jillio

In a presentation on solution focused counseling for school aged children, I came across something that struck me as being applicable to deaf education. The central philosophy of solution focused counseling relies on 3 simple principles:

1) If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
2) If it works, do more of it.
3) If it doesn't work, don't do it again. Do something different.

Deaf education as a bi-bi philosophy in the 1800's was effective. Students were being educated on par with hearing students, and literacy rates reflected that. It wasn't broken, but the Milan Congress and the move toward oralism attempted to fix it anyway.

Total communication was an attempt to concede the need for visual input for the deaf student but from an oral perspective with the use of MCE's, CS, etc. Instead of doing more of what works, they attempted to revise what works to fit the oralists' needs and philosophies.

If it doesn't work, don't do it again. Education from an oral perspective for deaf children has resulted in less than adequately educated deaf students. Literacy rates have plummeted, and employment rates of young graduates are disproportionately low. In effect, oralism doesn't work. Don't do it again.

It would appear that deaf education is not solution focused, but politically and socially motivated. They have violated these very simple principles for creating an atmosphere that fosters success in deaf students.

What works? Bi-Bi. Do more of it.

What doesn't work? Oral philosophies and mainstreaming. Don't do it again.

What wasn't broken? Deaf education in a bi-bi environment. Stop trying to fix it, and simply do more of it.

What do you think?

Deafness

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

faire_jour

The problem is the percentage of kids that oral only works for. They will always be held up as a reason to continue what they are doing.

Secretblend

Sounds reasonable to me!

jillio

The ones that oral only works for effectively so that they are educated on par with their hearing peers is an extremely small minority of the overall population of deaf students. But I agree, they adopt a couple of "poster children" and then try to apply it to an entire population. And they forget that their precious oral only students are included in those sad statistics on the undereducation of the deaf.

Tousi

That deaf education isn't "solution focused because it is "politically and socially motivated", I do agree with. And dare I also add culturally motivated as well?

Please read the content of this URL; it is hot off the presses: Hocokan, the Center: Hocokan, the Center

jillio

Thanks for that great link! Very well written and though provoking. And I certainly agree with the cultural motivation comment....that is where the ethnocentricsm comes in. I love the holistic perspective taken in the blog. I only wish we could see more of it in our decisions for our deaf kids.

Tousi

Yeah, Jillio and speaking of deaf kiddies, you can go back to whence the above URL came from and this same deaf Lakotan has laid out a lot of stuff as to why the fledgling DBC messed up in Milwaukee. You might find it hard to believe what a few radicals have done but I do as I know something about several of them personally.

If you do go back there, it shouldn't take you too long to go thru several threads he's made because they are all still on the first page there; just look for Hockcan (sp?).

Sorry if this isn't right on topic....

jillio

No problem with being off topic, my friend. I will definately check out the rest of his posts, and appreciate you bringing them to my attention.

I've been following the Milwaukee debacle via email.

Tousi

Ok, thanks, Jillio. Now for this Lakotan deafie at the site you were at earlier, most of his commentary can be found under "DBC: Confusing Messages by Mishka Zena on page 4 where there's been over 800 visits in just a few days and, more importantly, where this Hockhan gives comments. I warn you...there's over 302 replies to date, lol and I'm DT there....just a wee couple by me but look especially for his...gives you a run-down on his 4 month involvement with DBC and rejection from within on the eve of this Milwaukee meet.

shel90

You already know that I agree and I saw that the BiBi approach worked for more deaf/hoh than oral and TC did in my 10 years in the teaching field.


Of course, there will always be people who will hold the poster children as their justification to continue with those other approaches. As long as some succeed, it is ok that many fail. Pretty sad, heh?

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

jillio

I'm still wading through the replies at this point, but all I can say at this point is "Wow!" Very enlightening. I'll get back to you with a more detailed response when I finish digesting all his comments.

Miss-Delectable

Exactly!

__________________

VamPyroX

Hmm... makes sense.

__________________

Check out my city... CLICK HERE!
(If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

Cheri

Huh? Bi-Bi wasn't introduced until 1980. I don't remember reading that bi-bi philosophy was set up in the 1800's. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet was the first person that set up a school for the deaf that uses sign language, there was no where that stated the use of sign language were use as their first language, and English as their second was set up in the 1800's or it's bi-bi philosophy. Oral philosophy been around more since the 1800's-1970. Think about it there are a lot of parents, staffs, and the community members are unfamiliar with the bi-bi philosophy, so there is no way it has been around for that long.

