shel90

A friend of mine sent me this email.....

AVT, ASL, and definitions
Musings on this -- AVT seems to forbid the use of ASL. ASL-using D/deaf people are annoyed at this. People whose kids use AVT are insisting that their kids are fine without ASL, so it's not needed; this is very different from saying that ASL damaged kids and so should be forbidden.

It all seems to come down to the fact that ASL either does or does not damage kids. If it does, then prove it. If it doesn't, then there just isn't a reason to ban it, and apparently, AVT requires the banning of ASL. (English language schools work for hearing kids -- those kids do fine without Swahili or Breton, too. So let's ban Swahili and Breton. Does this make sense? Just because a kid does fine without something is not an argument in favor of erasing it from the Earth.)

If the going-with-ears-and-mouth part of AVT works fine for some kids, that is not by itself an argument in favor of the banning-ASL part of AVT. The question is, would the inclusion of ASL have caused those kids to not do as well?

If this is not the case, and adding in ASL does not cause those kids' language acquisition to drop, then include it. It won't hurt the kids who don't need it (and may help; bilingualism is routinely demonstrated to increase intelligence) and the kids who do need it will be damned happy to have it there.

That seems to be it. That really just does. This is not complicated. Demonstrate that ASL damages kids' spoken language acquisition, or do not. If it doesn't, then there is absolutely no reason to ban it.

There really seems to be a strange way of thinking about these things sometimes. People who advocate for CIs (not CI users, but CI advocates) stress that if it's done early, it will cause natural language acquisition, but then follow it up by saying that without intensive AVT and a total absence of signed language, the kid will slip back into deafness, or something. That doesn't sound very natural. CODAs learn both with no problem.

Some kids will be able to acquire spoken language. Some will not. If ASL does not harm the first group, then include it. It does no damage to the first group and it is a huge boon to the second. Banning it will not harm the first group but will enormously harm the second.

That seems fairly straightforward to me. The question is whether or not simple exposure to ASL will cause a kid in Group 1 to slide over into Group 2. Unless this can be demonstrated (and there does seem to be a lot of data to the contrary), then do not ban ASL from CI-using kids.

That really does seem to be pretty much it. No emotions, no "I'm a parent and I know everything in my child's best interest!" No "CI users are nazis." None of that.

Either ASL damages the spoken language acquisition of a kid, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then do not ban it. QED.

This couldnt be further from the truth!

__________________
~Shel~

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

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

deafbajagal

Well, isn't it saying that ASL shouldn't be banned unless there's proof that ASL prevents the English llanguage acquisition process? The text seems to be advocating ASL and sort of mocking CI advocates...

Maybe I'm too tired and am reading it wrong. I'll try reading it again later when I'm more fresh, LOL.

VamPyroX

I am not against teaching children ASL, but I would ensure that they also learn English.

__________________

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

shel90

It is just talking about why do CI advocates or AVT therapists have this idea that ASL will interfere with a child's ability to acquire spoken language skills and where is the proof? Not really mocking but just saying it straight out..if ASL has prevented any deaf kids from acquiring speech skills, then show the proof.

Of course Vampy...all Deaf kids are required to learn English...any teacher for the deaf would be an idiot to propose that Deaf children not learn English but ASL only.

__________________
~Shel~

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

jenni-m

I could not read the whole post at this time...

But I will give my opinions on whether or not ASL is 'damaging'.

Inherently, I feel it ASL itself is completely benign. Where 'damage' to learning can occur, is developmental history.

If a person only knows ASL, for 30+ years, and has never really studied English or English writing/literature very much, then of course they will be severely delayed, and very 'hard wired' to ASL, because the period where the brain has the most development capacity is mostly over by that point. It becomes a whole way of thinking and being, by then.

It is easier to introduce something like that earlier, at the right times (this also gives more time for natural development, and you don't end up with a 30 year old student reading at a 1st grade level and fighting to catch up, after 30 years of ingrained, intuitive knowledge and habit...).

shel90

If a person was able to grow up with just only ASL without learning English, then there is something seriously wrong with the school system to allow that to happen.

__________________
~Shel~

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

jenni-m

It has and does happen. (I'm not saying people know NO English either, but that it is limited.)

Oh, and yes. I think a lot of schools are total garbage.

shel90

As a teacher, I wouldnt allow that to happen. I know and understand that not every child will become people who enjoy reading but I sure will try!

__________________
~Shel~

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

jenni-m

I am glad to hear that
I am just a little 'miffed' with schools, as I learned much more in 10 years of studying by myself using basic essentials, than I learned in 20 years of people trying to 'teach' me (and failing miserably).

Edit:
In fact, I wasn't exactly 'taught' in school either. I did most of that learning by myself too, but my methods were not accepted (of course). They wanted everything done the way they intended it to be, but it was too boring for me. It didn't matter that I could pass every single test I was given...

I think the best time I had in school was in an 'advanced' literature class... that helped me to learn a lot, there, because I could do my own thing a bit, yet it was under guidance and I actually got feedback from the teacher. It wasn't just doing things by rote like some kind of little machine. I was able to choose my own books to report on (and in fact they tended to be even 'harder' than what the 'standard' books were for the rest of the class). I wasn't the only one who could have taken advantage of this, but was the only one that -did-.

Oceanbreeze

I used to lean more towards an "oral only is best" way of thinking, but having read alot of posts from people who've been raised in oral only environments, I can see where I was wrong.

I think knowing both ASL and English greatly improves a deaf person's/child's success in life. Hence, restricting them to one or the other severely limits that child/person.

