Frisky Feline

Quarrel Over Deaf Education Flares Again | Indy's News Center - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis - Live. Local. First.

One advocacy group is demanding more deaf people on a panel that will create a new outreach center for deaf children.

A battle over whether the deaf should speak or use American Sign Language has raged since the days of Alexander Graham Bell. Legislators this year voted to create an outreach center to ensure parents receive unbiased information about their options. But Tami Hossler with the Indiana Deaf Education Coalition complains a 24-member steering committee overseeing the transition to that center has just four deaf members -- she says the deaf should hold at least half the seats.

Hossler says the coalition supports the creation of the center, which is intended to spare the Indiana School for the Deaf from making recommendations in which it has its own interests. But the IDEC is openly suspicious of the Daniels administration after a dustup last year over the governor's appointments to the deaf school's board. Activists charged then that the new appointments tilted the board against ASL.

Avon Senator Pete Miller helped set up the panel at the state Office of Management and Budget before entering the Senate. He says specific numbers aren't critical because the panel isn't a voting board. He says what's important is that all voices are represented. Miller says a blast email criticizing the panel was sent while the first meeting, including coalition members, was still in session.

The bill establishing the center called for the transition panel to represent at least 15 stakeholding groups, including deaf adults, parents of deaf children, and the groups Hear Indiana and Hands and Voices.

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

MissLady

This is really interesting. I was just at ISD for a workshop and a lot of the people there were talking about this issue. I agree with Tami- the Deaf should have more of a say in this one.

Mountain Man

"A battle over whether the deaf should speak or use American Sign Language has raged since the days of Alexander Graham Bell."

The problem with this battle is that it seems that those on one side of the divide blatantly ignore the fact that some Deaf people are simply incapable of oral communication, or at least effective oral communication.

It also ignores the fact that it's not just about language but about culture. Many hearing people seem hesitant or plain unwilling to accept that Deaf is a legitimate culture with a rich history and heritage, and that the debate is as much about cultural preservation as it is about language preservation.

I think the Deaf members are right in this case, that the board should have an equal representation of Deaf people. In this day and age, nobody would even consider putting together a task force centered on black issues with a majority of members being white. This is no different.

Things like this really frustrate me, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Grayma

I don't know, either, but you made fantastic points here. Maybe sending this as a letter to the editor to the Indianapolis paper is at least something better than nothing. It might educate somebody.

deafdyke

.

Not to mention that those on the oral side of the debate BLATENTLY ignore the fact that oral training does not 100% equalize dhh kids. It's a good tool to have, and I would always encourage parents of dhh kids to pursue speech. The therapists and theorists who theorize that spoken language skills will allow unfettered access to the hearing world, are CLUELESS. God, putting a hearing aid/CI on a dhh kid doesn't make them hearing, in the same way that a woman using a strap on doesn't make them a man. Isn't a full toolbox better?
ANd yes Mountain Man, the oral experts seem to not realize that the Hearing Health route is freaking boring.

MissLady

I like the full toolbox idea. Why not just accept whatever works for a particular person? We're not all cookie cutter gingerbread people; what works for one kid may not work for another. I don't understand the whole EITHER/OR dichotomy when it comes to speech and sign. Why not both? Why not see what the kid has an aptitude for or whatever is manageable for him/her in his/her specific life?

AlleyCat

Exactly. I don't see the need for either/or as well. Why not give the children everything and figure out later what is/isn't needed? To not give a kid something because "it's too much work" or "where would we use this??" is just selfish. Give everything a shot, make changes later as needed.

Mountain Man

It's a tricky thing, really. Sometimes people are so insistent on a Deaf child learning to communicate orally that they're unwilling to give it up even when it's clearly not happening, and it can lead to putting less emphasis on signed communication in favor of other modes which is ultimately detrimental to the child.

My philosophy has always been to focus on the language that you know the child has access to and worry about other languages later. The important thing is language acquisition. Bilingualism is more of a luxury than a necessity.

MissLady

I am not sure that I agree with your last statement, although I like your philosophy.

That being said, bilinguals are better equipped to navigate the hearing world (because ASL does not have a written form). I am not one of those people who say FOCUS ON SPEECH BECAUSE IT'S A HEARING WORLD!!

Au contraire; people who don't speak can get by just as those who do. It should never be an either/or in my mind. I have seen many people whose parents were focused only on oralism; if their kids aren't skilled with it, they still insist. I think that's tough for their kids.

Having said that, I still believe in bilingualism. If you are literate enough in English to read and write documents, I believe that places you head and shoulders over someone who can't read or write and has to have everything explained to him/her through someone else's understanding. I think there's more agency associated with bilingualism; you can read it for yourself, write it for yourself, and can think for yourself as opposed to having to take someone else's opinion (and their thought world, their filters) for it. Just my two cents.

CSign

deafdyke

And the thing is, voice off ASLers are pretty rare overall right? Even a lot of DODAs get intense speech therapy. Even at schools for the Deaf.

GrendelQ

You mean at oral schools, DD? At my daughter's school for the Deaf, the language of instruction and interaction is ASL, there's not an emphasis on speech therapy. Once you hit ~2nd grade, even the kids with auditory access are limited to an ELA class in which spoken English may be used, otherwise, it's a very intentionally voices-off environment. If you are looking for intense speech therapy, they advise you to choose an oral school where such resources are available.

__________________

deafdyke

No, I mean schools for the deaf in general. I think that TLC is kinda out of the norm for deaf schools, in that it does offer spefic dhh friendly speech therapy as a supplement...but at most deaf schools, kids do get a very hefty dose of speech therapy...not nessarily as intense as you'd see at oral schools, but the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies.

