Deaf Adoption: A Rhetorician's New Family

B

Boult

Active Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
0
Marlana Portolano: Deaf Adoption: A Rhetorician's New Family

What happens when a scholar of rhetoric – the art of speaking well (at least as Cicero defined it) – suddenly becomes mother to a four-year-old who has neither heard nor spoken a word in her life? This is the story of my experiences adopting just such a child and a hearing sister from a poor, Eastern European orphanage. Here and there I have included a few words on what I learned about the choices parents face for a deaf child, choices that ultimately determine the child’s chances of learning to read and write without limits. It is my hope that other teachers of writing and literature will read my story and consider how mainstream culture’s approach to deafness bars eager, promising young minds from accessing worlds of knowledge through the written word, which most of us are devoted to sharing as broadly as possible.
Click to expand...
 
Very good information, put in a wonderful story based on experience...... haven't finished it yet, have to work....
Passed it on to my wife.... she's going to enjoy it as well I'm sure..

Thanks!
 
What a story, I am goinng to go back and re-read it again. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Rick
 
An interesting read! I love reading adoption stories generally but with one involving a deaf child, that was especially interesting. You sense that the mother has done all her reseach and really cares about and loves her daughter.
 
Very interesting story and that's so awesome that the mother is so dedicated to her daughter. :)

A lot of parents of the students that I know could learn from this mother and it would make a difference.
 
Actually, Boult, the art of rhetoric is actually the art of convincing argument and persuasion. Cicero's definition extends back to a time when such was done strictly through speech. The definition has been expanded. An orator is one who speaks well.
 
jillio said:
This indiviual is advocating for a bi-bi approach, which is exactly the approach that shel and I, as well as others on this forum who are concerned with language acquisition and education of deaf children advocate for. This individual does not believe in an ONLY aprroach, either oral or sign.
Click to expand...

This individual does not advocate a bi-bi approach to language development as much as he is in favor or a sign language being used by all. He also mentions the use of cochlear implants by children with severe and profound hearing losses as being advantagous especially for speech regognition and development, something many on this forum have also said.

He also mentions that each child is different, that while a baby may be deaf that does not mean they are Deaf and that solely seeking ASL proficiency is not his goal.

I think a fair reading of his article is that he is not advocating one method over another, as much as recognizing that there are degrees of deafness and that parents ultimately should make the decision based on the individual child's needs.
 
rick48 said:
This individual does not advocate a bi-bi approach to language development as much as he is in favor or a sign language being used by all. He also mentions the use of cochlear implants by children with severe and profound hearing losses as being advantagous especially for speech regognition and development, something many on this forum have also said.

Quite obviously, from your contradictory remarks, you know nothing of the bi-bi approach. That, you moron, is exactly what the bi-bi approach is.

He also mentions that each child is different, that while a baby may be deaf that does not mean they are Deaf and that solely seeking ASL proficiency is not his goal.

Are you just now figuring out the obvious and accepted difference between deaf and Deaf? My, but your knowledge is even more limited that I thought. Obviously, a baby is deaf and not Deaf, as Deaf is a cultural identity. Babies are not capable of the cognitive thought required to develop such. That is something that comes with development and awareness....something you have obviously missed out on on all counts.

I think a fair reading of his article is that he is not advocating one method over another, as much as recognizing that there are degrees of deafness and that parents ultimately should make the decision based on the individual child's needs.
Click to expand...

First you say that he advocates the use of sign for all deaf children, and then you say that he reccommends choice of method based on the individual. Do you ever check your posts for contradictions in your satements prior to submitting? Which is it, rick. It quite obviously can't be both. I bet there were a lot of drugs going around in your high school in the Bronx, along with the violence. Seems you must have experimented with both.

Why don't you just go back under that bridge you called out form under? Here, tollie, trollie, trollie! I hear your compatriots calling you.
 
jillio said:
First you say that he advocates the use of sign for all deaf children, and then you say that he reccommends choice of method based on the individual. Do you ever check your posts for contradictions in your satements prior to submitting? Which is it, rick. It quite obviously can't be both. I bet there were a lot of drugs going around in your high school in the Bronx, along with the violence. Seems you must have experimented with both.

Why don't you just go back under that bridge you called out form under? Here, tollie, trollie, trollie! I hear your compatriots calling you.
Click to expand...