__________________

jillio

ASL was the language of instruction in these schools. It was used to teach English. Perhaps you should reread history, as these schools were most definately bi-bi in philosophy. Just because people are uinfamiliar with it doesn't mean that it wasn't the method of instruction historically.

Yes, the oral philsophy has been around since just prior to the Milan Congress. That is exactly the point when deaf ed began to experience the numerous problems that we continue to see.

Cheri

They used ASl to teach everything, in a bi-bi philosophy they kept two languages separate, so nice try.

__________________

jillio

Yes, Cheri, they used ASL to teach everything, including English. That means that the two languages were kept separate, just as the bi-bi philosophy proposes today. Evidently, you are very confused about the philospohy of bi-bi and exactly what "keeping the 2 languages separate" means.

Liza

I like the idea of bi-bi education. It would be great if kids know how to use their voices on the side, too.. although it wouldn't be used as a method to provide education. ASL should be the main language used to educate children in all of the subjects. I think kids don't struggle as much as they would with oral method to learn about their regular subjects. Of course, there will always be people who feel other approaches would work better.

Cheri

That's correct, They use the single language to teach English.
I do know what's keeping two languages separate, ASL shares no grammatical similarities to English so you cannot use ASL to teach English, because ASL has it's own grammar and it's own set of rules. Likely some Total Communication program had used ASL as being taught with English, and that's their biggest mistake, it's a failure, and that's one reason why total communication got a lot of criticism for that. It prevented some deaf children to get the understanding of English word order. They should have use Signed Exact English in all schools, which they did not. When bi-bi approach was established in 1980, they kept the two languages separate so there will be no confusions. That's the reason why total communication was changed into into bi/bi philosophy, so it wasn't there in the past, if it was they would have never change if it was a successful program.

Now, I'm off to go swimming with my boys, so good day.

__________________

shel90

Too many incorrect assumptions here..

Yes, ASL can be used to teach English. I have 5 years of experience with it and have gotten 2 of my students' reading levels up to on grade level using ASL.

Signed Exact English doesnt work when it comes to abstract thinking and problem solving skills.

Cheri..u keep making all these statements about the field of Deaf education as if you are an expert. Have you ever worked as a teacher or have you ever worked in a classroom?

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

Cheri

I have never said I was an expert, I've seen deaf signers who had signed in ASL it doesn't even match it's English word order. I have an opinion of what I think of ASL, and I'm allow to use it, you can disagree with me all you want.

Go and do your research how ASL shares no grammatical similarities to English.

And Signed Exact English works just fine by me.

__________________

shel90

That comment was very uneccessary.

I said "as if you were an expert" and then I asked you a question about your experience working in the classroom. A simple answer would have been sufficient.

U can form an opinion about ASL but how do u really know about teaching when you have never worked in a classroom? The classroom and social settings are very different. But since I never got an answer on whether you have worked in a classroom with deaf kids so I dont know if you have experience in it or not.

Before you tell me to go do research, dont forget that I have done my share and have 10 years of personal experience in the classroom.

I cant form an opinion about electrical engineering and how it should be done cuz I do not possess the training nor the experience in it. All I can say that it sounds hard but how do I really know unless I tried working in this field?

Same concept here.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

Cheri

And yours was necessary? Just because we don't share the same opinion, it doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right, or I'm right and you're wrong.

Oh, so I have to walk a mile to experienced it, Well; you formed your opinions all those times in cochlear implant forum, how would you feel if they tell u the same thing?

You got that right, but you had formed a criticism opinion on all total communication programs when you haven't experience all total communication programs all over the world.

Now, I'm out the door and enjoy my day.

__________________

shel90

What does CI have to do with this topic? We are talking about Deaf Ed, not CIs but since it is brought up..I have worked with numerous of children with CIs and have seen what happens to them when they aren't able to benefit from their CIs leaving them with severe language delays.
My only opinion on children with CIs is that they should be exposed to both ASL and English instead of just spoken language only to minimize the risk of language delays. If that's such an awful thing to wish for all children not to be put at risk for language delays, then I don't know what to say.

Other than that, I have no opinion as I have always stated and still do..implanting children is not my business but the parents'. If it was my children, I wouldn't but doesn't believe I am forming an opinion on others.

Since u have so many opinions on what shud be done in Deaf Ed, why don't u become a teacher yourself and do something about it?

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

Cheri

Just two students within five years period? That isn't too many.
Everyone has different opinions of what they think would be a better education program all deaf children, I cannot choose a better program for them all because no deaf person is the same as another deaf, what might work for one child is not necessarily best for all. I don't want to become a teacher, but I would want all deaf to have an equal education and would not like to see their ability of rights to be limited.

If I was hard on you earlier, I apology.

__________________