Respect for all

jackiesolorzano said:
When my kids were diagnosis, we really thought about how should we raise them. While I was not against them being raise with sign language I wanted them to have choices. The research that I did showed me that if a profoundly deaf child was raised in both oral and sign language they would take off in the sign language and not the oral language (I know some of you disagree with me but this what I found out back them). Our thoughts were lets raised them in oral language and them when they are old enough to make their own decisions they can just be oral, oral and sign, or drop their voice and just sign. But I was going to give them a choice and they now have a choice. And they are more oral then sign but they have very close friends that just sign and since niether drives yet, I either take them to see their sign only friends or they come to our home but they have choice. I would not change a thing about the way I have raised them. My children know why we made the decisions we have made. I know many of you have said that you wished your parents learned sign language. I would be more then happy to learn sign language. I have taken a couple of classes but am not fluent but I would be more then happy to try to become fluent if my children want me too.
Click to expand...

Since you are a TOD, and you have daily contact with deaf children other than your own, what about learning it for your students' benefit? You have already stated that you recommend to parents that they try the oral route first, and if it doesn't work out, then add signing. All of the current research indicates that this creates a liguistically deprived situation for deaf children. Perhaps your own children overcame it, or so you tell us, but what about the children you are teaching? You don't seem to understand that by ignoring the evidence, you are putting other people's children at risk.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are right I have said and will always they do not need to learn how to sign to live their lives. I am not against sign language and yes they both do know sign language. My daughter is quite fluent in sign language on a more social level. She can and has been the go between her deaf friends that only sign and her friends' parents do not know sign language. My son thinks he is fluent but he is not really, he does have friends that only sign and he communicates with them but usually I or my daughter have to explain to them what he is trying to say.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that he is choosing to use sign language tell you something? And the fact that he is not able to use it fluently is because his exposure has been restricted by an oral only environment. Many parents of people on this board did not think their children needed sign language either. But the children, as adults, disagree with what their parents thought they did or did not need. That is the whole point.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
I do have a lot dealings with newly diagnosis families. I always tell them about all the other choices there are not just about what I teach. I always tell them that their child can be successful with sign language. But I do tell them that no matter what choice they make they need to embrace completely. I guess we were lucky that we lived in an area that had oral programs and TC programs so we could make a choice. And we were willing to move to get a better program. We move about 3 times when my kids were younger to get into an area that had a better program.
Click to expand...

That is just it, jackie. It is not an either/or proposition. It doesn't need to be sign or speech. It needs to be both. A parent can embrace both by simply embracing communication as the most important thing, not mode of communication.
 
Cheri said:
That's great that your two kids are signers, I for one do not believe in the use of ASL ONLY (but for babies) without the use of speech skills, I believe both should be included. ;) I disagree with AGBell--their ideology of not allowing sign language for deaf babies, Signs with babies helps find out exactly what is going on in a baby’s mind - what does the baby need? What does the baby want? What does the baby observe before they develop those required for speech.


And I also believe that deaf children should be much involve in both worlds.
Click to expand...

**nodding agreement**
 
You know, drilling a hole in someone's head to release the evil spirits used to be an accepted way to treat mental illness, too. Thank God, we learned that was not the best way to address the problem. Same thing with oral. It used to be accepted as the best way to treat the problem of deafness. We now know that it is not the way to address the problem. Trephining killed people, and oralism restricts people. The moral of the story is, don't drill holes in people's heads, and don't restrict deaf children to oral only environments.
 
We were not able to choose which mode of communication we want, it was given to us by our parents just like how you gave your children theirs.
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
jillio said:
Since you are a TOD, and you have daily contact with deaf children other than your own, what about learning it for your students' benefit? You have already stated that you recommend to parents that they try the oral route first, and if it doesn't work out, then add signing. All of the current research indicates that this creates a liguistically deprived situation for deaf children. Perhaps your own children overcame it, or so you tell us, but what about the children you are teaching? You don't seem to understand that by ignoring the evidence, you are putting other people's children at risk.
Click to expand...