Just my .02

__________________
"And I don't want the world to see me
'Cause I don't think that they'd understand
When everything's made to be broken
I just want you to know who I am" ~Goo Goo Dolls Iris

Bebonang

Just like the hearing people who have to hide their ability to read which mean they can not read even in school. So maybe that make the case that if the Deaf people who signs only even in trying to read English but couldn't. There are quite a lot of people in all walks of life whether hearing or deaf that could not read English. ASL does not harm the deaf people, but they hide their ability to read English, so they need help on that.

The AVT and CI advocates wants us not to use sign language no matter where we live and just speak and lipread one hundred percent 24/7. That is their advantages.

Pretty sick, eh?

In our First Nation Reserve or Indian Reservation, we are trying to save our native tongues or native languages from disappearing so we try to record them and try to remember them. I would want to keep our native language alive too, but I have lost it because I am Deaf and can only speak English. Speaking English is difficult for us, Deafies. So ASL is the most important language for us to comprehend in our lives. We need ASL even if we have spoken English more than oral only approach/method.

Shel90, keep up with your teaching the children in ASL and Spoken English(combine together).

Hearing authorities and hearing parents just don't give up, don't get it and don't know what we have been suffering from a lot of pressure on speech and lipreading.

shel90

Oral only as the best? After my nightmare in the schools with that approach, I think it is FAR from the best. LOL!

__________________
~Shel~

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

Liebling:-)))

No, I do not agree that ASL is the blame to damage children because ASL do not damage children itself.

It's important to teach sign with English together. It's person who moviate to learn English when they use sign language... that's good...

No excuse to blame ASL but person if she/he is lazy to moviate English!!!

__________________

deafskeptic

While I think AVT is a useful tool, I do not hold with the anti ASL philosphy that many of them seem to have. Nor do I think it's as useful as ASL though as not everyone can benefit from it. I wouldn't have benefited from it before I got implanted.

I recall one Deaf family with a deaf dad and hearing mom (I think mom was coda but i'm not sure.). Both brother and sister had ASL as their first language and both had excellent speech. Could Dad speak? Well, not nearly as well as his kids.

Why would teachers not teach Deaf kids English? There is noooo escape from English and it'd be criminal not to teach English as everyone around us uses English.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.

shel90

[quote=deafskeptic;1005094]While I think AVT is a useful tool, I do not hold with the anti ASL philosphy that many of them seem to have. Nor do I think it's as useful as ASL though as not everyone can benefit from it. I wouldn't have benefited from it before I got implanted.

I recall one Deaf family with a deaf dad and hearing mom (I think mom was coda but i'm not sure.). Both brother and sister had ASL as their first language and both had excellent speech. Could Dad speak? Well, not nearly as well as his kids.

Why would teachers not teach Deaf kids English? There is noooo escape from English and it'd be criminal not to teach English as everyone around us uses English.[/QUOTE]


Right...that's why I dont understand "ASL-only"..there is no such thing.

__________________
~Shel~

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

VamPyroX

I agree. English should be part of all school systems.

Sadly, there are some deaf institutes that don't take the English program seriously. There are also some mainstream schools with deaf programs that don't take the English program seriously. (The mainstream schools I went to had that problem.)

__________________

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

kipourgos

While I am very much against "oralism," I'd never dispute the need to be able to deal in English. In the US, pretty much every Deaf person I ever interacted with could function fairly effectively in English, if not necessarily eloquently or with perfect grammar.

Here in Turkey it's very different; and overall the deaf here have been very seriously failed by the system. I know there are deaf people here who can read and write and study in university, but I haven't met them. A huge percentage of deaf people here never even go to school, and I haven't yet met anyone with enough Turkish to do more than get basic needs. While many might recognize the word "yazmak" (to write), many are stumped at a construction as basic as "yazabilir" ("s/he can write"). So they are extremely isolated from the hearing world. One person I talked to went to a school but couldn't get it, and dropped out. I'm sure there are many more like him. Wouldn't it have been easier if they could learn with TSL, and then work them into explaining the weird world of Turkish?

jillio

True AVT forbids the use of any visual cue, be it sign or lip reading. AVT therapists use the practice of covering their mouths or turning their heads away from a young deaf child to "force" them to rely on their aided hearing, be it CI or HA. I find the whole philosophy of AVT to be unbelievably cruel and restrictive.

VamPyroX

Wow, that's pretty bad.

__________________

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

shel90

No kidding! It is like forcing blind/low vision people to learn how to read without the use of any tactile cues. It is just a screwed up philosophy.

__________________
~Shel~

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

shel90

I dont know about all deaf schools but the ones that I have worked at or interned at take English very seriously. I just cant imagine a deaf school or any schools, whether public or not, not taking literacy seriously. It would be a shame.

__________________
~Shel~

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

deafskeptic

Exactly. I have serious reservations about the AVT philosophy. While I find being able to make out words words with aided hearing aids or CI a useful tool - not everyone can benefit from this; I certainly wouldn't have benefitted from it before I got my CI. I'd be more supportive of it if it weren't for the stand on ASL or other visual tools.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.

kipourgos

Yes, isn't the whole point learning to communicate as effectively as possible?
After all, even hearing people use so many visual cues they learn themselves. Hand gestures, facial expressions, body position...even involuntary cues such as pupil size! Deaf people use a higher percentage of visuals in communication. Why not?

When one sense is impaired, it's so completely natural that the other senses work overtime and fill in the gap, and enable more complete communication. Why get so hung up on limiting the flow of information to the channels a hearing person uses? It's just more of this "it's not good enough unless it's the way I do it" bullcrap.

We don't force Native American kids to forget their own laugages any more, we see it's cruel. We don't force left-handed kids to write with their right hand; we see that they can write just fine as they are. When will these people start basing their priorities on reality instead of prejudices?