Oral school

Is it ok?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 29.7%

  • No

    Votes: 31 48.4%

  • Maybe or sometimes

    Votes: 14 21.9%
  • Total voters
    64
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
literacy is writing & reading though.... that's why there's statistic called "Literacy Rate" for each country. It's commonly understood that when you can hear and speak, your literacy skill will be better than those who can't speak and hear.
Click to expand...

That is not commonly understood at all and is nothing more than an audist myth.
 
Hear Again said:
That is not commonly understood at all and is nothing more than an audist myth.
Click to expand...

that is precisely what I meant. it is commonly understood by majority... which lead to this ridiculous audist myth.
 
Hear Again said:
Cheri,

Shel has always claimed that the 2 languages were kept separate, so you actually supported the point that she makes. Speech is not an academic subject. That is why it is not part of the classroom instruction.
Click to expand...

:confused: I always knew that BI BI always kept the languages separate, we are talking about speech as in her post number 308 "This is reference to anyone who has the belief that BiBi programs do not put much value on speech." It wasn't my belief. Bi-Bi does not spend time working on audition or speech as source states.

Next time please quote each post if you're going to reply as there are so many posts on this thread. :ty:
 
Daredevel7 said:
Now I know more and more about oral schools.... they seem so different from going to a mainstream school. Going to a mainstream school requires one to be ALREADY competent in spoken English (meaning can hear well with CI, or lipread/speak well, etc) because you HAVE to be on par academically with the hearing students by spoken English only. (Perhaps they can use an interpreter but that's a very lonely situation if you use ASL primarily), but going to an oral school seems to me that they try to make you competent in spoken English communication FIRST then education? Doesn't quite make sense.

Do oral schools follow the public curriculum? What allows a school to let the kids be delayed?
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. being severely hoh with hearing aids and attended mainstreamed public school without knowing a single deaf person from preschool to 12th, no one really taught me how to lipread. I had speech therapy though but her goal was to help me speak well. The teacher had to wear a microphone all day long.

The other day, My hubby had to teach me alittle bit of fraction that my son was learning at school. I was able to pick up what he taught me right away. I told my hubby that I don't remember learning this and I blame it on lack of communication in grade school.
 
Last edited:
Cheri said:
And your point is? What exactly were you trying to imply?
Click to expand...

How do you expect me to answer your question if you don't quote my post in full? You might want to follow your own advice. :)
 
The audists have this belief that one who cant speak arent capable of achieving higher literacy skills.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Now I know more and more about oral schools.... they seem so different from going to a mainstream school. Going to a mainstream school requires one to be ALREADY competent in spoken English (meaning can hear well with CI, or lipread/speak well, etc) because you HAVE to be on par academically with the hearing students by spoken English only. (Perhaps they can use an interpreter but that's a very lonely situation if you use ASL primarily), but going to an oral school seems to me that they try to make you competent in spoken English communication FIRST then education? Doesn't quite make sense.

Do oral schools follow the public curriculum? What allows a school to let the kids be delayed?
Click to expand...



Even going to mainstreamed programs can be difficult for many deaf people despite being competent in spoken English due to not having the opportunity to incidential learning from the evironment. Most learning is from direct instructions and if the children do not have the survival skills, by 4th grade, they tend to fall behind due to the lessons becoming more abstract and complex. I have noticed with the influx of students coming to our programs tend to be around 6 years old and 10 years old. 6 years olds due to not being able to master the English language via the spoken form and needing ASL and 10 years old who have good speech skills but still arent able to think abstractly which in effect disables them from doing assignments involving more criticial thinking skills especially when it comes to the written form. It was the latter skill that I had issues with growing up. I always scored very low on vocabulary because I didnt have full access to the language like my hearing peers so their language became more sosphicated while mine just remained at the 4th grade. It was college when I finally was able to pull my literacy skills into a high level of abstract thoughts.
 
shel90 said:
The audists have this belief that one who cant speak arent capable of achieving higher literacy skills.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

As for Jiro's post, he's contradicting himself. First he says statistics prove that those who can hear and speak have better literacy skills than those who cannot yet at the same time he's saying that this is an audist myth.
 
Hear Again said:
Cheri,

Shel has always claimed that the 2 languages were kept separate, so you actually supported the point that she makes. Speech is not an academic subject. That is why it is not part of the classroom instruction.
Click to expand...

Thanks...just because speech is not a part of the classroom instruction doesnt mean it is not valued or disregarded.
 
shel90 said:
The audists have this belief that one who cant speak arent capable of achieving higher literacy skills.
Click to expand...

They should meet my Ex- bf who has no speech skills at all and his English is better than mine.
 
Good job on the research ladies! (Shel, HA, and Flip). The empirical evidence is there, and you three did a great job of showing that. It's truly a shame that people choose to ignore it.
 
Hear Again said:
faire_jour,

What exactly is the "failure model" that you are referring to?
Click to expand...

The "failure model" is the idea that kids don't need services or a specialized education until AFTER they become delayed. That you have to wait until they are behind before they get help.
 
That isn't a model of educational theory. Unfortunately, though, it is how many kids end up at deaf schools. The mainstream and the oral placements fail them.
 
faire_jour said:
Did I say it was?
Click to expand...

You stated that it was the "failure model." In order to be the "failure model", it has to have a theoretical foundation in education. Models are based on theory.
 
shel90 said:
Even going to mainstreamed programs can be difficult for many deaf people despite being competent in spoken English due to not having the opportunity to incidential learning from the evironment. Most learning is from direct instructions and if the children do not have the survival skills, by 4th grade, they tend to fall behind due to the lessons becoming more abstract and complex. I have noticed with the influx of students coming to our programs tend to be around 6 years old and 10 years old. 6 years olds due to not being able to master the English language via the spoken form and needing ASL and 10 years old who have good speech skills but still arent able to think abstractly which in effect disables them from doing assignments involving more criticial thinking skills especially when it comes to the written form. It was the latter skill that I had issues with growing up. I always scored very low on vocabulary because I didnt have full access to the language like my hearing peers so their language became more sosphicated while mine just remained at the 4th grade. It was college when I finally was able to pull my literacy skills into a high level of abstract thoughts.
Click to expand...

Exactly, shel. Speech does not necessarily lead to the ability to think abstractly and fluidly. Language, however, is essential for that. ASL provided that link for you, and for so many other deaf that have been deprived of it all in the name of an oral environment.
 
Speech does not necessarily lead to the ability to think abstractly and fluidly. Language, however, is essential for that.
Click to expand...
YES!!!!!!
It's not surprising that many implanted kids now have speech abilty.
They are now functionally hoh. Hoh kids have always been able to pick up speech. However, that doesn't negate the fact that hoh kids still do have significent spoken language delays. It's just that they aren't as severe as deaf kids' delays!
Do they have normal language abilty? Such as normal verbal IQs? Verbal IQ measures the mastery of language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top