Deaf education: Oralism

Many older Deaf people learned ASL from their "Dorm-Mother" or "Dorm-Father" [dorm counselor] or the older students at a residential school for the Deaf.

[Note: Times are changing. There is quite a bit of turnover in the dorm counselor positions these days. You almost never hear dorm counselors referred to as "Dorm Mother" any more.
There is very little stability these days. Many Deaf Schools have been and are being shut down for so-called "financial reasons," (or the hearing administrators just don't realize that oftentimes a
Deaf school is indeed the Least Restrictive Environment.)]

Sandy: Are more schools using signing now to teach deaf children?

DrVicars: Oh yes! A major change in philosophy for most of the schools out there. It started
happening in the mid-eighties. (Some say earlier, some say later.)

Now signing is becoming very popular with all the youth, and so it stands to reason that as the
general population starts thinking of sign language as "cool," more schools will be willing to
adopt it.

Sandy: Thank goodness - what was their major objection - to the point of tying hands?

DrVicars: Actually it was beyond just tying hands, it was to the point of maiming hands. They
used to whack you with a stick. First offense they would slap your hand. Second offense they
would place your hand on your desk and whack it with a ruler. Third offense, you would have to
stand behind the teacher's desk. She would open the right front drawer and place your fingers
in it. Then she would shove you from behind so that as you fell forward, your weight and
momentum would slam the drawer shut on your fingers.

Sandy:

DrVicars: I'm not making that up. I have older friends who experienced it.

Lii: The school I volunteer at actually uses some signs for some hearing kids who have trouble
communicating through verbal means. Some autistic kids are even using sign language to
communicate.

DrVicars: That's great! Right Lii, I see lots of schools using signing with their communicative
disorder-type kids these days. It really seems to help!

Monica: Many schools and colleges in Florida offer signing as a foreign language!

DrVicars: Good! Many of the states are offering it as a foreign language now. Utah passed a
law requiring the acceptance of ASL in fulfillment of foreign language requirements at all
institutions of higher education throughout the state.
KC: An authority figure here told me "the deaf prefer to speak!" I think she is wrong.

DrVicars: and I agree with you KC, she is wrong!

[Authors' note: "Let's not be stereotypical here--MANY "physically deaf" people DO prefer to
speak. Culturally Deaf people prefer to sign. Heck, my wife is legally deaf, her first language was ASL, but she ends up voicing much more than signing--because it makes it much easier to get along in the hearing world. Three of my children are hearing. Their teachers are hearing. Their friends are hearing. The neighbors are hearing. Sarah's bus driver and aide are hearing. The granparents are hearing. Belinda is in a hearing world--whether she likes it or not. But since she is d/Deaf she would prefer that EVERYBODY in the entire world knew sign language and used it around her. Can you see their are many sides to this argument?]

DrVicars: The Deaf would prefer to sign and you ALL to sign But that brings up an
important point. There are many deaf out there who believe oralism is the way to go. There is a
whole camp of people out there who believe that it is morally wrong to teach deaf kids to sign
because they say that will slow down their development. My philosophy is "Why not learn
both?" Learn signing first, then go ahead and learn to lipread and speak to whatever extent you
have a facility for it. I've read some studies that support the idea that signing actually helps
facilitate the development of speech! Please realize that not everybody can pick up speech and
lipreading, just as not everybody can get the hang of surfing or skateboarding. It doesn't mean
you are less intelligent. It just means you are intelligent in other areas! If you meet someone
who feels lipreading is the best way to go, relax, maybe it's the best way to go for THEM.

Lii: ASL is a fun language to learn and use. It's also a very beautiful language to watch.

