Deaf Education - One size does not fit all - Page 2

shel90 · 01-17-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Speaking is just a bonus, but not that important as sign language or sex for example. I do enjoy activities with hearing people, but I would die without my deaf friends.

The importance of speech skills in the deaf population quite often comes from hearing parents that are worried that their child won't be a part of their familiy or their lives as I have seen. That worrying is perhaps the biggest threat deaf kids met.

Exactly!!! I would die too without my deaf friends. I cant imagine going back to my old life as a "hearing" person..no thank u.

deafskeptic · 01-17-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I can speak, but I prefer to write and read quite often. Sometimes it's better because if I speak, hearing people sometimes belive I am hearing, and confusions arise. Keeping things clear and staying behind the limits instad of trying to cross them are much easier.

I'm in the same boast as you, Flip. If I speak, people will assume that I have normal hearing or close to it. In some situations, I'll act like I can't speak at all.

flip · 01-17-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I'm in the same boast as you, Flip. If I speak, people will assume that I have normal hearing or close to it. In some situations, I'll act like I can't speak at all.

LOL

jillio · 01-17-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

While I can't speak for the entire hearing population, for me, if a deaf person is able to communicate with hearing people on any level that is good. And it is important to me that deaf and hearing people are able to communicate with each other. How they do it is not as important. (to me)

Face to face communication options are limited. It may be a matter of what is the most efficient or what is percieved as the most efficient. From the deaf perspective I would bet signing would be considered the most efficient. For non-signing hearing people speech would be considered the most efficient. Beyond that you are limited to reading and writing which many deaf people would prefer not to communicate that way.

Your perspective is a bit wider than the general hearing population because of your experiences with your son. And I agree with you...one of my first relpies to my son's audi who was reccommending an oral only environment was that it did not matter to me how he communicated, but that he communicated. But before one can come to that conclusion, one has to understand that the frustration they see int heir child is not due to being unable to speak, but being unable to communicate. Unfortunately, I have met far too many hearing people who are unable to see the situation from a persepctive other than their own.

jillio · 01-17-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

If the communication between hearing and deaf people is very important, then why it is the deaf that had to learn speech and the hearing family not having to learn sign language????? My family didn't sign like many of deaf people's families. It is not fair to us deaf people as respect is supposed to be a two-way street, not one way street.

Exactly. The burden of change has always been placed on the deaf, not the hearing. The deaf are expected to accommodate the hearing population's needs, rather than the other way around. That needs to change. It is a hang over from the old medical model of defining disability, and it is outdated and ineffective. Unfortunately, with the psuh to implant children at younger and younger ages, the medical model, as well as oralism, is seeing a revival in general attititudes and thinking.

flip · 01-17-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Exactly!!! I would die too without my deaf friends. I cant imagine going back to my old life as a "hearing" person..no thank u.

Yeah, I would easily give up my ability to speak if it was required to be fluent in any sign language.

jillio · 01-17-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I'm in the same boast as you, Flip. If I speak, people will assume that I have normal hearing or close to it. In some situations, I'll act like I can't speak at all.

It's a vicious cycle. They ask you to learn to speak to assist in communication gaps, and then when you do, they use it as an excuse not to have to meet you half way, and to validate their hearing perspective!

flip · 01-17-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. The burden of change has always been placed on the deaf, not the hearing. The deaf are expected to accommodate the hearing population's needs, rather than the other way around. That needs to change. It is a hang over from the old medical model of defining disability, and it is outdated and ineffective. Unfortunately, with the psuh to implant children at younger and younger ages, the medical model, as well as oralism, is seeing a revival in general attititudes and thinking.

Perhaps it's time to change from "deaf" to "deaf mutes" to send the world a message many deaf people are most comfortable when communicating while mute in the spoken language, and we are working to adjust to hearing people, and they should do their part, too. Deaf leaders could speak in the 1800th century, still they labeled themselves as deaf mutes, must be a reason for that?

jillio · 01-17-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Perhaps it's time to change from "deaf" to "deaf mutes" to send the world a message many deaf people are most comfortable when communicating while mute in the spoken language, and we are working to adjust to hearing people, and they should do their part, too. Deaf leaders could speak in the 1800th century, still they labeled themselves as deaf mutes, must be a reason for that?

