Start with spoken language or ASL? - Page 18

**Cheri** · 10-03-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Just as you ignored anything concerning speech? You've quite made it seem like speech the most unimportant thing in the world for deaf people.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirena rossa

I don't know. that is unfortunate that he was so behind. maybe it has to do with lack of GOOD speech therapy and/or parents reinforcing those skills? his personality? my hearing is WAY worse than that boy's, however my reading skills were WAY ahead for someone my age.
seems like a # of outside factors contributed to his delays, not the fact that he was started orally.

let me ask this... if starting orally is not the best way to go, then how do u explain how the lot of us who are totally oral and successful. How did that work?

The same way that you explain any other phenomenon that lies outside the majority. Outliers.

How do you explain 2 hearing children with different levels of actual functioning despite having the same tested assessments of ability?

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samanthasmom

Isn't that the point of a bibi education? One size does not fit all, this way they can get the best of both...

Exactly, samanthasmom! Such a very simple concept. I have no idea why it is that people continue to complicate it. Well, I do know, but refrain from using the word here.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Yes but according to Shel90 and Jillio, the wait and see approach takes years? Or at least thats the impression I got.

The wait and see approach normally does take years. Children are quite often 8, 9, 10 years old before they fall so far behind that the parents and the educators are placed in such an obvious position of admitting the dealys and difficulties these children are experiencing. Anything less than years, and the attititude is, "Just give him/her a little more time. They'll get it. They are just trying to make up for lost ground."

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

As do I. In fact, I happen to be related to one. Another is a co-worker with a master's level degree in education, currently a post-doc. And that doesn't even begin to include the number of deaf people I have formed friendships with and have come in contact with over the last 20 years.

The deaf teachers at my son's school were all master's level educators. All were native signers. You cannot even claim that level of education in the public schools with hearing teachers.

I'm probably going to be attacked for saying this but.... it seems to be there is a disproportionate number of higher education deaf people in terms of majors. It seems to me that a lot of them are studying deaf education which allows them to stay in the ASL world. I find absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to teach deaf children and expand the education for deaf people. In an ideal world, there should be the same demographics in deaf college as in a hearing college. Lets say that 10% of hearing college people want to be teachers, shouldn't there be also 10% of deaf college people who want to be teachers? It seems that it's not the case, and the reason why I'm bringing this up is because it may be evidence that deaf people use ASL as a clutch.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samanthasmom

My daughter was diagnosed severe/profound at birth. HAs at 3 mos with INTENSIVE speech therapy. First implant at 15 months (earliest we could get it approved at the time) Mainstreamed in pre-school at 2.5 years of age. Oral only. She was recently implanted on right side - July. As yet has not bridged gap from hearing age to chronological. Who would have guessed?! Had we not been told that ASL would delay her speech and we had done both, who knows what the outcome would be...Point is, we were dissuaded from ASL. Is that right? The same time frame - huge push to teach hearing kids to sign for faster language acquisition...?

Exactly. And as result, your job as a parent, and her job as a developing child has been complicated in untold ways. It is much easier to prevent the delays with adequate provision of language than it is to correct them.

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The wait and see approach normally does take years. Children are quite often 8, 9, 10 years old before they fall so far behind that the parents and the educators are placed in such an obvious position of admitting the dealys and difficulties these children are experiencing. Anything less than years, and the attititude is, "Just give him/her a little more time. They'll get it. They are just trying to make up for lost ground."

Using this logic, you're blaming the parents (who are in denial), not the idea of oralism.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Great that ASL worked for you and your brother. Oral English worked for me. I'm all for Bi-Bi approach, AS LONG the deaf child does not refuse to learning how to speak because ASL is easier. Obviously, I want each child to be able to reach his/her full potential.

I have this friend who came to me because she heard about my job and wanted to talk to a deaf person OTHER than her own deaf friends. This friend is from the same speech therapist I had. She learned to speak and was mainstreamed like me. She did well in high school (all hearing). Then she went to college and met other deaf people and decided to learn ASL to take advantage of the interpreters and to be able to communicate with her deaf friends. Sounds great! However, she started to realize that her deaf friends are warning her "If you do too well in college, you won't be able to get a disability check." They had such low faith in themselves in terms of getting a job after college due to a lack of oral skills, so they had to depend on getting a disability check. I am worried about people like this. They had the language and other skills to go to college, but..... obviously they couldn't go further than college because of a lack of oral skills.

That is the whole point. You and the others seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend the fact that Bi-Bi does not preclude the development of spoken language.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I was born with 85-95 dB loss in both ears. Is this not deaf enough? Don't say that oralism won't work PERIOD. Oralism most likely will NOT work for those who are severely profound. Therein lies the difference.