I do not now nor have I ever told parents that they need to try oral first. What I tell them is what is their desired result for their child. If their desired result is for them to communicate through oral language then this is the time tell them first focus on the oral and then later if they want or their child wants they can learn how to sign.

And as I have told you before we can find research to support almost anything we want. I have research to support my point of view and I know you do for yours. Actually I am currently at a 2 week conference on cochlear implants birth through 5, I have just been given more research to support my views.
 
jillio said:
Doesn't the fact that he is choosing to use sign language tell you something? And the fact that he is not able to use it fluently is because his exposure has been restricted by an oral only environment. Many parents of people on this board did not think their children needed sign language either. But the children, as adults, disagree with what their parents thought they did or did not need. That is the whole point.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are trying to tell me about my son. He has a friend that is deaf and is not oral and so my son is learning sign language to communicate with his friend. He does not need sign language to learn in school or for most of his everyday life. If he wants to learn more sign language he can from his friend, his sister, or from a class that I have told him he can take.
How many times do I have to tell you that I have told my children over and over again that if they want to learn more sign language I would be happy to take them to classes or take them more often to their friends houses.
From what I have read most parents have never told their children that it is OK to drop their voice like I have, or that I can take them to ASL classes and if they would like I can go with them.
What is your point besides you thinking you know the needs of all deaf children.
 
jillio said:
That is just it, jackie. It is not an either/or proposition. It doesn't need to be sign or speech. It needs to be both. A parent can embrace both by simply embracing communication as the most important thing, not mode of communication.
Click to expand...

It is not your choice nor my choice how a parent wants to educate their child. My job and responsiblitiy is to inform parents of their choices, which are oral, cued speech, TC, or ASL only. This is what I do and what I will always do. It is not your decision to tell parents what their child needs. Just because you choose a method and it worked for your son does not mean that it will work for all children.
As a side note I do think it is perfectly for us to tell parents how some deaf adults feel about their parents choice. I do tell them about deaf adults feeling sad that their parents never learn sign language. But I also tell them about how some oral deaf adults are so happy about their parents choice. Just met today an oral deaf adult that was implanted later in life. He was so happy with the choices his parents made.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
I do not now nor have I ever told parents that they need to try oral first. What I tell them is what is their desired result for their child. If their desired result is for them to communicate through oral language then this is the time tell them first focus on the oral and then later if they want or their child wants they can learn how to sign.

And as I have told you before we can find research to support almost anything we want. I have research to support my point of view and I know you do for yours. Actually I am currently at a 2 week conference on cochlear implants birth through 5, I have just been given more research to support my views.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can find research to support anything, and that is why we need to be able to critically evaluate the research we read. And, it still stands that the preponderance of academic research, (that is research done with no other motive other than to facillitate understanding of a phenomenon and not to promote a specific philosophy or medical treatment) indicates that oral only is a restrictive environment for the majority of deaf students.

I don't doubt that you have been given research at this "conference". Nor do I doubt that all of the research supports early implantation. Obviously, the whole purpose of the conference is to garner support for early implantation, so they will not provide you with an unbiased collection of research that presents both sides. I also have no doubt that all of the research you have been provided was funded in some way through the cochlear implant industry. For that reason alone, it needs to be analyzed with a critical eye as to methodolgy, populations, conclusions, and target groups. I would also venture to say that all of the research you have been given is qualitative.
 
jillio said:
You know, drilling a hole in someone's head to release the evil spirits used to be an accepted way to treat mental illness, too. Thank God, we learned that was not the best way to address the problem. Same thing with oral. It used to be accepted as the best way to treat the problem of deafness. We now know that it is not the way to address the problem. Trephining killed people, and oralism restricts people. The moral of the story is, don't drill holes in people's heads, and don't restrict deaf children to oral only environments.
Click to expand...

