Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

rockdrummer · 01-14-2008, 10:08 AM

Interesting read. Even though it was written a while back much of it applies today. The controversy still exists. It also supports what I believe in that there is no panacea approach and that you have to treat each person as an individual.

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

Excerpt:

Quote:

THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN CHOOSING EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS

A vital aspect of choosing the right education for your child is remembering that although your child is deaf, he is an individual. Each person has a different learning style. “We need to understand that no two deaf people are alike; many professionals seem to have a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to educational strategies for deaf children. The truth is, there is an ongoing controversy over the best ways to educate the deaf, and most of the arguments center around communication methods. The best thing to do is evaluate, determine the best environment, and go with the child’s strengths.” Almost all of the professionals surveyed for this article advocated flexibility when choosing options. Regardless of personal preference, most suggested that parents really examine all of the methods and learning strategies. “Parents need information about all methods, contact with people who follow different philosophies, and plenty of flexibility in the professionals who are helping them make their decisions. Another expert added: “[Parents] need to know they can add other approaches. Many of the professionals and parents felt the toolbox approach useful. “There are options—plural. There is no one option in the educational world of a deaf child. Don’t let anyone try to sell you on any one option while disregarding the others. All kids are different and have different needs. No one option can meet the needs of all deaf children.

flip · 01-14-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Interesting read. Even though it was written a while back much of it applies today. The controversy still exists. It also supports what I believe in that there is no panacea approach and that you have to treat each person as an individual.

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

Excerpt:

This sure was a nice article, covering a lot of trends in a short time. Very impressive, when we take in consideration that this is written by a new student of sign language. I could recommend this to parents for an overview, taking the above in consideration.

For example;

"Bi-Bi does not spend time working on audition or speech. In fact, “it is felt to be morally wrong to impose on deaf children a language they cannot acquire, this, spoken language.”(cited by a comitee of parents in Chicago). This policy can limit participation in hearing culture."

is totally wrong. You can quite often find state of the art speech training in bi-bi programs.

rockdrummer · 01-14-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

This sure was a nice article, covering a lot of trends in a short time. Very impressive, when we take in consideration that this is written by a new student of sign language. I could recommend this to parents for an overview, taking the above in consideration.

For example;

"Bi-Bi does not spend time working on audition or speech. In fact, “it is felt to be morally wrong to impose on deaf children a language they cannot acquire, this, spoken language.”(cited by a comitee of parents in Chicago). This policy can limit participation in hearing culture."

is totally wrong. You can quite often find state of the art speech training in bi-bi programs.

The problem as I understand it is that Bi-Bi programs are not that prevelant and many of the ones that consider themselves to be Bi-Bi are not really comprehensive programs but more of token programs. I'm not sure about the morality of getting deaf individuals to speek. What I know is the options for communication between deaf and hearing is limited. Speaking, writing or some electronic means (tty, sidekick etc) are the only choices that I know of. It would seem to me that one would want to have all options available at the least.

flip · 01-14-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

The problem as I understand it is that Bi-Bi programs are not that prevelant and many of the ones that consider themselves to be Bi-Bi are not really comprehensive programs but more of token programs. I'm not sure about the morality of getting deaf individuals to speek. What I know is the options for communication between deaf and hearing is limited. Speaking, writing or some electronic means (tty, sidekick etc) are the only choices that I know of. It would seem to me that one would want to have all options available at the least.

Agree on the lack of comprehensive programs and morality of speech.

I am not sure if I understand the issue with limited communication between deaf and hearing students. What would the consequences be, and what does that option include?

loml · 01-14-2008, 05:39 PM

rockdrummer - Thanks for sharing rockdrummer.

deafdyke · 01-14-2008, 06:25 PM

Yeah, but overall the percentage of ASL onliers is very small. Most TC kids do have pretty decent speech skills.

rockdrummer · 01-14-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Agree on the lack of comprehensive programs and morality of speech.

I am not sure if I understand the issue with limited communication between deaf and hearing students. What would the consequences be, and what does that option include?

What I mean about limited options relates to face to face communication between individuals.

The options are dictated by the communication abilities of those involved. For face to face communication you can either sign, talk and speechread, read and write or I suppose if you both have sidekicks you could use them.

If I were a deaf person, I would want to have most, if not all of the above to better my chances of communicating in any given situation. The same applies for hearing people involved with the deaf community.

