Daredevel7

What I meant was that it seems like in order to make a "difference", we have to get it through the parents. I think this is a wrong way to go.

I could be wrong, but I think parents know more than you (general you) give them credit for. Sometimes it seems like people have the illusion that when they find out their child is deaf, then the evil audiologists/doctors/people force oralism down their throats, then they blindly accept it without looking at any other alternative. I don't think it's that simple.

Take Sweden for example. Seems like there's great education progress for the deaf there, right? Is this because more parents demanded sign language as the primary instruction for their kids? Or is it because Sweden developed a plan the deaf education and the parents saw it happening in the flesh and liked it?

Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

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

jillio

Given the incidence of deafness, the fact that 90% of deaf kids are born to hearing parents, and the vast majority of those have never had any kind of exposure to a deaf individual at the time of diagnosis, the medical perspective that is prevalent in first contact professionals, and a hearing parent's quite predictable and well documented initial reaction to receiving a diagnosis of deafness in their child, it is not so much that they "blindly accept", but that they are not provided sufficient and accurrate information regarding alternatives.

And no, it is because Sweden looked at the needs of their deaf students from a holistic perspective, instituted the programs that have been shown to be of the biggest benefit, and then set up a system that provides the programs necessary to achieve the goals. It is not a parental issue in Sweden. It is a greater societal issue in Sweden.

How exactly would you get the message out to parents who are insisting that problems do not exist within oral education?

Daredevel7

Who says they aren't aware? This is what I am saying. It's generally assumed that parents think that oralism has NO problems. I am saying most of them are AWARE of the repercussions, but choose to deem it as a sacrifice "for the greater good". They feel that the benefits of oralism outweighs the risks. Yes I understand that the risks outweigh the benefits in oralism but there seems to be no point in arguing in something they already know about. To make an impact, they need to know the benefits of a different program rather than the cons of a program. All programs have cons.

Jiro

hmmm... so which one has better cons than others? ASL-first program or Oral-first program?

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

jillio

Unfortunately, when one attempts to relate the benefits of another program, those benefits are countered with unrealistic and innaccurate claims regarding how oralism is for the "greater good" and will faciliate entrance into hearing culture in a way no other method can or will.

When one encounters innacurracies stated in this way, DD, the only way to counter act them is with accurate statements regarding other programs, and to substantiate exactly why these statements are innacurrate. How exactly do you propose to tell another that their ideas are innaccurate without showing them how they are innacurrate?

How can one make a reasonable comparison without all of the information? How does one know that the benefits they seek are best achieved through that means if the benefits of another means has not been compared accurately?
If they KNEW the risks outweighed the benefits, particularly from the wider perspective, I doubt seriously that they would make the decision that the sacrifice of their child's well being is "worth it".

These discussions are necessary. Parents need to hear it all. To attempt to block any information that might be valuable to their child is just not acceptable. To present innacuracies to other parents simply as a way to justify an individual's decision is not acceptable. The information regarding the psycho-social development of deaf children in various environments is important information for a parent to have and to consider. I for one will not hide it.

Daredevel7

Are you sure about the bolded above? A very common reason why parents do oralism is because the quality deaf schools are really far. So you either have to move or send them to a residential school.

Is oralism SO BAD, SO HORRIBLE, SO HORRIFYING? Enough to make most parents to move away from family, change jobs, etc.?

"the greater good" is not always only about speaking well.

Daredevel7

Oral first program definitely has more risks.

Jiro

unfortunately true...... it's sad that quite a handful of parents out there are not willing to make dramatic change in their life (such as moving, changing job, etc.) for their deaf kids

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

jillio

I don't know Daredevel. Do you know a lot of parents that would knowingly sacrifice their child's psycho social development for the sake of speech if they knew all of the implications?

You seem to be overlooking the fact that a child does not have to be in a residential program, or even in a deaf school, to not be in an oral program.

Why must everything become an emotionally charged discussion with you? Again with the extremes. It seems to be a clear pattern with oralists. All this either/or thinking is exactly what causes the divides, both educationally and psycho-socially.

Daredevel7

My name is Vicky and I am not an oralist. I was raised orally. There is a difference. I hate labels with a passion, except for my name.

It seems like you don't understand what I am going for here. I am giving you reasons why parents do what they do (in terms of raising kids orally). I am giving the opinion what parents would more likely respond to (which is a realistic alternative to oralism that doesn't involve drastic life changing events). I am more about action than showing statistics that could be easily interpreted in different ways.

Daredevel7

How did Sweden get a standardized deaf education?

Bottesini

Major government control with less free will?