I AM YELLING NOW IN CASE YOU WANTED TO KNOW. YOU SAY ONE THING AND THEN GO BACK AND SAY ANOTHER. SO YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE NOT AGAINST COCHLEAR IMPLANTS. BUT LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT DRILLING A HOLE IN A DEAF PERSON HEAD IS WRONG. JUST ADMITTED YOU ARE AGAINST COCHLEAR IMPLANTS. IF YOU THINK COCHLEAR IMPLANTS ARE GOING AWAY YOU ARE SO WRONG. COCHLEAR IMPLANTS ARE HERE TO STAY. I SEEN HOW WONDERFUL A TOOL COCHLEAR IMPLANTS CAN BE IF YOU USED CORRECTLY. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SHEL THINKS THE WAY SHE DOES. SHE SUFFERED THROUGH THE ORAL METHOD WITHOUT HAVING A TOOL LIKE A COCHLEAR IMPLANT. NOT THE SHE NEEDED BUT IF SHE WAS GOING TO BE ORAL IT WOULD HAVE HELPED. I THINK IF SHEL DOESN'T WANT TO USE HER VOICE, IT IS JUST FINE HER DECISION TO MAKE. BUT YOU JILLO YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL BUT YOU DON'T. I KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW IT ALL NOR WOULD I EVER PRETEND I DO.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
It is not your choice nor my choice how a parent wants to educate their child. My job and responsiblitiy is to inform parents of their choices, which are oral, cued speech, TC, or ASL only. This is what I do and what I will always do. It is not your decision to tell parents what their child needs. Just because you choose a method and it worked for your son does not mean that it will work for all children.
As a side note I do think it is perfectly for us to tell parents how some deaf adults feel about their parents choice. I do tell them about deaf adults feeling sad that their parents never learn sign language. But I also tell them about how some oral deaf adults are so happy about their parents choice. Just met today an oral deaf adult that was implanted later in life. He was so happy with the choices his parents made.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you continually leave out the option of Bi-Bi? ASL only programs do not exist. And yes, part of my job description is to make not only parents, but children,as well, aware of not just their needs, but how those needs are best addressed through accommodation. And, evidently, you do the same, whether it is written into your job description or not, because as an oral teacher, you implicitly convey the message that deaf children have a greater need to speak than to sign.

No one denies that there are always those that succeed orally, and would not change anything. But if a child has never been exposed to sign, how are they to know if it would have provided benefit or not? How are we to know that an idividual would not have enriched both their life and their success with bilingualism? You don't know if something provides benefit if you don't have it. That holds true for all situations in life.

And, we are talking about the majority, not a few individuals. And I think you will see just from the posts in this thread alone, that the majority who have learned sign later in life agree that it has been a benfit, and that they wish they had been given the advantage of being provided sign as an option as children.

Also, how exactly do you operationally define success and happiness? Your definition may be quite different from others.
 
jillio said:
Yes, we can find research to support anything, and that is why we need to be able to critically evaluate the research we read. And, it still stands that the preponderance of academic research, (that is research done with no other motive other than to facillitate understanding of a phenomenon and not to promote a specific philosophy or medical treatment) indicates that oral only is a restrictive environment for the majority of deaf students.

I don't doubt that you have been given research at this "conference". Nor do I doubt that all of the research supports early implantation. Obviously, the whole purpose of the conference is to garner support for early implantation, so they will not provide you with an unbiased collection of research that presents both sides. I also have no doubt that all of the research you have been provided was funded in some way through the cochlear implant industry. For that reason alone, it needs to be analyzed with a critical eye as to methodolgy, populations, conclusions, and target groups. I would also venture to say that all of the research you have been given is qualitative.
Click to expand...


Do you do the same thing with the research you have. I am sure you are just interested in research that supports your point of view. It is wrong of you to venture to say what type of research I have. YOu have no idea.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
I don't understand what you are trying to tell me about my son. He has a friend that is deaf and is not oral and so my son is learning sign language to communicate with his friend. He does not need sign language to learn in school or for most of his everyday life. If he wants to learn more sign language he can from his friend, his sister, or from a class that I have told him he can take.
How many times do I have to tell you that I have told my children over and over again that if they want to learn more sign language I would be happy to take them to classes or take them more often to their friends houses.
From what I have read most parents have never told their children that it is OK to drop their voice like I have, or that I can take them to ASL classes and if they would like I can go with them.
What is your point besides you thinking you know the needs of all deaf children.
Click to expand...