Jillio,

rick48 is pretty close in his assessment about my blog and what I wrote. He presented no contradiction regarding my opinion that all deaf/hh babies should use signs earlier on as a way to facilitate communication. Here is what I said as I describe different scenarios regarding communication methods:

Perhaps babies with better hearing would at first use sign language and then progress to using CUED speech after their vocal cords have already matured by age two or so and gradually drop out (or not) the signing portion.
And when the child is much older (if hearing receptive skills and words discrimination are excellent) progress to speech and listening only with no need for CUED speech assistance. An example such as this may be good for children who are hard of hearing that can use what good hearing left as a source for their feedback loop to help with their speech and listening skills while using their hearing aids. Children with much more severe hearing loss could indeed fare better with signing (e.g SEE, ASL) but cochlear implant is changing all that on how it can help improve speech intelligibility with the help of CUED speech.
Click to expand...

No child is alike and each have their own range of potential where the child may be better addressed by using a CI, hearing aid, ASL only, ASL plus other methods, Cued, SEE, oral, aural and so on. Hearing loss doesn't mean complete deafness. Hearing loss goes from mild to profound and so there is a range of needs that can be addressed.

Again, rick48 is pretty much on target on what he said. I think you owe him an apology for slamming him by resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.
 
kokonut said:
Jillio,

rick48 is pretty close in his assessment about my blog and what I wrote. He presented no contradiction regarding my opinion that all deaf/hh babies should use signs earlier on as a way to facilitate communication. Here is what I said as I describe different scenarios regarding communication methods:



No child is alike and each have their own range of potential where the child may be better addressed by using a CI, hearing aid, ASL only, ASL plus other methods, Cued, SEE, oral, aural and so on. Hearing loss doesn't mean complete deafness. Hearing loss goes from mild to profound and so there is a range of needs that can be addressed.

Again, rick48 is pretty much on target on what he said. I think you owe him an apology for slamming him by resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Click to expand...

A) You have no idea of the history rick has created in this forum, nor of the fact that he continually refuses to engage in intelligent discourse in a subject. He has professionalized name calling and unfounded accusation. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever apologize to him. And, as you are advocating the use of sign in all deaf children, rick is at the other end of the spectrum from you. He is a strict oralist.

I am very well aware of the degrees of deafness, the various communication methods, and educational accommodations. I agree that all tools available should be used. Where rick and I differ in opinion is that I see the CI as an adjunct to the use of sign and speech skills, and he sees it as away to create assimilation into the hearing community as a completely orally functioning individual.
 
No child is alike and each have their own range of potential where the child may be better addressed by using a CI, hearing aid, ASL only, ASL plus other methods, Cued, SEE, oral, aural and so on
Click to expand...
I am SO sick of that argument. It seems to be used mostly by hearing audist(VERY hearing chaunavistic) parents. It's like their reasoning is "Oh my child is doing well. They don't "need" Sign/Cued/speechreading. Hearing parents need to realize that their job is to equipt their kids with a full toolbox of tools, not to decide which methodology is "best"...............
 
kokonut said:
Jillio,

rick48 is pretty close in his assessment about my blog and what I wrote. He presented no contradiction regarding my opinion that all deaf/hh babies should use signs earlier on as a way to facilitate communication. Here is what I said as I describe different scenarios regarding communication methods:



No child is alike and each have their own range of potential where the child may be better addressed by using a CI, hearing aid, ASL only, ASL plus other methods, Cued, SEE, oral, aural and so on. Hearing loss doesn't mean complete deafness. Hearing loss goes from mild to profound and so there is a range of needs that can be addressed.

Again, rick48 is pretty much on target on what he said. I think you owe him an apology for slamming him by resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Click to expand...

kokonut,

Thanks, I enjoyed your article and appreciate your posting hear to further explain your views. When I initially read Malana's article I found myself nodding my head in agreement for we went through much of the same thought process with our own daughter.
Rick
 
jillio said:
A) You have no idea of the history rick has created in this forum, nor of the fact that he continually refuses to engage in intelligent discourse in a subject. He has professionalized name calling and unfounded accusation. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever apologize to him. And, as you are advocating the use of sign in all deaf children, rick is at the other end of the spectrum from you. He is a strict oralist.

I am very well aware of the degrees of deafness, the various communication methods, and educational accommodations. I agree that all tools available should be used. Where rick and I differ in opinion is that I see the CI as an adjunct to the use of sign and speech skills, and he sees it as away to create assimilation into the hearing community as a completely orally functioning individual.
Click to expand...

