Pros and cons of Oralism??

[ThreeLittleBear]

After I first found out that my daughter was deaf, I started looking around into different services and programs in our area. A few times I ran into groups or people that were for oral only. Back then I had wondered about the pros and cons of it, but never really got into it. But after looking around this board I've been wondering about it again.

Can anyone tell me some of the pros and cons of it?

 

[Cheri]

Group of people that you ran into that are oral, Did they know any sign language? If not, then those are the people that don't know any signs or don't want to learn signs, they prefer to live on Cued Speech only. I wish I could address the pros and cons for oral only. All I know is that oral method is the hardest part of communication for the deaf, a lot of speech therapy, which meaning a lot of sounding out words correctly, lip reading skills.

 

[kayla123]

After I first found out that my daughter was deaf, I started looking around into different services and programs in our area. A few times I ran into groups or people that were for oral only. Back then I had wondered about the pros and cons of it, but never really got into it. But after looking around this board I've been wondering about it again.

Can anyone tell me some of the pros and cons of it?

Well on the pro side, it gives a way to communicate verbally. It"s a great tool to have and will definately help your daughter in life with certain situations. It really depends on how you want to raise her and on how her surroundings are. Are there any other deaf people in your family? Even though i chose the oral method for my daughter, i am still going to introduce her to sign because it's another way she can communicate and when she gets older at least i know i gave her options. Hope that helped

 

[kayla123]

Cherri is right, it takes a lot of hard work and patience when choosing the oral method. It also depends on the age of your child and how early you start therapy.

 

[Cheri]

Are there any other deaf people in your family?

What does this have to do with the fact if there are other deaf people in the family? Where's the parent part on seeking for a way to communicate with their child? Forcing a child to live on cured speech is not being fair to a child, You have to go half way, the child goes half way. It isn't about you, It's about the child that is deaf.

 

[ThreeLittleBear]

Ummm... maybe I should clarify my interest in this subject.

My daughter knows sign, and will learn more. But she received her CI in May of this year, so she's learning speech too, even before that though she had picked up on lipreading because I'm in the habit of signing and speaking/mouthing already. (she can lipread no, wait, stop, and Alaurial ) She will continue to learn both signing and to speak. My question was plain curiosity that I was thinking of turning into a paper or speech for my schoolwork.

And to answer someone's question - yes the people and groups I ran into were completely against signing. I had one woman tell me over the phone that signing would impair her communication skills and leave her frustated. Long story for another post though!!

 

[Cheri]

And to answer someone's question - yes the people and groups I ran into were completely against signing. I had one woman tell me over the phone that signing would impair her communication skills and leave her frustated. Long story for another post though!!

No, that's not true. I cannot believe this person on the phone that you talked to. :roll: First I want to be honest with you, there are variety of ways to communicate, there's sign language only method where deaf people communicate by signs only (uses a combination of hand motions, body gestures, and facial expressions) without cured speech or lip reading, There's another one called "Total communication" which deaf people uses signs and cured speech, lip-reading there's another one, called "oral method", where there are no signs involved, just lip-reading and cured speech. As I stated at the begin oral method is the hardest part of learning would leave a child frustated because miscommunication may lead. Sign language should be a back up plan, if that happens.

 

[sr171soars]

I grew up in the mentality of the "either or" proposition of either learning to be oral or signing...no middle ground. So, I represent the successful extreme of the oral approach (don't know sign worth squat). I have since in recent years come around to agree with Cheri (and others of the best of all worlds persuasion) that a middle ground is necessary and that having sign as a backup plan would be a good thing.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Well, my hubby were being raised oral because his parents want him. He goes oral school.

He told me that it's stress for him to read teacher's lip. He was too busy to read teacher's lip to neglect his education. He feel it's too stress for him.

At school, I attend - my teacher use sign language - it makes me understand more what lesson about. I can tell that I know more than my hubby.

I remembered at my school, we complaint to our teacher that the students of other school use oral which it's good for their future... and want to be like them but our teacher said that speech therapy 3 times a week is good enough but we are too stubborn. Our teacher give in and agreed with us for speak accord our wish. We realized how stress to read our teacher's lips and make us feel tired and then told her to use sign language... Our teacher laughed with impression look "I thought so".