It is my uderstanding that a lot of deaf/Deaf object to the term mute. We had a discussion about that a while back on AD. Mute implies an inability to speak, rather than a choice.

flip · 01-17-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

It is my uderstanding that a lot of deaf/Deaf object to the term mute. We had a discussion about that a while back on AD. Mute implies an inability to speak, rather than a choice.

That's my understanding, too. I am perhaps a bit supportive of the term "mute", if thinking like Ella did in her famous deaf mute vlog last year. Like you mentioned, that topic and vlog has been diccussed here earlier, and it sure was many good points in that thread, supporting both sides. Wish it was a word that could tell hearing people what excactly deaf means!

jillio · 01-17-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

That's my understanding, too. I am perhaps a bit supportive of the term "mute", if thinking like Ella did in her famous deaf mute vlog last year. Like you mentioned, that topic and vlog has been diccussed here earlier, and it sure was many good points in that thread, supporting both sides. Wish it was a word that could tell hearing people what excactly deaf means!

That is my wish, too. Too many hearing see deaf as inability to speak more than inability to hear. Therefore, they believe that speech makes you less deaf. I guess we just have to keep explaining, and explaining, and explaining....

How many parents have the motivation to implant not just to improve sound perception, but with the main motivation being that their child will be able to speak as well as a hearing person? If speech were not the main goal, then the oral programs would not have survived all these years, and the philosophy would not have such a huge following of parents of implanted children.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

If the communication between hearing and deaf people is very important, then why it is the deaf that had to learn speech and the hearing family not having to learn sign language????? My family didn't sign like many of deaf people's families. It is not fair to us deaf people as respect is supposed to be a two-way street, not one way street.

one could argue the other side of that coin as well. If everyone knew sign language then what would be the point of speech? Or if a deaf and hearing person can communicate by any one of the means, what would be the point of learning any other means. For me I would pick what is most efficient. And I agree with you in a family setting but what abouit the rest of the world? Most of which doesn't sign.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I can speak, but I prefer to write and read quite often. Sometimes it's better because if I speak, hearing people sometimes belive I am hearing, and confusions arise. Keeping things clear and staying behind the limits instad of trying to cross them are much easier.

The conclusions you make on what many deaf people prefer when communicating is extremely simplified and alien to me as a deaf person.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. My statement is based on what I have read mostly on this board from other deaf individuals.

If you want to avoid confusion when communicating with hearing people then quite simply, tell them you are deaf.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Speaking is just a bonus, but not that important as sign language or sex for example. I do enjoy activities with hearing people, but I would die without my deaf friends.

The importance of speech skills in the deaf population quite often comes from hearing parents that are worried that their child won't be a part of their familiy or their lives as I have seen. That worrying is perhaps the biggest threat deaf kids met.

There is so much more need for communication between hearing and deaf people outside of the family which is what I am talking about. What about if you get into a car accident or if you need to ask the store clerk where something is located in the store, or if you are arrested. As I said, you options for face to face communication are limited. If deaf people didn't learn to speak, or are not literate in english I think there would be much difficluty in those types of situations. Your choices are to speak, sign or read and write. Please let me know if there are any other choices in a face to face situation with hearing and deaf.

loml · 01-17-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

While I can't speak for the entire hearing population, for me, if a deaf person is able to communicate with hearing people on any level that is good. And it is important to me that deaf and hearing people are able to communicate with each other. How they do it is not as important. (to me)

Face to face communication options are limited. It may be a matter of what is the most efficient or what is percieved as the most efficient. From the deaf perspective I would bet signing would be considered the most efficient. For non-signing hearing people speech would be considered the most efficient. Beyond that you are limited to reading and writing which many deaf people would prefer not to communicate that way.

You have made some very valid points rockdummer.

I do not feel that face to face communication needs to be limited. I believe that if hearing parents are aware of all their and their childs' communication options, they can make informed decisions, guiding and learning with their child(ren). This would provide the growing child the basis to choose what fits when.

Unfortunately, the "system" doesn't meet the needs of the parent(s). My experience with various institutions and rehabilitaion centers is that the change must come from the parents. Not by any means an easy task.

Being informed is the first step.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Yes it is important but not the most important as flip stated.