Historically, and for the large majority of deaf individuals, oralism does not work. If it worked for you, great. But hisotrically, and for the large majority of deaf individuals, oralism has not worked. However, I'm sure that A.G. Bell would be happy to use your singualr example as proof that it does. In that way, they can continue to perpetuate a system that actually handicaps deaf children far more than their deafness ever has.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Can I ask how this works? How do you sign to someone telling them how to speak? Do they sign "Move your tongue like this"? I really do have a hard time grasping the concept of using sign to tell them how to speak. I understand associating a sign with a spoken word, but using signs for the act of speaking itself? Not sure how this works?

There is the problem. You really have no information at your disposal regarding that which you propose to argue against.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samanthasmom

How about from a different perspective? What if I continue to push my child..correct every sentence, every time she speeks..etc. One day she wakes up and looks at me and says enough!! Takes the implants off and never wants to try again?!

Point is (and I really am not trying to argue) I feel like trying to fit her small square butt in this round hole is doing nothing for her psyche..kind of like those people with no faith in themselves that can only sign (only referring to the ones mentioned in YOUR post, don't kill me on this point plz).

So, why not start them off on a level playing field. Give them both. If hearing kids can learn sign and not suffer linguistically, why think that deaf kids will? Just askin...

Well said!!

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That is the whole point. You and the others seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend the fact that Bi-Bi does not preclude the development of spoken language.

Just to be clear. You're saying that in the Bi-Bi approach, deaf children are taught ASL first to gain their vocabulary then they are taught spoken English, correct? Are there minimal standards for the spoken English aspect? It seems that you do not place much importance in speech, so it seems that you have the mentality of "She doesn't speak intelligible enough, but hey she has great language/writing skills, so thats enough for me! A+!!!!"

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

There is the problem. You really have no information at your disposal regarding that which you propose to argue against.

So enlighten me.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

The best way I can explain what I believe:

Ideal - I would rather start off trying to teach the child orally (This is what I'd do to my own deaf child if I had one). And if the child does not have the capability, then do SL (I am saying SL right now because I haven't gotten enough information/experience to decide ASL vs SEE vs whatever). And make sure my child would eventually catch up in developing in all aspect, including speech.

Practical - However, based on some people's posts here (and it's happened to a family member of mine) forcing an incapable deaf child to do oral speech for a while can have repercussions and delays. So for a general method (if I HAD to pick one) it would be Bi Bi approach, because they would GAIN at LEAST one language out of the two as opposed to limited to one more difficult language that they may or may not master.

I do find oral skills important, especially after college. So there is a lot of time there to gain oral skills. I just hope the deaf people who started with ASL get a LOT of support to do oral skills. I am not convinced that this is happening.

Why are you not convinced this is happening? Because some of them are simply incapable of developing oral skills? It is more important that they develop communication skills, and critical thinking skills, and abstract thinking skills, and literacy skills than that they develop oral skills. A person with all of the above and less of the oral component will have a much greater chance at living a productive life and being well adjusted than the one with a lesser degree of the above, but the ability to mimic speech.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I'm probably going to be attacked for saying this but.... it seems to be there is a disproportionate number of higher education deaf people in terms of majors. It seems to me that a lot of them are studying deaf education which allows them to stay in the ASL world. I find absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to teach deaf children and expand the education for deaf people. In an ideal world, there should be the same demographics in deaf college as in a hearing college. Lets say that 10% of hearing college people want to be teachers, shouldn't there be also 10% of deaf college people who want to be teachers? It seems that it's not the case, and the reason why I'm bringing this up is because it may be evidence that deaf people use ASL as a clutch.

Then you need to widen your horizons. Deaf people in other majors abound.

Perhaps the ones you are ferring to stick with deaf education because they have suffered under the current education policies and, as a result, have an exceptional passion for insuring that it doesn't continue to happen to other deaf children.

And the comment regarding deaf people using ASL as a crutch is one of the most audist statements that have been made in this discussion. Are blind students who use braille or a screen reader relying on a crutch?

imdeafsowhat · 10-03-2008, 11:12 AM

SEE > ASL or SEE < ASL.

SEE can be the same as spoken language only you don't speak, you sign.

Truly, SEE is ASL but English, not American.

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Historically, and for the large majority of deaf individuals, oralism does not work. If it worked for you, great. But hisotrically, and for the large majority of deaf individuals, oralism has not worked. However, I'm sure that A.G. Bell would be happy to use your singualr example as proof that it does. In that way, they can continue to perpetuate a system that actually handicaps deaf children far more than their deafness ever has.