DrVicars: Yes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 4/3/2006 6:21:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, carolr27@ writes:
Hey Dr. Bill, Thank you for your work. I enjoy all of your opinions! I am hearing, but have a 5 year old grandson whom was born deaf and has a CE. He goes to the Clarke School for the deaf in MA, but they only believe in vocal communication. I love to sign to him. Clarke is AWESOME, but why don't they encourage ASL? I understand the fact that they want them to vocalize, but a deaf child/adult will always need the ability to sign. They are deaf and regardless if they have an implant they will need to communicate I am curious about your opinion.
Oralists believe that by not providing the option to sign they are helping children by forcing them to develop oral communication skills.
My opinion is simply that every decision we make in life involves a trade off.
Time spent teaching a child to talk could have been invested teaching that child to sign.
As with any decision you have to weigh the costs against the benefits--both long term and immediate.
As with any purchase you have to ask yourself, am I getting the best value for my money?
The moment you start talking about "values" you will find yourself surrounded with controversy because people value different things.
Some parents value having a child who can communicate orally.
Other parents value making sure that a child has maximum early cognitive development.
Some parents value having a child that speaks the same language as them.
Other parents value new experiences and are willing to learn whatever language best fits the need of their child.
Some parents feel it is better to be able to communicate in a stilted manner with millions of people.
Other parents feel it is better to be able to communicate fluently with a smaller number of people.
The best decision as to the communication mode of a child will depend on many factors.
Are the parents cognitively and situationally capable of effectively learning a second language? Some adults are simply not going to succeed at picking up sign language at their stage in life.
Does the family live in an area where there is a strong Deaf community and opportunities for signed communication? How much residual hearing does the child possess? Is there a Deaf School nearby? What does the child want? Are there other Deaf children around who are using a particular mode of communication?
You asked about my opinion. So I'll give it. I feel that, in general, Deaf children are better off growing up bilingual and literate. By bilingual I mean: having exposure to both languages throughout the week. I'm not talking about simultaneous voicing and signing, but rather signed ASL and written English, along with formal instruction in both languages. I feel some children can and do benefit significantly from speech training. However, if it is apparent that a child will not benefit significantly from speech training there is no point in continuing to waste his time. The time should be (much) better invested expanding the child's visual gestural communication abilities. Additionally I feel, (and research backs me up on the fact), that learning ASL actually enhances a child's ability to learn English.
Cordially,
Dr. Bill

Click to expand...

Buffalo said:

There was the teacher in my oral school for the deaf, who would use a piece of wood, the size of blackboard eraser, to rap the hand of a kid for misbehaving and using sign language. I was careful when I had her for a school year. A friend of mine who was a grade behind me, was not so lucky.

Once I remember a teacher getting frustrated with me for not able to say 'cow' right, punished me by putting me on the floor behind her. She did the same with other kids, I think, for not able to say 'cow'. There were about 5 or 6 of us when she finally let us go. Looking back, I think she had a bad day but she had no right to do that to us. This was preschool!

I took advantage of two quarters of speech therapy in college. Boy, that was very different. The teacher got me to stop talking nasally. I remember the preschool teacher holding my nose once and I didn't understand it and was sort of scared. Now, I can't talk nasally if I want to.

I am all for sign language in schools and parents/family should learn it as well. It not only benefits deaf people, it benefits hearing people as well. Suppose a hearing person lost his/her hearing to old age but can't have CI due to frail body to undergo surgery or can't afford it or afraid of surgery, and he/she will not be left out of family conversation if everybody know sign language. There are many many use for sign language that hearing people can think of. Really!

Education is a huge thing to me and pro-oralists really foul things up for us deaf people big time. I also don't like the oral school I went to because I felt they dumbed us down by few grades. I knew something is wrong when I learnt more at home from books than I do from that school.

Click to expand...

Buffalo said:

There was the teacher in my oral school for the deaf, who would use a piece of wood, the size of blackboard eraser, to rap the hand of a kid for misbehaving and using sign language. I was careful when I had her for a school year. A friend of mine who was a grade behind me, was not so lucky.

Once I remember a teacher getting frustrated with me for not able to say 'cow' right, punished me by putting me on the floor behind her. She did the same with other kids, I think, for not able to say 'cow'. There were about 5 or 6 of us when she finally let us go. Looking back, I think she had a bad day but she had no right to do that to us. This was preschool!

I took advantage of two quarters of speech therapy in college. Boy, that was very different. The teacher got me to stop talking nasally. I remember the preschool teacher holding my nose once and I didn't understand it and was sort of scared. Now, I can't talk nasally if I want to.