I never said it was the most important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Communicating with the hearing population takes up the deaf person's willingness to work twice as hard, giving up some rights to equal access to communication, and possible being left out often so that is why many Deaf people feel unmotivated to go out of their way to establish communication with the hearing population at all times.

The same applies for hearing people learning to communicate with the deaf population. It's not easy. I constantly see posts where deaf people are blaiming hearing people for taking the easy way out. I believe its hard in either direction and if taking the easy way out for hearing is no excuse then it's should not be for deaf people either. There should not be a double standard. And it's not speech I am talking about, it's communication by any means. I understand that it's harder for a deaf person to speak than to sign. Again, for face to face communication you options are limited. You either sign, talk or read and write. The mode you choose is going to be dependant on the capabilities of those involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

It is nice to be able to hang out with other ASL users and not have to stress about ensuring communication is clear at all times. Once I learned how easy communication became with ASL, my motivation to work hard to communicate using spoken language has dropped big time.

I'm sure it is nice to be amongst those that communicate efficiently using a common mode. The reality is that not everyone knows ASL. If you are not motivated to use spoken language that's your choice. You have then limited your ability in face to face communication with non-signing hearing to reading and writing. I guess that's where literacy in the native language of the hearing population becomes an important factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

It is like once I found out I could have had all that with ASL, it made me angry that I was forced to use the only communication on the hearing people's terms. What about me? What about my rights for equal access to communication? That is what I dont want for any deaf kids and to ask them to bear with partial access to communication in the educational setting is even worse.

I agree. Total access is important and it's unfortunate that not everyone is on board with that. You also have to keep in mind that not every hearing person needs to learn ASL. I have said many times that most of the hearing population will not ever encounter deafness in any form in their entire life. That's a simple matter of the numbers. One thing I wish would happen is that schools should offer ASL as a second language that the students can get credit for. Like they do with French and Spanish.

flip · 01-17-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

I'm not sure what you mean by that. My statement is based on what I have read mostly on this board from other deaf individuals.

If you want to avoid confusion when communicating with hearing people then quite simply, tell them you are deaf.

Another problem can arise here. The hearing victim will quite often become very unsure what to do

Observation: A deaf person spoke out like a hearing person that he/she is deaf.

Problem: How should I reply this person if this person said he/she is can't hear at all??!!

flip · 01-17-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

There is so much more need for communication between hearing and deaf people outside of the family which is what I am talking about. What about if you get into a car accident or if you need to ask the store clerk where something is located in the store, or if you are arrested. As I said, you options for face to face communication are limited. If deaf people didn't learn to speak, or are not literate in english I think there would be much difficluty in those types of situations. Your choices are to speak, sign or read and write. Please let me know if there are any other choices in a face to face situation with hearing and deaf.

We can perhaps add body language and gestures. All the situations you described above can be solved with pen and paper or speech or both.

shel90 · 01-17-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

I never said it was the most important.

The same applies for hearing people learning to communicate with the deaf population. It's not easy. I constantly see posts where deaf people are blaiming hearing people for taking the easy way out. I believe its hard in either direction and if taking the easy way out for hearing is no excuse then it's should not be for deaf people either. There should not be a double standard. And it's not speech I am talking about, it's communication by any means. I understand that it's harder for a deaf person to speak than to sign. Again, for face to face communication you options are limited. You either sign, talk or read and write. The mode you choose is going to be dependant on the capabilities of those involved.

I'm sure it is nice to be amongst those that communicate efficiently using a common mode. The reality is that not everyone knows ASL. If you are not motivated to use spoken language that's your choice. You have then limited your ability in face to face communication with non-signing hearing to reading and writing. I guess that's where literacy in the native language of the hearing population becomes an important factor.

I agree. Total access is important and it's unfortunate that not everyone is on board with that. You also have to keep in mind that not every hearing person needs to learn ASL. I have said many times that most of the hearing population will not ever encounter deafness in any form in their entire life. That's a simple matter of the numbers. One thing I wish would happen is that schools should offer ASL as a second language that the students can get credit for. Like they do with French and Spanish.

When I made those comments about my rights to equal access to language/communication, I was referring to the educational setting not outside of it. I know that the hearing population isnt going to learn ASL but I am talking about putting deaf children in a learning environment where communication is strained and stifled. I think that is just wrong.