See what I know from experience, if I has a deaf child then I would of have my child to communicate by sign language and visit speech therapy... I would not sent my child to oral school.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

The biggest con of Oralism is that it is still a 'hit or miss' endeavor. If a person misses out, the DHH child is left with subpar language abilities, and almost never recovers. There are only a few 'hits' among that group.

I have seen too many DHH people with substandard English skills to recommend the oral approach in Deaf education. Rather, I'm very much in favor of an individualized approach, where early identification is key in determining if the DHH child can benefit from this approach or not.

 

[loml]

If not, then those are the people that don't know any signs or don't want to learn signs, they prefer to live on Cued Speech only.

Forcing a child to live on cured speech is not being fair to a child

Cheri,

With all due respect, I feel that your position here is inaccurate. Cued Speech and ASL are both valuable to a deaf person. CS for literacy/communication and ASL for communication. It appears to me that you are unfamiliar with CS, I can only stress to you that CS is choosen quite simply because it works. CS can be used with the oral approach or used on its own, it is all about choice.

 

[sr171soars]

The biggest con of Oralism is that it is still a 'hit or miss' endeavor. If a person misses out, the DHH child is left with subpar language abilities, and almost never recovers. There are only a few 'hits' among that group.

I have seen too many DHH people with substandard English skills to recommend the oral approach in Deaf education. Rather, I'm very much in favor of an individualized approach, where early identification is key in determining if the DHH child can benefit from this approach or not.

I don't know about it being a con "per se" but I agree with you that it is a "hit or miss" affair. Some get it and most don't. I didn't understand that for the longest time. When you are one that gets it and don't really ever run into other HOH types, you have no way of judging whether there are many successes or failures or whatever of the practice.

 

[R2D2]

The biggest con of Oralism is that it is still a 'hit or miss' endeavor. If a person misses out, the DHH child is left with subpar language abilities, and almost never recovers. There are only a few 'hits' among that group.

I have seen too many DHH people with substandard English skills to recommend the oral approach in Deaf education. Rather, I'm very much in favor of an individualized approach, where early identification is key in determining if the DHH child can benefit from this approach or not.

I totally agree! I was raised oral and although it worked well for me I saw other DHH kids that it didn't work for and so much time was wasted trying to get them to be oral when had they been started on signing much earlier they would have had much better language (and social) skills.
I understand now that where I grow up they do now provide an individualised approach, which is good.

If I had a profoundly deaf child I would sign to that child to get language acquisition started as early as possible but also get a CI if appropriate in order to broaden the child's toolbox to allow for oral skills too, since I was always glad of the independence that oral skills have given me.

 

[deafdyke]

and even among the hits, most dhh kids don't really have fablous spoken language skills. I'm at a conference right now, and there are some other dhh kids here. Two of them are orally skilled, (same as me) and it's damn impossible to undy them. Their language is OK, but their speech quality is horrible, and it is frustrating is hell to undy them.
I think too, that very few dhh kids can get the meat and potatos of oral speech. Like they'll be able to undy and parcipatate in basic language, but other more sophisticated stuff they won't be able to. It's a fact, that almost all dhh kids have significent social issues (in the hearing world) connected to their language abilty.

 

[Passivist]

After I first found out that my daughter was deaf, I started looking around into different services and programs in our area. A few times I ran into groups or people that were for oral only. Back then I had wondered about the pros and cons of it, but never really got into it. But after looking around this board I've been wondering about it again.

Can anyone tell me some of the pros and cons of it?

Well Heather here is hardly the place to ask about pros and con's ! There are pro and anti factions for the sign and/or the oral approach. I wouldn't presume to tell you which is best, because perhaps neither or both are. I think it is absoluetey vital ALL Means are tried, then, arriving at what is most SUITED to the child, pursue that, do NOT, get embroiled or swayed, in the arguments of culture or oral, these people aren't bringing up your child, or are responsible for them, you are. The child will determine with its own ability, you cannot make an oralist or a signer without that ability, and that, is by being offered as many choices as possible to see what works. In part I think we should stay out of your issue so you don't get dragged into the debates and get confused, never mind what is advocated here, we're a lot cause, and hardly unbiased !