The concequences of not having any of those abilities would be limited or no communication.

rockdrummer · 01-14-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

rockdrummer - Thanks for sharing rockdrummer.

Sure, Thanks for reading it.

rockdrummer · 01-14-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdyke

Yeah, but overall the percentage of ASL onliers is very small. Most TC kids do have pretty decent speech skills.

Not that speech skills are the first priority but I do believe they are important. I'm sure there are ASL'ers out there with decent speech skills as well.

shel90 · 01-14-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Not that speech skills are the first priority but I do believe they are important. I'm sure there are ASL'ers out there with decent speech skills as well.

Of course..that's why I believe in both oral/ASL programs. Our program offers comprehensive speech classes for those who benefit from them. Why not?

Having good/decent speech a good skill to have but in my opinion, it shouldnt be the only thing that a deaf person needs to rely on especially in the educational setting. Too many risks for missing out in the classroom. Makes me nervous.

shel90 · 01-14-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

What I mean about limited options relates to face to face communication between individuals.

The options are dictated by the communication abilities of those involved. For face to face communication you can either sign, talk and speechread, read and write or I suppose if you both have sidekicks you could use them.

If I were a deaf person, I would want to have most, if not all of the above to better my chances of communicating in any given situation. The same applies for hearing people involved with the deaf community.

The concequences of not having any of those abilities would be limited or no communication.

I dont think that I have ever met a deaf person who has NEVER communicated with hearing people. Some deaf people do it more than others depending on their comfort level.

jillio · 01-14-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

This sure was a nice article, covering a lot of trends in a short time. Very impressive, when we take in consideration that this is written by a new student of sign language. I could recommend this to parents for an overview, taking the above in consideration.

For example;

"Bi-Bi does not spend time working on audition or speech. In fact, “it is felt to be morally wrong to impose on deaf children a language they cannot acquire, this, spoken language.”(cited by a comitee of parents in Chicago). This policy can limit participation in hearing culture."

is totally wrong. You can quite often find state of the art speech training in bi-bi programs.

Quite true, flip. Bi-Bi is exactly what it says: Bicultural/Bilingual. Bi means 2. They do not ignore spoken language in Bi-Bi programs. They just don't make it the number one priority, to the neglect of academics.

jillio · 01-14-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Agree on the lack of comprehensive programs and morality of speech.

I am not sure if I understand the issue with limited communication between deaf and hearing students. What would the consequences be, and what does that option include?

Limited communication between deaf and hearing students is one of the main reasons that the LRE must not always be interpreted as the home school in the case of deaf students.

jillio · 01-14-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Of course..that's why I believe in both oral/ASL programs. Our program offers comprehensive speech classes for those who benefit from them. Why not?

Having good/decent speech a good skill to have but in my opinion, it shouldnt be the only thing that a deaf person needs to rely on especially in the educational setting. Too many risks for missing out in the classroom. Makes me nervous.

That is a true hallmark of the Bi-Bi philosophy. Too many people interpret L1 language to mean only language. Just because Bi-Bi promotes ASL as the L1 language does not mean that it is used as the only language.

flip · 01-15-2008, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

What I mean about limited options relates to face to face communication between individuals.

The options are dictated by the communication abilities of those involved. For face to face communication you can either sign, talk and speechread, read and write or I suppose if you both have sidekicks you could use them.

If I were a deaf person, I would want to have most, if not all of the above to better my chances of communicating in any given situation. The same applies for hearing people involved with the deaf community.

The concequences of not having any of those abilities would be limited or no communication.

I am sure you would find it interesting to visit a true bi-bi program in person, as it seems you haven't? Sign, talk and speechreading is facilicated, and communicative skills is one of the advantages of bi-bi compared to oral or mainstream programs.

There are examples of earlier deaf bi-bi students that run companies with hearing employers, so I doubt their communication skills was limited by bi-bi. In their cases, it looks like their communicative skills was developed to it's maximum, as they had the opportunity to communicate in a rich environment with no language barriers.

shel90 · 01-15-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I am sure you would find it interesting to visit a true bi-bi program in person, as it seems you haven't? Sign, talk and speechreading is facilicated, and communicative skills is one of the advantages of bi-bi compared to oral or mainstream programs.

There are examples of earlier deaf bi-bi students that run companies with hearing employers, so I doubt their communication skills was limited by bi-bi. In their cases, it looks like their communicative skills was developed to it's maximum, as they had the opportunity to communicate in a rich environment with no language barriers.