I know that all children, whether hearing or deaf, have a need to communicate. I know that all children, whether hearing or deaf, have a need to connect with those who are similar. And what I was saying was, if your son sees the need to learn sign to communicate with a deaf friend, then he sees a need for it in his everyday life as he interacts with that friend. Everyday life is much, much more than sitting in a classroom. I do not see any child as parts in isolation. I see them as holistic beings.
 
jillio said:
Why is it that you continually leave out the option of Bi-Bi? ASL only programs do not exist. And yes, part of my job description is to make not only parents, but children,as well, aware of not just their needs, but how those needs are best addressed through accommodation.

The only reason I leave out Bi-Bi because it is not an option in California. When it is I will tell parents where to go find out about it.

No one denies that there are always those that succeed orally, and would not change anything. But if a child has never been exposed to sign, how are they to know if it would have provided benefit or not? How are we to know that an idividual would not have enriched both their life and their success with bilingualism? You don't know if something provides benefit if you don't have it. That holds true for all situations in life.

My children have been exposed to sign language but they have chosen to continue in the path they are at and use their sign language skills with the deaf friends they have.

And, we are talking about the majority, not a few individuals. And I think you will see just from the posts in this thread alone, that the majority who have learned sign later in life agree that it has been a benfit, and that they wish they had been given the advantage of being provided sign as an option as children.

Also, how exactly do you operationally define success and happiness? Your definitionmay be quite different from others.
Click to expand...

You are right success and happines is different for different people. The gentleman I was talking about said that he was happy. He went to Havard law so I would assume anyone that can go through Harvard would be successful.
 
jillio said:
I know that all children, whether hearing or deaf, have a need to communicate. I know that all children, whether hearing or deaf, have a need to connect with those who are similar. And what I was saying was, if your son sees the need to learn sign to communicate with a deaf friend, then he sees a need for it in his everyday life as he interacts with that friend. Everyday life is much, much more than sitting in a classroom.
Click to expand...

My son has one deaf friend. He does not see him everyday. He has many more friends that are hearing, oral deaf and he sees these kids on a everyday basis so he using his oral skills to communicate with these people. As I have said over and over again, I have no problem if my son wants to drop his voice and just communicate in sign language. It is his choice not to do this and I will respect his decisions.
And if he wants to make more deaf friends or see his deaf friend more, I would have no problem with it.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are right success and happines is different for different people. The gentleman I was talking about said that he was happy. He went to Havard law so I would assume anyone that can go through Harvard would be successful.
Click to expand...

That would be an assumption that is dependent upon the operational definition of success. And success in one isolated area does not guarantee success in all areas. And the gentleman to which you referrred stated that he was happy based on his personal concept of happiness. You are assuming that means that he is also happy based on your personal concept of happiness, when, in fact, the two of you may be talking about 2 different concepts.
 
I wanted to let you know that because of our 2 due process cases for real time captioning, people around the state know of my children. At this training I am at in northen CA, one of the lectures were talking about our case without knowing that I was in the audience. They said that because of our case a TC student and oral student now have CART. You see we were able to help both sides of the road.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
My son has one deaf friend. He does not see him everyday. He has many more friends that are hearing, oral deaf and he sees these kids on a everyday basis so he using his oral skills to communicate with these people. As I have said over and over again, I have no problem if my son wants to drop his voice and just communicate in sign language. It is his choice not to do this and I will respect his decisions.
And if he wants to make more deaf friends or see his deaf friend more, I would have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

He still, from what you are saying, sees the need for sign language in his interaction with his friend, whether he sees him on a daily basis, a weekly basis, or once every 10 years. Therefore, sign is useful to him. You continue to say that your children have no need for sign. If they need to communicate with signing friends, then they definately have a need for sign.
 
Back
Top