 

[deafdyke]

Passcifist, I hardly think that people here are biased. MANY people here think that the role of a parent should be to give the kid ALL the tools possible.
ALL the tools. Speech, literacy, Sign etc. No kid should ever ever have to turn to their parent to ask why they never learned Sign!
Why is that so controversial? Speech is a great tool, but it's never ever going to be adquate 100% of the time. My piece that's (hopefully) being published this month goes into this issue more.....and who knows? Maybe my piece will wake up a lot of those "Oh my child doesn't need Sign" folks, and win them over to the full toolbox approach!
If a kid is introduced to the full toolbox, and chooses NOT to sign, then that's GREAT! But it should be THEIR decision. I see too many parents going "Oh my kid doesn't choose to sign" when they have the "Oh sign is not healthy or normal" mentality. I have however, heard of kids who for EI, get Sign, speech etc, and make the decision on their OWN to stop signing!

 

[sr171soars]

and even among the hits, most dhh kids don't really have fablous spoken language skills. I'm at a conference right now, and there are some other dhh kids here. Two of them are orally skilled, (same as me) and it's damn impossible to undy them. Their language is OK, but their speech quality is horrible, and it is frustrating is hell to undy them.
I think too, that very few dhh kids can get the meat and potatos of oral speech. Like they'll be able to undy and parcipatate in basic language, but other more sophisticated stuff they won't be able to. It's a fact, that almost all dhh kids have significent social issues (in the hearing world) connected to their language abilty.

When I say a hit, I mean one who can speak very well and hear well enough to interact with the hearing on their terms. In other words, they (the hearing) generally don't notice or easily forgive some of the difficulties (in communicating) with the person who is HOH with HA or CI (I'm referring to those who aren't truely postlingual). That is what I find so uncommon. It is what led me to finally understand how difficult it was to do what I did. Just guessimating here, I would say of the so called successful oral people, maybe 20% (and that may be too generous) reach that level to where the hearing call them like their own.

 

[gnulinuxman]

Oral speech is a great tool to have, whether you're deaf or hearing. However, I am totally against oral-only for deaf children. It is something a deaf person has to want to do in order to be good at it because it is so hard.

Oral-only programs often neglect literacy and completely eliminate signing, tools that are extremely helpful for establishing reliable communication with deaf children. That's why I do not recommend oral-only.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Passcifist, I hardly think that people here are biased. MANY people here think that the role of a parent should be to give the kid ALL the tools possible.
ALL the tools. Speech, literacy, Sign etc. No kid should ever ever have to turn to their parent to ask why they never learned Sign!
Why is that so controversial? Speech is a great tool, but it's never ever going to be adquate 100% of the time. My piece that's (hopefully) being published this month goes into this issue more.....and who knows? Maybe my piece will wake up a lot of those "Oh my child doesn't need Sign" folks, and win them over to the full toolbox approach!
If a kid is introduced to the full toolbox, and chooses NOT to sign, then that's GREAT! But it should be THEIR decision. I see too many parents going "Oh my kid doesn't choose to sign" when they have the "Oh sign is not healthy or normal" mentality. I have however, heard of kids who for EI, get Sign, speech etc, and make the decision on their OWN to stop signing!

mmmhhh I asked my parents why they never learn sign but got my one year younger sister to interpret for me because they know she can sign...

My hubby's parents think sign language is not normal and consider it as "mental" that's why they send him to oral school and thought my hubby can speak like them but not! He speak like HOH, not hearing like hearing people. I find sad that some parents "give best for their child" instead of learn/study what their child is and his/her development.

 

[SJCSue]

Oral speech is a great tool to have, whether you're deaf or hearing. However, I am totally against oral-only for deaf children. It is something a deaf person has to want to do in order to be good at it because it is so hard.

Oral-only programs often neglect literacy and completely eliminate signing, tools that are extremely helpful for establishing reliable communication with deaf children. That's why I do not recommend oral-only.

I agree! Oral skills are a good set of tools to have but I do not think an oral-only education is the best idea for deaf and hard of hearing children. It takes time to develop speech.

Remember Shelby from Sound and Fury: she was the girl with the CI in the hearing familly. Her parents did not expose her to signing because the "professionals" told them so. I felt so bad for her because her parents did not take the time to research information about the Deaf community. They only considered what the professionals were telling them. Her speech was very clear and very understandable but how about her language skills.