__________________

jillio

Okay, Vicky. And yes, I do understand what you are going for here. And I am showing you why what you are going for is really not going to be effective. This isn't about statistics. It is about providing the information that shows that there are certain effects to an oral only environment whose existence is being denied by a good many oralists. When I provide that information without a citation, I am railroaded for not citing a source. When I provide the actual research that supports what I say, I am accused of relying too heavily on statisitics. The problem here is not whether the information is available, it is whether people will accept it. First it's nothing but opinion, then it is nothing but statistics. It could be supported 1,000,0000 different ways, and there are those that would still try to find a way to discount that which has been supported and studied over and over and over again, simply because it interferes with the little schema they refuse to let go of. There are those that will refuse to synthesize information simply because it is too uncomfortable for them to revise their fundamental beliefs, no matter how innacurrate those beliefs can be shown to be.

And I am about action as well. I not only present the information, I act on the information.

jillio

Different societal views, different priorities, different governmental system.

Jiro

well hello Vicky of Alabama. I'm Jiro from NJ and I was raised orally too. so you're that type - "Less Talk, More Action"

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

dreama

How about if the parents of deaf enroll at a local baby sign programme. Since that is getting more popular with hearing babies then a mother of a deaf baby will have those classes to go to too.

Then when the baby knows a few signs and if mother has busy sceducle their is the possiblility of looking into the local deaf club. I don't know if deaf clubs have mother and toddler sessions but if not it would be a good idea to start. Plus for deaf adults to help with deaf infants from hearing families. It's great if parents can learn to sign but beyond baby signs and finger spelling it's not always a reality. Oralists will use that excuse not to bother, but I think that if signing yourself really is out of the question there is nothing to stop you hiring someone else to do it. A fluent signer from the deaf community would be ideal. Signing deaf adults should consider getting work as baby sitters.

It might still mean sending a child away to deaf school depending on the area.

I'd agree with Vicky about not bashing parents though. Although it can be frustrating when they keep trying to promote a failing system. I guess one has to be patient.

Another point is that some parents just will cling to oralism whatever. Take my friend K's dad. I mean her daughter is deafblind. The staff at Queen Alexander Blind college used signing and deafblind manual with K as it was the best way to communicate other then spending endless time repeating yourself like a parrot and K still not getting it. The staff used signs as it was easier for them. K's father still made a complaint about them signing with his daughter though. It seems some parents just don't know when to give up on a system that just isn't working.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

deafbajagal

The government got sick of deaf kids failing...and decided to take charge.

deafbajagal

One woman I knew really promoted oral education for ALL deaf children. She was a LEA...one day I was invited to attend an IEP meeting (more than 100 miles away from my home) concerning a deaf child who was being raised orally.

This LEA and I walked to the playground to get the child so he could attend the meeting for a short period of time (he was only nine years old). I never met this kid before in my life...never had even been to the area before. I immediately pointed him out and waved for him to come to us. The LEA was astonished and asked me how did I know which kid he was.

I replied with a very heavy heart, fighting back tears. Because he was the one playing alone on the playground, oblivious to the world around him.

faire_jour

I agree with this. I think that parents who choose an oral only route look at the pros and cons and decide that they think that it is worth it. They think that being able to communicate in the mode used by 99% of the world's population is worth a little loneliness in school.

EVERY choice has a negative.

faire_jour

Sweden also has a 80% CI rate.....

Daredevel7

Thank you.

I really am not trying to argue. I do want to improve deaf education. I just think that when we improve deaf education, the idea of oralism will be a memory.

More to come, but I have to study for my ASL final exam tonight. ("Omg did the oralist say that she's taking asl class?! wth?")

Daredevel7

I like this.

jillio

I doubt seriously that we will ever break free of oralism completely. Too much ethnocentricsm to combat in the process.

I would simply like to see a major shift of oralism to oracy, as included in the programs that provide a full tool box for our kids.

Good luck with that exam.

jillio

Sad story, but one that could be repeated again and again, I'm sure.

jillio

And a 100% sign rate.

shel90

Do the parents have to endure that loneliness on a daily basis? Especially as a child with no understanding of why he/she cant understand what's happening around him/her but her friends/peers can? I dont think so.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

jillio

Nor do I shel, nor do I. And the fact of the matter is, an oral upbringing does not seem to provide that social inclusion in hearing society that so many hearing parents keep insisting it will.

Why, oh why, can't we seem to get past the ears and the mouth and realize that deaf children have the same emotional and developmental needs that any other child has. Why do we continue to punish them for being deaf by denying them the atmosphere that will provide for that?

deafbajagal

If the child is lonely...it means the communication mode (most likely being oral) is not readily accessible or at the child's comfort level.

Loneliness is a serious psychological effect. No child should ever have to endure that feeling of being in a glass box, watching the rest of the world go by. It's a horrible feeling.

dreama

It's a missconception that a signing deaf person can't be orally successful too. I know some people who are successful at both, and others who are successful at neither.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

dreama

Thanks. Best of luck on your ASL classes.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/