a criteria in any education for D/dhh children.

The professional educator differs with your stance.

 

[deafdyke]

I think in order for schools for the Deaf to really succeed in the long term, and also for HH students to succeed there needs to be a happy medium. Not necessarily compromising the integrity of ASL, but perhaps having some classes on campus that use TC/Sim-com for students who are also working on developing spoken language. Still have majority of classes instructed in ASL, but it would be beneficial for HH students to still have access to spoken language to help with their acquisition of spoken language.

I do believe though, that each student would need to make a commitment to signing- even if they are using their voice.

I think a program/school that has both available would serve the needs of DHH students well. Not only would they have complete access to their academics/social time, but they would have peers with similar needs.

This is all off the top of my head, but I do feel that a program like that (with some adjustments) would stand the test of time.

Yes, you basicly hit it on the head. What I would love to see is a bilingal early intervention program, which uses Sign and Signing techniques, and then a spoken language approach in the afternoon. I think too that a good idea might be to have a variety of approaches offered, and use a Montessori-like approach in grouping students.

 

[BecLak]

^^^^^^^^^ See bolded.

The professional educator differs with your stance.

I would expect that, but for clarification on my post.....Oral/Speech should not be the mandatory education for D/dhh children. It should be a extracurricular activity of choice.

 

[deafdyke]

Personally, I wish deaf education would eliminate teaching spoken language skills altogether. Speech is overrated and deaf people, no matter how hard they try, will never fully master it. Believe me, I've worked so fucking hard to have speech like hearing people...and what so I get? "Are you German...you have an accent.". I get to hear my four year old kid correct me on punctuation and articulation. I become more self-conscious and always feel I'm never good enough. I do believe in exposure to spoken language to use speech reading skills and cue speech to learn the visual representation of morphomes and all that...but only for literacy purposes. Deaf Education needs to get brass balls and really start realizing that deaf kids can and will master English if they are fluent in American Sign Language (or the deaf language of their country such as Auslan). If teachers are fully trained in bi-bi methods (many are not). If they would start the kids at the deaf school from the beginning instead of mainstreaming them only for them to fail and end up at the deaf schools with major gaps and delays. If they would eliminate the stupid and irrelevant requirements of NCLB. And if they would develop appropriate assessments for deaf/hh kids. And if they would provide parents with the support tey need in order to be advocates for their children.

Exactly bajagirl....You put into words why I do not like programs like the Moog early intervention schools. I would NOT mind at ALL if they had the attitude that "Oh having spoken language is a good tool, in addition to Sign" But the thing is, they promote spoken language that it will 100% equalize dhh kids. It gives them an additional tool, yes......but the thing is most deaf kids...heck most HOH kids can never speak as well as hearing kids.

 

[deafdyke]

For them, it is not. It is for Language Arts which is English. Also, these kids like it. It is a small group so they get lots of one on one when communicating orally, not in large groups and of course the teachers in those classes will switch to ASL if any of the students have trouble understanding them. They have been doing that for 3 years now. Just for Language Arts only. The other subjects are instructed via ASL.

Shel, that is an excellent excellent way of integrating oral language instruction in a bi-bi enviroment. I remember when I was young and my dance card was FULL to the brim, I always wished I could have gone to a school that had a speech class built in, instead of pullouts. I like too how the teachers will switch to ASL if the kids have trouble understanding....that is exactly how spoken language should be taught to dhh kids!

 

[shel90]

I agree with BeckLack...oralism should not be a required criterian for deaf ed. I am not against with offering it as an extra tool but to make it primary over, ASL...no.

 

[DeafCaroline]

.

I agree with you about placement being case by case, or varies depending on the individual needs.

I also agree it would be inappropriate for a DHH student to go to a School for the Deaf if they were unwilling, or disinterested in using sign language- which would be a fundamental matter of respect.

I'm curious, if they had been taught ASL first, do you think they would grow up unwilling or disinterested in using sign language in school?

 

[jillio]

The implication was not that they are lowering the standards. The implication is that they become proficient in spoken language and sign language. I see nothing wrong with that. If a child is DHH, and has the ability to develop spoken language so be it. If spoken language is not in the Childs future, then that's fine too. It depends on the individual.

It did not say "proficient". It said "competent". There is a difference.

And as I have stated prior, the goal is fluency in the L1 so that fluency in the L2 can be achieved as well. If a child is only competent in their L1 they will be no more than competent in the L2, and the chances of delays and gaps being extrapolated are greater.

 

[jillio]

I think in order for schools for the Deaf to really succeed in the long term, and also for HH students to succeed there needs to be a happy medium. Not necessarily compromising the integrity of ASL, but perhaps having some classes on campus that use TC/Sim-com for students who are also working on developing spoken language. Still have majority of classes instructed in ASL, but it would be beneficial for HH students to still have access to spoken language to help with their acquisition of spoken language.