I am all for sign language in schools and parents/family should learn it as well. It not only benefits deaf people, it benefits hearing people as well. Suppose a hearing person lost his/her hearing to old age but can't have CI due to frail body to undergo surgery or can't afford it or afraid of surgery, and he/she will not be left out of family conversation if everybody know sign language. There are many many use for sign language that hearing people can think of. Really!

Education is a huge thing to me and pro-oralists really foul things up for us deaf people big time. I also don't like the oral school I went to because I felt they dumbed us down by few grades. I knew something is wrong when I learnt more at home from books than I do from that school.

Click to expand...

rockdrummer said:

I am curious as to what year this occured in. Nowadays this kind of thing will not only get a teacher arrested for assult but will also get them fired. I understand the pain and frustration with the old methods but I also believe we have evolved since then and have changed and I don't think this abuse happens anymore. If it does then it's up to the victims to speak out and get those individuals arrested for assult. Teacher or not NOBODY has the right to strike a student for any reason. PERIOD!!

Click to expand...

jillio said:

Why do you have such a hard time believing what these deaf individuals tell you, rd?

Click to expand...

rockdrummer said:

What makes you think I don't believe them?

Click to expand...

jillio said:

Post #4 "I don't think this abuse happens anymore." "We have evolved and changed...."

Click to expand...

rockdrummer said:

I'm sorry but I dont' see how post #4 gives any impression that I don't believe what others are telling me about such abuse. And to be clear its the physical abuse as mentioned in the post I was responding to that I am referring to.

Click to expand...

jillio said:

I assumed that it wa the physical abuse that you were referencing; that's why I mentioned the other types of abuse that are still going on in oral only programs. Even something as not responding to a child who is using sign instead of speech, or making them repeat something again and again because of poor pronunciation (outside of a speech terapy session, that is) is more subtle, but abusive just the same. And I might add, that this is quite often, not intentional, but a consequence of the way oral teachers are trained. But whether intentional, or not, it has the same effect on the deaf child.

Click to expand...

rockdrummer said:

So again tell me how my comment leads you to think that I don't believe what others have told me.

Click to expand...

rick48 said:

"If anything has changed, it is only that kids aren't getting hit. At least not by teachers, the bulllies on the palyground in mainstream placements dothat job now. But the oral only attitude still exists, and it is still creating harm for deaf children."

As usual, there is the obligatory derrogatory comment towards mainstreaming and/or the oral approach. Does anyone really think that teachers in the mainstream are using bullies acting as their agents to hit deaf children? Does anyone seriously believe that teachers in the mainstream condone either directly or indirectly the use of other children to hit deaf children?

Where did you see the statement, or even the implication, that teachers are using bullies acting as their agents. Who said anything about this action being condoned? Are you saying that it doesn't happen to deaf children in the mainstream?

Why is there a reference to mainstreaming at all as the comments were directed at the oral schools and programs?
The majority of oral programs are located withint he public school system. That would be, by any definition, mainstreaming.
Are we to believe that there are absolutely no bullies in schools for the Deaf? That they are each their own little utopia, just one big lovefest where everyone exists in blissful peace and harmony?

There are bullies everywhere. You are evidence of that. However, the social situation at deaf schools is much more conducive to normal social development that that at public, mainstreamed schools. The soical environment is one of inclusion, not exclusion.

Also to say that the oral only approach to education harms children is not true and misleading.
How so? Elaborate, please.
I personally know many children and adults who were educated that way and enjoyed their experiences. I also know other children and adults for whom it was not proper approach. Oral only, like any approach or method for educating a deaf child, is not an approach for every deaf child and it is one that parents should closely monitor, no in fact, parents should closely monitor any approach/method that they select for their child.

RD's statement as to his beliefs about the present neither minimizes the past experiences of others nor does it constitute any evidence whatsoever that he does not believe those past experiences occurred.

Sadly, you used his statements to serve as a platform for you to further your anti-oral agenda. There are many children and adults who enjoyed and are enjoying their mainstream education.

And there are many more that don't. And, how do you account for the decrease in literacy skills that has accompanied a revival of oralism?

For those of us who believe that there is no one way to raise and/or educate any child, even a deaf one, the issue is not black and white as you attempt to portray it to be. What may have been best for my child, is not necessarily what is best for someone else's. That does not make our choices right or wrong, just different.