I could use the same logic for Bi-Bi approach. "Clueless parents of deaf people, there's about 20 methods out there, but ya know what? The Bi-bi approach is more successful. Jillio spent 20 years researching and collecting facts in a systematic manner. Since it works for the majority of deaf children, it MUST work for your child. Don't even bother researching since Jillio did it all."

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

And the comment regarding deaf people using ASL as a crutch is one of the most audist statements that have been made in this discussion. Are blind students who use braille or a screen reader relying on a crutch?

I use lipreading as a crutch. Hearing people use their ears as a crutch. A crutch (in this sense) is what people use for primary means of communication. My family uses Spanish as a crutch. They can speak English well but they get frustrated when they talk fast while telling a story and inadvertently go back to Spanish.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

The best way I can explain what I believe:

Ideal - I would rather start off trying to teach the child orally (This is what I'd do to my own deaf child if I had one). And if the child does not have the capability, then do SL (I am saying SL right now because I haven't gotten enough information/experience to decide ASL vs SEE vs whatever). And make sure my child would eventually catch up in developing in all aspect, including speech.

Practical - However, based on some people's posts here (and it's happened to a family member of mine) forcing an incapable deaf child to do oral speech for a while can have repercussions and delays. So for a general method (if I HAD to pick one) it would be Bi Bi approach, because they would GAIN at LEAST one language out of the two as opposed to limited to one more difficult language that they may or may not master.

I do find oral skills important, especially after college. So there is a lot of time there to gain oral skills. I just hope the deaf people who started with ASL get a LOT of support to do oral skills. I am not convinced that this is happening.

The above bolded statement sums it up quite nicely. Deaf children have had things done to them for 200 years, and with no evidence that all we do to them is successful over the lifespan at all. It is about time that we stopped doing things to deaf children and started doing things for deaf children...such as providing them with a linguistic environment that gives them the same opportunity for educational achievement that we provide for hearing children. It is time we started doing things with deaf children, such as communicating with them about the world around them in a manner that allows them to develop the critical thinking skills that will facillitate their success across domains.

10-03-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Thought u were laughing along with RD about some of us not having brains. See that's what happens..one can interpret the giggly face differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Please correct the post above where you say lauging with RD about some of us not having brains. Just take out "along with RD" and your post will be correct.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Jiro said that oralism will obviously not work for those who are severe/profoundly deaf. I was merely asking if he doesn't think I fall into the category of sever/profoundly deaf since oralism worked for me.

Why is it when we attempt to discuss the issues from the perspective of what works/doesn't work for the majority, you insist on bringing the discussion back to you personally? Can you step outside of yourself for even just a minute? Can you see past your own nose to the thousands of deaf children that are suffering language delays and inadequate education on a daily basis? This isn't about you. This is about the deaf children as a whole population. Look at the bigger picture. You continually use yourself as indication of something working while ignoring completely those the system has failed. Are you proposing that we simply let their needs go unmet just to have the opportunity to hold yourself up as some kind of poster child for the audists?

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

He's wrong, if it doesn't work, then why do I have an excellent speech skills?, most people thinks I'm hearing, when I tell them I'm not, I'm deaf. They wouldn't believe it.

Just because you are able to speak well does not indicate that you don't still suffer from language problems.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Also, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to convince anyone that oral skills are the best. I want people to convince ME that Bi Bi approach is the best for the majority. While I believe that one size does not fit all, I also believe that a majority of deaf people will have best success with one general method.

Yep, they will, and Bi-Bi is that method. Why? Because it addresses the needs of the majority in an all inclusive way.

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The above bolded statement sums it up quite nicely. Deaf children have had things done to them for 200 years, and with no evidence that all we do to them is successful over the lifespan at all. It is about time that we stopped doing things to deaf children and started doing things for deaf children...such as providing them with a linguistic environment that gives them the same opportunity for educational achievement that we provide for hearing children. It is time we started doing things with deaf children, such as communicating with them about the world around them in a manner that allows them to develop the critical thinking skills that will facillitate their success across domains.