GrendelQ

At what school for the deaf is the case, as you say: "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies" ? Can you name one or two that the use auditory oral approach?

__________________

VacationGuy234

This issue of the number of people on the panel will only be an issue based on how they reach an agreement. If it is a non-voting panel and the results include the input of all parties, I don't see a problem with the number of people representing the panel. On the other hand, if the consensus is reached through majority opinion then perhaps the numbers should be revisited. Bottom line: How does the panel report?

As to why not teach the kids everything (an admirable conclusion): The issue, like most, involves time and money (which are usually the same thing). Does the state have the resources for this solution? If not, the panel itself is really just window dressing.

__________________

Mountain Man

I'm not talking about reading and writing but everyday face to face communication. If a Deaf child is hitting a linguistic brick wall acquiring an oral language then I think that's a good indication that it should be dropped in favor of ensuring a mastery of sign language. Think of it this way: time spent in intensive speech therapy is time taken away from sign language acquisition.

In my son's case, he could discern and copy individual speech sounds like "ooh", "ah", "oh", etc., but he couldn't distinguish between different words like "blue" and "yellow". It was also noted that his sign language skills lagged behind those of a typical Deaf child, so we dropped the oral training and intensified his ASL exposure, and in the past several months, his ASL skills have improved dramatically.

I'm not against children learning multiple languages if they can, but mastery of a primary language is by far the most crucial. A Deaf child who masters ASL and has a fundamental understanding of language is better equipped to learn and master English than a child who is technically bilingual but struggles with both languages.

VacationGuy234

I will agree here because having good communication with your teacher when learning a language does help so perhaps a two step process can be of value.

__________________

deafdyke

How about most of them?
The difference between a School for the Deaf and an oral school/program is that an oral school EXCLUSIVLY concentrates on auditory oral. Almost all Deaf schools (with the exception of Utah Schools) offer oppertunties for kids to develop their auditory oral skills. Some of them even have formal auditory oral PROGRAMS/classrooms beyond preschool:
New York School for the Deaf - Auditory Oral Program
Maryland School for the Deaf has a system where there are voice on periods as well as oral training offered.
I know Horace Mann offers a variety of approaches including an auditory oral program, but the site is down now
St. Joseph School for the Deaf
Phoinix Day School for the Deaf
AZ State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Arizona School for the deaf and blind: AZ State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
(same as above)
and far too many others to list now.

deafdyke

AND, one of our ex posters who is a TOD has said that there are now oral classes popping up at many if not most schools for the Deaf, to support instruction in learning and understanding spoken language.

GrendelQ

I see, so going through your list it looks like you've not yet found one school for the deaf that meets your blanket description of deaf schools in general, not one school for the deaf where "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies"?

Ask one of the ex posters who is a TOD if she thinks that at maryland school for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies." I don't think you can possibly be at all familiar with auditory-oral methodology if you think that this is what the majority of students experience at non-oral schools for the deaf.

By the way, are you aware that the needs of deaf-blind students are quite different from those of deaf students and such schools are not interchangeable with schools for the deaf in terms of providing appropriate academic services?

__________________

deafdyke

Grendel, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?
Almost all bi-bi schools offer auditory-oral style services. Not nessarily an old school auditory oral exclusive education, but intense good quality auditory oral services as part of a bilingal bicultral education yes!

GrendelQ

Quite a few, but no, I don't know of a bi-bi school that offers Clarke style interventions and speech therapies, or auditory-oral services for the majority of students. "Intense good quality auditory oral services" for the student body are not part of the bilingual bicultural model. If that's what you are looking for, you attend an auditory oral school, not a bi-bi school like Indiana, TLC, or MSD.

Are you a closet auditory-oral proponent? I can't think of why you insist on this fantasy you have that using an auditory-oral approach, that requiring "intense good quality auditory oral services," is in place today for the majority of students in bi-bi schools for the deaf or would be appropriate for the majority of students at non-oral schools for the deaf.

__________________

deafdyke

Yes, they are. Development of oral skills IS a part of bilingal bicultural education.
And no, I am NOT a closet auditory-oral advocate. What I am an advocate for is smashing the myth that just b/c a program/student uses ASL, it means that kids cannot develop spoken language skills. I am an advocate for bi bi programs having good spoken language services and programs, so that kids can have the best of both worlds.

GrendelQ

You keep saying that at non-oral schools for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies" and now upping the ante to describe "intense" auditory oral services as a part of the bilingual-bicultural model. You may think these things should be in place, but they aren't. Seriously, if you want to make such bizarre claims about bi-bi schools employing Clarke-style auditory-oral methodologies and intense speech therapies for the majority of students, first contact the admissions office or the headmasters/ principals of any of these schools and talk to them about their philosophies, their services. See if any of them would agree with your description.

Why don't you contact Indiana or TLC and ask to sit through a day with their middle school students. Contact Clarke and sit through a day with theirs. I've done this in several schools. When you see it in real life there's a world of difference in the student experience.

__________________

Jiro

or..... why don't you simply ignore deafdyke?

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

CSign

Both the California Schools for the Deaf employ the Bi-Bi philosophy, however there is no direct instruction in spoken language. The only people speaking there are typically visitors, and those visitors have an interpreter.

I'm also quite certain that very few students (if any) who attend the CA schools for the Deaf have speech therapy. In fact, if a student were to have it on their IEP the district would need to provide a SLP. Im about 99% sure they don't have one on staff.

CSign

The Auditory-Oral methodology is in direct opposition to what most traditional (ASL using) schools for the deaf stand for.

Cloggy

deafdyke, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?

__________________