Exactly...

Buffalo · 01-15-2008, 06:19 PM

Thanks, Rockdrummer, for the link. I like the part where it said for hearing parents to go see what the Deaf Culture is all about and to talk with Deaf adults. Yes, sign language and reading are very important.

I place education ahead of speech. In my time, the school seems to have it the other way around and that is very detrimental to the deaf child.

rockdrummer · 01-16-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I am sure you would find it interesting to visit a true bi-bi program in person, as it seems you haven't? Sign, talk and speechreading is facilicated, and communicative skills is one of the advantages of bi-bi compared to oral or mainstream programs.

There are examples of earlier deaf bi-bi students that run companies with hearing employers, so I doubt their communication skills was limited by bi-bi. In their cases, it looks like their communicative skills was developed to it's maximum, as they had the opportunity to communicate in a rich environment with no language barriers.

The problem as I understand it is that there are not many true bi-bi programs to visit. I also believe that there may be some good TC programs out there that facilitate the things you mention. I don't think anyone ever suggested that communication skills would be limited in a bi-bi program. At least I have not seen it in this thread. I also know that deaf people can be successful comming from varying educational methods.

rockdrummer · 01-16-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo

Thanks, Rockdrummer, for the link. I like the part where it said for hearing parents to go see what the Deaf Culture is all about and to talk with Deaf adults. Yes, sign language and reading are very important.

I place education ahead of speech. In my time, the school seems to have it the other way around and that is very detrimental to the deaf child.

Thanks for taking the time to read it. I would tend to agree with you on education ahead of speech. But speech is still important at some point in time.

flip · 01-16-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

The problem as I understand it is that there are not many true bi-bi programs to visit. I also believe that there may be some good TC programs out there that facilitate the things you mention. I don't think anyone ever suggested that communication skills would be limited in a bi-bi program. At least I have not seen it in this thread. I also know that deaf people can be successful comming from varying educational methods.

If we not are talking about disadvantages with bi-bi program as a method, but the problem that arise when the true bi-bi programs are out of reach, I agree with you of course.

flip · 01-16-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Thanks for taking the time to read it. I would tend to agree with you on education ahead of speech. But speech is still important at some point in time.

I belive it's an advantage, but I also belive it's much much more important to most hearing people than most deaf people.

jillio · 01-16-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I belive it's an advantage, but I also belive it's much much more important to most hearing people than most deaf people.

**nodding agreement**

rockdrummer · 01-16-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I belive it's an advantage, but I also belive it's much much more important to most hearing people than most deaf people.

Wouldn't one consider something that is advantageous to be important? Is it that you don't feel communicating with the hearing population is important?

jillio · 01-16-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Wouldn't one consider something that is advantageous to be important? Is it that you don't feel communicating with the hearing population is important?

The question is not being able to communicate with the hearing world, because that can be accomplished in any number of ways. It is communicating with the hearing on their terms, i.e. speech. And most deaf would consider that to be beneficial, but not the most important item on the list. The hearing, however, do assign a higher priority to the deaf learning to speak because they are assigning importance based on their own hearing perspective. In other words, they look at it from a "Its important to me so it must be important to all" perspective.

rockdrummer · 01-16-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The question is not being able to communicate with the hearing world, because that can be accomplished in any number of ways. It is communicating with the hearing on their terms, i.e. speech. And most deaf would consider that to be beneficial, but not the most important item on the list. The hearing, however, do assign a higher priority to the deaf learning to speak because they are assigning importance based on their own hearing perspective. In other words, they look at it from a "Its important to me so it must be important to all" perspective.

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.

Buffalo · 01-16-2008, 11:35 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.

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.

01-15-2008, 06:19 PM	#17 (permalink)
Buffalo Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 984	Thanks, Rockdrummer, for the link. I like the part where it said for hearing parents to go see what the Deaf Culture is all about and to talk with Deaf adults. Yes, sign language and reading are very important. I place education ahead of speech. In my time, the school seems to have it the other way around and that is very detrimental to the deaf child. __________________ It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem. - Gilbert Chesterton

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

01-14-2008, 06:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
deafdyke So NOT a Princess! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ROOOARRRR!!!, that's where! Posts: 6,040	Yeah, but overall the percentage of ASL onliers is very small. Most TC kids do have pretty decent speech skills.