Click to expand...

jillio said:

Why do you have such a hard time believing what these deaf individuals tell you, rd? That's what I don't understand. I can tell you whent hat happened, as I happen to know Buffalo is just a few years younger than myself. Mid-late 60's and early 70's.

Yes, corporal punishment has been outlawed. But children are still punished and ostracized for not using voice in oral programs, and they are still ostracized and punished for the use of sign in strict oral programs.

Jillo, I am not sure what type of oral programs you have observed but I can assure you that these things you say oral teacher do, they do not do. I should know since I am an oral teacher of deaf. I can tell you that when a child signs to me, I respond to that child with oral language. I acknowledge what he/she says and say it back to them in oral language. Please do not make references to oral teachers since you are not one, you do not know what we oral teachers do. I really would like to know what oral programs you have observed in the last 5 years that treat children this way.

Perhaps kids aren't getting beaten any more, but the punishment that is used today has just as much of a negative impact on that child's self esteem and adjustment as being beaten. The emotional pain leaves far worse scars.

Children in my class are not punished for not speaking. It is really mean for you to say that oral teacher like myself punish students for students not using their voice.

If anything has changed, it is only that kids aren't getting hit. At least not by teachers, the bulllies on the palyground in mainstream placements dothat job now. But the oral only attitude still exists, and it is still creating harm for deaf children.

Click to expand...

jillio said:

Post #4 "I don't think this abuse happens anymore." "We have evolved and changed...."

Click to expand...

jackiesolorzano said:

There are many things that have changed in educating deaf children with oral language. Being a somewhat new teacher (8 years teaching), I can tell right away when a student comes to me from another class if their oral teacher was a newer or older trained teacher. An example of this I have this student that when he uses his voice he would touch his neck or cover his mouth when speaking. This was the way oral teachers of the deaf were trained a long time ago. We no longer you this touchy feeling method as I call it.

Things have changed Jillo but since you are not an oral teacher of deaf how would you khow they train us newer teachers.

Click to expand...

jillio said:

How would I know? I see the results in the literacy rates of your students.

One thing has not changed. You are still attemptin to educate deaf children with the use of oral language only. No matter what color you paint it with, it is still the same.

Toward the end of the 19th century, the focus shifted fromthe education of deaf students as deaf students as disabled hearing people. This transformation can be seen as the result of medical and pedagogical forces toward the oralist philosophy. The medical perspective that defined deaf people and deafness as pathological and in need of treatment transformed educational goals nad influenced orientations held by hearing teachers, parents, and benefactors.

As Oliver Sacks so eloquently put it, "None of this would have mattered had oralism worked. But the effect, unhappily, was the reverse of what was desired--an intolerable price was paid for the acquisition of speech. Deaf students of the 1850's who had been tot he Hartford Asylum, or other such schools, were highly literate and educated--fully the equal of their hearing counterparts. Today the reverse is true. Oralism and the suppression of sign have resulted in a dramatic deterioration inthe educational achievement of deaf children and in the literacy of the deaf generally."

And, the article that was originally posted was in support of sign and speech in education of deaf children. As an oral teacher of the deaf, would you care to comment on the article?

Click to expand...

jillio said:

Would you now like to clarify and explain what you meant inthe earlier post you made regarding "the safe way"?

Click to expand...

rick48 said:

Whatever, the post speaks for itself so argue all you want but the issue is not black or white, hopefully parents will choose the best program for their child but if not, even more hopefully, they will be willing to make the changes necessary for the benefit of their child.

If its clarification you seek, then look at post #215 in the thread. If that doesn't help you too bad, but I have moved on and you can keep on arguing that the sky is not blue till the cows come home.

Click to expand...

jillio said:

I assumed that it wa the physical abuse that you were referencing; that's why I mentioned the other types of abuse that are still going on in oral only programs. Even something as not responding to a child who is using sign instead of speech, or making them repeat something again and again because of poor pronunciation (outside of a speech terapy session, that is) is more subtle, but abusive just the same. And I might add, that this is quite often, not intentional, but a consequence of the way oral teachers are trained. But whether intentional, or not, it has the same effect on the deaf child.

Click to expand...