Cheri · 01-17-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Speaking is just a bonus, but not that important as sign language

I disgree speaking is as important as signs, why limited communication there's no one better than the other. I don't think deaf people should rely solely on signs and not speech. The speech may not be perfect for some deaf people, but it should be good enough to communicate so that they can be comfortable in both worlds.

A bilingual approach supports development of ASL as a child's first language, with development of English as a second languaage I don't agree because speech is not requirement with that approach.

Total Communication (TC) includes use of all modes of communication—sign language (ASL or manually coded English) spoken language and that's why I like TC approach better than Bi-Bi approach.

the methodology chosen would not be frustrate to the deaf child if learn speech and signs the same time, if they learn signs and not speech, they'll be delaying in speech or will not have no speech skills at all or will have diffculties to be understood. I don't agree with focusing on spoken language alone, but signs should be added as important as well as speech should be.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Exactly!!! I would die too without my deaf friends. I cant imagine going back to my old life as a "hearing" person..no thank u.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I'm in the same boast as you, Flip. If I speak, people will assume that I have normal hearing or close to it. In some situations, I'll act like I can't speak at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Your perspective is a bit wider than the general hearing population because of your experiences with your son. And I agree with you...one of my first relpies to my son's audi who was reccommending an oral only environment was that it did not matter to me how he communicated, but that he communicated. But before one can come to that conclusion, one has to understand that the frustration they see int heir child is not due to being unable to speak, but being unable to communicate. Unfortunately, I have met far too many hearing people who are unable to see the situation from a perspective other than their own.

I agree that perspective changes a bit with exposure. I find myself having to explain to my friends when they ask if my son can read lips. I tell them to turn down the volume on their TV and try and follow along. Then I ask them how well they would do at that before they learned a language. Makes them think a bit. What really cracks me up is that many were asking the same question when he was 18 months old. Can he read lips? It's ignorance more than anything else. I agree about the frustration factor. I definitely see it.

shel90 · 01-17-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I disgree speaking is as important as signs, why limited communication there's no one better than the other. I don't think deaf people should rely solely on signs and not speech. The speech may not be perfect for some deaf people, but it should be good enough to communicate so that they can be comfortable in both worlds.

A bilingual approach supports development of ASL as a child's first language, with development of English as a second languaage I don't agree because speech is not requirement with that approach.

Total Communication (TC) includes use of all modes of communication—sign language (ASL or manually coded English) spoken language and that's why I like TC approach better than Bi-Bi approach.

the methodology chosen would not be frustrate to the deaf child if learn speech and signs the same time, if they learn signs and not speech, they'll be delaying in speech or will not have no speech skills at all or will have diffculties to be understood. I don't agree with focusing on spoken language alone, but signs should be added as important as well as speech should be.

The Bi Bi programs do provide speech classes. It is referring to learning English as a 2nd language in the written form because to be able to read and write, one must have a strong foundation in the first language which is ASL since it is 100% accessible for all deaf children and then learn English via reading and writing. However, speech training is offered to all deaf children when they are babies. The difference is if we see that some children arent benefitting from it or becoming too frustrated, we address it instead of continuing to force the child with the speech training classes. However, the parents always have the last say whether to continue or discontinue the speech training but our staff is more senstive to the children's visual needs while in the public/oral schools, most staff dont even know how to properly address their visual needs.

Also, one of the greatest things about the BiBi program is the Deaf culture awareness such as taking the students on field trips to ASL plays, Deaf shows or have Deaf artists come to our school. We just had Deaf performers come from Hong Kong to have workshops with our students teaching them artistic dancing. Do public schools offer that? I dont think so.

rockdrummer · 01-17-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exactly. The burden of change has always been placed on the deaf, not the hearing. The deaf are expected to accommodate the hearing population's needs, rather than the other way around. That needs to change. It is a hang over from the old medical model of defining disability, and it is outdated and ineffective. Unfortunately, with the psuh to implant children at younger and younger ages, the medical model, as well as oralism, is seeing a revival in general attititudes and thinking.

I don't know that its realistic to expect the entire hearing population to make such accommodation's. I believe that's just a result of sheer numbers. On the other hand, if you're talking about the family circle, educational settings and work environments, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly. The pathalogical view and oralism are not going anywhere and for some, those approaches work and for some they don't. Just as for some a toolbox approach is best and for some TC or Bi-Bi is more effective.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com