Originally Posted by Reba

I'm sure I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say that "trends" have continually flowed thru Deaf education over the past couple hundred years in America. Oral vs. signing, SEE vs. ASL, residential vs. mainstream, bi-bi, total communication, cued speech, and so forth.

SEE was very "popular" for a period when the developers of it pushed hard to get it into all deaf ed programs (follow the money). Then, the pendulum swung towards ASL and bi-bi for a while, especially after the DPN movement, and a surge of Deaf pride and empowerment. The public schools had a dilemma. Most of their educational interpreters used variations of SEE and PSE but to be politically correct they wanted to use ASL in their programs. What to do? Well, they can tell everyone that they promote ASL but keep using PSE until that future day when they can hire more ASL terps. Guess what? That future day never arises in some schools.

Or some public mainstream schools decide that if the terps say they use ASL, and tell the Deaf students that, yes, this is ASL, maybe no one will notice that it's NOT ASL!

You can't imagine how many times I'm sent on an interpreting assignment to a consumer who has specifically requested ASL interpreting only to find out that they use very English PSE signing. They know that ASL is preferred in the Deaf community, so they insist that they are using ASL. I don't argue with Deaf consumers; I just adjust my signing to fit their needs without comment. As we chat, I find out that they attended mainstream programs, and that their only signing models were the educational interpreters or an occasional fellow Deaf student.

What I'm trying to say is, SEE never really went away. It just got shuffled around, took on a pseudonym, and laid low for a while. But it was still there.

SEE will always be "popular" with public school "educators" because it's easier for the hearing people to deal with.

Is "easier" the same as "better"? Is "popular" the same as "effective"? You be the judge.

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm sure I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say that "trends" have continually flowed thru Deaf education over the past couple hundred years in America. Oral vs. signing, SEE vs. ASL, residential vs. mainstream, bi-bi, total communication, cued speech, and so forth.

SEE was very "popular" for a period when the developers of it pushed hard to get it into all deaf ed programs (follow the money). Then, the pendulum swung towards ASL and bi-bi for a while, especially after the DPN movement, and a surge of Deaf pride and empowerment. The public schools had a dilemma. Most of their educational interpreters used variations of SEE and PSE but to be politically correct they wanted to use ASL in their programs. What to do? Well, they can tell everyone that they promote ASL but keep using PSE until that future day when they can hire more ASL terps. Guess what? That future day never arises in some schools.

Or some public mainstream schools decide that if the terps say they use ASL, and tell the Deaf students that, yes, this is ASL, maybe no one will notice that it's NOT ASL!

You can't imagine how many times I'm sent on an interpreting assignment to a consumer who has specifically requested ASL interpreting only to find out that they use very English PSE signing. They know that ASL is preferred in the Deaf community, so they insist that they are using ASL. I don't argue with Deaf consumers; I just adjust my signing to fit their needs without comment. As we chat, I find out that they attended mainstream programs, and that their only signing models were the educational interpreters or an occasional fellow Deaf student.

What I'm trying to say is, SEE never really went away. It just got shuffled around, took on a pseudonym, and laid low for a while. But it was still there.

SEE will always be "popular" with public school "educators" because it's easier for the hearing people to deal with.

Is "easier" the same as "better"? Is "popular" the same as "effective"? You be the judge.

Originally Posted by Reba

Just one more point (which others have also made).

ASL is its own language--it's not a "broken" or substandard version of any other language.

Just because an English speaker can't understand a French speaker, that doesn't mean the French person is speaking a "broken" language. The French person is using fluent French.


If someone signs SEE do we call it "broken ASL?"

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm sure I'm not telling anyone anything new when I say that "trends" have continually flowed thru Deaf education over the past couple hundred years in America. Oral vs. signing, SEE vs. ASL, residential vs. mainstream, bi-bi, total communication, cued speech, and so forth.

SEE was very "popular" for a period when the developers of it pushed hard to get it into all deaf ed programs (follow the money). Then, the pendulum swung towards ASL and bi-bi for a while, especially after the DPN movement, and a surge of Deaf pride and empowerment. The public schools had a dilemma. Most of their educational interpreters used variations of SEE and PSE but to be politically correct they wanted to use ASL in their programs. What to do? Well, they can tell everyone that they promote ASL but keep using PSE until that future day when they can hire more ASL terps. Guess what? That future day never arises in some schools.

Or some public mainstream schools decide that if the terps say they use ASL, and tell the Deaf students that, yes, this is ASL, maybe no one will notice that it's NOT ASL!

You can't imagine how many times I'm sent on an interpreting assignment to a consumer who has specifically requested ASL interpreting only to find out that they use very English PSE signing. They know that ASL is preferred in the Deaf community, so they insist that they are using ASL. I don't argue with Deaf consumers; I just adjust my signing to fit their needs without comment. As we chat, I find out that they attended mainstream programs, and that their only signing models were the educational interpreters or an occasional fellow Deaf student.

What I'm trying to say is, SEE never really went away. It just got shuffled around, took on a pseudonym, and laid low for a while. But it was still there.

SEE will always be "popular" with public school "educators" because it's easier for the hearing people to deal with.

Is "easier" the same as "better"? Is "popular" the same as "effective"? You be the judge.

Originally Posted by Angel

! Thanks for a really interesting post Reba.

When I was in total communication (TC) at a public school during my high school years, I learned to signed in SEE, I was thrilled that I understand better with signs than being oralism, After I graduate from high school, I was shocked to see how different other deaf people use in sign lauguages which was ASL, they were making fun of me simply because I signed in SEE so I decide to change it to ASL for them. I don't understand why some people can be quite picky on which signs others used. I think we should be proud that we know sign language no matter whether it's ASL, SEE or PSE and that's it.

Originally Posted by Angel

! Thanks for a really interesting post Reba.

When I was in total communication (TC) at a public school during my high school years, I learned to signed in SEE, I was thrilled that I understand better with signs than being oralism, After I graduate from high school, I was shocked to see how different other deaf people use in sign lauguages which was ASL, they were making fun of me simply because I signed in SEE so I decide to change it to ASL for them. I don't understand why some people can be quite picky on which signs others used. I think we should be proud that we know sign language no matter whether it's ASL, SEE or PSE.

Originally Posted by shel90

True...

I would rather have had SEE than oral but I got NOTHING!!! LOL!

Originally Posted by Angel

...After I graduate from high school, I was shocked to see how different other deaf people use in sign lauguages which was ASL, they were making fun of me simply because I signed in SEE...