I do believe though, that each student would need to make a commitment to signing- even if they are using their voice.

I think a program/school that has both available would serve the needs of DHH students well. Not only would they have complete access to their academics/social time, but they would have peers with similar needs.

This is all off the top of my head, but I do feel that a program like that (with some adjustments) would stand the test of time.

Why would you want to use a method that provides a confusing linguistic environment for any child, no matter if they are oral or signing?

A DHH child is still not hearing. They are still missing auditory information in the academic environment, not to mention any other environment they are in. Why would you want to restrict them to that?

 

[CSign]

I would expect that, but for clarification on my post.....Oral/Speech should not be the mandatory education for D/dhh children. It should be a extracurricular activity of choice.

No one has said or implied that spoken language should be mandatory in deaf education.

What's being said is that they should have the option of having access to a program that utilizes spoken language in addition to sign, if they are interested in further developing their spoken language
Skills.

 

[jillio]

No one has said or implied that spoken language should be mandatory in deaf education.

What's being said is that they should have the option of having access to a program that utilizes spoken language in addition to sign, if they are interested in further developing their spoken language
Skills.

They already have that option..

Is the issue developing their spoken language skills, or is the issue getting the best education in the most appropriate way for a deaf student? A student's spoken language development is not an academic problem.

 

[shel90]

I think in order for schools for the Deaf to really succeed in the long term, and also for HH students to succeed there needs to be a happy medium. Not necessarily compromising the integrity of ASL, but perhaps having some classes on campus that use TC/Sim-com for students who are also working on developing spoken language. Still have majority of classes instructed in ASL, but it would be beneficial for HH students to still have access to spoken language to help with their acquisition of spoken language.

I do believe though, that each student would need to make a commitment to signing- even if they are using their voice.

I think a program/school that has both available would serve the needs of DHH students well. Not only would they have complete access to their academics/social time, but they would have peers with similar needs.

This is all off the top of my head, but I do feel that a program like that (with some adjustments) would stand the test of time.

Sim-Com???? NOOOOO!!!!!!!

 

[deafbajagal]

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE SPEECH AND TO UTILIZE SPOKEN LANGUAGE?!! Why?! Let deaf kids be deaf!!!

That's how I really feel. Whew. Got that off my chest.

 

[jillio]

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE SPEECH AND TO UTILIZE SPOKEN LANGUAGE?!! Why?! Let deaf kids be deaf!!!

That's how I really feel. Whew. Got that off my chest.

And for Gawd's sake, teach them and let them learn as deaf children and not as impaired hearing children.

 

[deafdyke]

Hard if hearing kids do need spoken language support. The deaf school isn't the place for that...for deaf culture reasons. In these cases, there should be specialized programs for kids who benefit from spoken language.

In my opinion, some deaf/hard of hearing kids benefit from spoken language skills. But ALL kida can benefit from ASL.

And Deafbajgirl, yes exactly. Have a specialized program at the Deaf school for kids who benifit from spoken language.

 

[Sunshine]

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE SPEECH AND TO UTILIZE SPOKEN LANGUAGE?!! Why?! Let deaf kids be deaf!!!

That's how I really feel. Whew. Got that off my chest.

Amen!!!!! Speech / spoken language not greatest thing on earth! We not dead without it! Deafies don't force ASL on hearies, why they force Oh-eternally-superior-to-everything-English on us?!?!?!?

 

[deafdyke]

Bi-bi is compatible with developing a spoken language along with ASL. That is what "bi" means.

Yes I know. And many if not most bi-bi Deaf Schools do offer the abilty to develop spoken language along with ASL

 

[deafdyke]

I personally agree with this. Too much academic time is wasted putting kids in pull out for speech therapy. They are in school to learn academics, not how to speak. If it is that important to a parent that their child have speech therapy, then it needs to be provided as an adjunct service, not during academic school hours. They would be far better off spending that time becoming bilingual than focusing on speech skills.

Oh hell, yes. I had a bunch of pullouts as a kid.....speech/phyiscal therapy/resource room (math, handwriting and spelling) I always wished I could go to a school where they had that built right into the school day. I still have NO clue how I managed to cram everything in.
I think speech therapy COULD be provided as an adjunct to English class. You know....like the way kids in spoken bilingal education learn spoken English.

 

[deafdyke]

Competent is not good enough. They need to be fluent. To be more exact, they need to have native fluency so they can transfer those skills to learning English. Most oral students are no more than competent in English, as well. And it shows in their use of language, their writing skills, and their literacy.

Exactly. Just like in spoken bilingal education.....and yes you are 100% right that oral students don't tend to have great English abilities. Some do yes...but many others......Granted a lot of that is b/c those kids are lumped in with the special ed kids in the mainstream, and taught by CLUELESS teachers who have NO real training in Deaf Ed.