I'm sorry, but you're just lying to yourself. That's a nice way to think about things. A child cannot make choices by him/herself, it is up to the parent/guardian to make a choice on what to do TO the child. Example: You FORCE feed the child with what YOU think is healthy. You don't display food options in front of a 2 month old baby and say "You pick what you want. You will learn for yourself." You force a child to go to a specific school, you force a child to learn your ways at home (You eat with a fork like this.), and so on. You're talking about giving them opportunities, but they have to have the capability to realize what an opportunity is in order to take advantage of it. We are talking about kids who are 1-3 years old.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

You keep forgetting that every deaf child is an individual who will responds differently to different methods. If someone will do a totally neutral study, you'll find that there is no best approach for the whole deaf population. I don't see it in the studies that Bi Bi was the best approach out of all the others. Only that it was a successful program so far.. so far.. so far.. so far.. still there are not enough bi bi programs out there. You can't force people including hearing parents to put their children in a bi bi program just because you believe this program works better for the deaf population.

No Cheri, I am not forgetting that each deaf child is an individual. You seem to be forgetting that deaf children are educated as a group.

Hearing children are individuals, as well, but they, also, are educated under one methodological umbrella using one fundamental philosophy as a group.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

So enlighten me.

I suggest you spend some time making the effort to enlighten yourself. It would make your arguments oh, so much more credible.

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Would it have mattered if I came up with a procedure anyway? You will simply say that I do not have the research/statistics to back me up. You keep relying on "the experts", and yet you dismiss the very same "experts" who say to teach speech. There are "experts" who say oralism first and there are "experts" who say ASL first. You know why? Because they PERSONALLY experience more success with one method they are employing. Shel90 is PERSONALLY experiencing more success with her (or her program's) method of ASL first. My speech therapist is PERSONALLY experiencing more success with her method of oralism first. I can ask her how she knew that oralism is meant for me. In fact, I'll email her and tell you her response, because I'm curious myself.

Yes, it would matter. It would indicate that you have actually thought through the situation enough to come up with a solution. It would show that you actually have a way to remediate those situations that continue to come into play and create dealys for the deaf child. It would actually add validity to your propposal. As it stands, that is the one thing that stands in the way of what you propose actually being effective in practice. If you can't take your theory and put it into practice, it is useless.

10-03-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Why is it when we attempt to discuss the issues from the perspective of what works/doesn't work for the majority, you insist on bringing the discussion back to you personally? Can you step outside of yourself for even just a minute? Can you see past your own nose to the thousands of deaf children that are suffering language delays and inadequate education on a daily basis? This isn't about you. This is about the deaf children as a whole population. Look at the bigger picture. You continually use yourself as indication of something working while ignoring completely those the system has failed. Are you proposing that we simply let their needs go unmet just to have the opportunity to hold yourself up as some kind of poster child for the audists?

Where is the evidence that starting with ASL works for the majority over starting with spoken language. I am ready to jump on the bandwagon if you show me the evidence that has been scrutinized by peer review that suggests this. Please if you don't mind.

**Daredevel7** · 10-03-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Why is it when we attempt to discuss the issues from the perspective of what works/doesn't work for the majority, you insist on bringing the discussion back to you personally? Can you step outside of yourself for even just a minute? Can you see past your own nose to the thousands of deaf children that are suffering language delays and inadequate education on a daily basis? This isn't about you. This is about the deaf children as a whole population. Look at the bigger picture. You continually use yourself as indication of something working while ignoring completely those the system has failed. Are you proposing that we simply let their needs go unmet just to have the opportunity to hold yourself up as some kind of poster child for the audists?

Getting a little mean there...

I'm asking if there is a way to accommodate BOTH the "thousands of deaf children" and the "poster children". You said no. Simply no.

That's not convincing to me.

Also, I am talking about "me" because I am sharing my EXPERIENCES. I don't get it. I get attacked for not knowing much about ASL because I don't have experience with ASL. And yet I get accused of "talking about myself a lot" because I DO have experience with oralism.

How can I go by right with you, Jillio?

jillio · 10-03-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Just to be clear. You're saying that in the Bi-Bi approach, deaf children are taught ASL first to gain their vocabulary then they are taught spoken English, correct? Are there minimal standards for the spoken English aspect? It seems that you do not place much importance in speech, so it seems that you have the mentality of "She doesn't speak intelligible enough, but hey she has great language/writing skills, so thats enough for me! A+!!!!"

No, that is not what I am saying at all. You really need to stop equating speech with language. That is where you are making your fatal error in logic.

And who will be better able to function at a higher level? A person who goes through the educational system and cannot read above a 4th grade level but has intelligable speech, or one who has gone through the educational system and does not have intelligable speech but can discuss the intracacies of Quantum Physics through manual language and in written English?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

10-03-2008, 11:12 AM	#526 (permalink)
imdeafsowhat Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: The Golden Coast Posts: 1,983	SEE > ASL or SEE < ASL. SEE can be the same as spoken language only you don't speak, you sign. Truly, SEE is ASL but English, not American.