I can deal with your personal insults because as I have always maintained, I just consider the source.

However, in addition to your attacks upon my child, I find your constant distortions of my views just to justify your personal attacks upon me reprehensible.

I am not and never have been a "strict oralist". I have constantly maintained in many, many posts that while we chose to raise our daughter orally and for the reasons also previously stated many, many times I was not advocating that as a choice for other parents as they must make reasoned and well informed choices as to what is best for their child. Please show me where I have ever advised anyone that they must raise their child orally or that they should not use sign.

Again, with the ci do not attempt to distort the fact that my daughter, who is oral and who has a ci, is part of both the hearing and deaf communities. I have never maintained that if one has a ci then they will be fully assimilated into the hearing community as a fully oral person. You are just making that statement up to justify your own actions.

My position on cis has always been clear and consistent, that above all I support the right of individuals to choose the cochlear implant for either themselves or for their children.

I have raised a ci child, you have not. I have been around many ci users over the last twenty years. While I have seen its limitations, I have also seen the tremendous impact it has had upon people's lives.

I could not care less what names you call me for it is more of a reflection upon you than myself, however I will respond to your attacks upon my child and as, in this case, your mispresentations and distortions of my positions.
Rick
 
rick48 said:
I can deal with your personal insults because as I have always maintained, I just consider the source.

And, rick, it is always you that jumps into reasonalbe discussons of the issues with your insults regarding competence and personal ethics.

However, in addition to your attacks upon my child, I find your constant distortions of my views just to justify your personal attacks upon me reprehensible.

I have never attacked your child, and your accusationthat I have done so is exactly the tactic you always use to distort and dsitract from the treal issue. Your strategy for supporting your argument rests with you peersonally attacking aqnyone who disagrees with you and turning what should be an intelligent and insightfulsearch for ways to improve the education of all deaf children into something personal. You have, just now demonstrated such by throwing out unfounded accusation of attack on your daughter. You can't support thaYour posts at accusation with anything concrete becasue it only happened in your limited assessment of the situation.

I am not and never have been a "strict oralist". I have constantly maintained in many, many posts that while we chose to raise our daughter orally and for the reasons also previously stated many, many times I was not advocating that as a choice for other parents as they must make reasoned and well informed choices as to what is best for their child. Please show me where I have ever advised anyone that they must raise their child orally or that they should not use sign.

Your posts abound throughout the CI section, and in your claims that CI and oral environment provides greater access to the world of the hearing than does any other method. And choosing to raise your daughter orally, while spouting innaccuracies regarding the increased access provided by limiting a child to an oral environment from a very young age are exactly the philosophies of an oralist.

Again, with the ci do not attempt to distort the fact that my daughter, who is oral and who has a ci, is part of both the hearing and deaf communities. I have never maintained that if one has a ci then they will be fully assimilated into the hearing community as a fully oral person. You are just making that statement up to justify your own actions.

No, rick, i am not making that up, and perhaps you should review some of your own posts to see exactly the claims that you have made. You seem to have the haaqbit of jumping on a bandwagon because you think you have found an instance where you will receive support for your views, without even being conscious of the issues being discussed. You did just that when you jumped into a challenge that was given me simply because you saw the situation as a way to use another poster to prove me wrong. In the end, you ended up right in the middle of a bet that you lost. Your need to insult and discredit me,shel, and dd results in impulsive responses from an emotional viewpoint.

My position on cis has always been clear and consistent, that above all I support the right of individuals to choose the cochlear implant for either themselves or for their children.

Oncde again, the discussion was not about CI. It was about language acquisition and the use of all methods available to insure that a child develops language. You are the one that always brings it back to CI.

I have raised a ci child, you have not. I have been around many ci users over the last twenty years. While I have seen its limitations, I have also seen the tremendous impact it has had upon people's lives.

No, I have not raised a CI. I managed to successfully raise my child without it. However, I do work with CI students on a daily basis, and spend my time helping them remdiate the gaps in their edcuation that are the direct result of being placed in an oral only environment based on the assumption that the CI permitted them both receptive and expressive communication on such a level that visual aids were unnecessary for them. You refuse to accept thenegative impact that these attitudes continue to have on the educaqtion of deaf children. Yes, CI has allowed for a level of sound perception in some deaf individuals that is not accomplished through any other method, and that is a postive impact. However, that, inand of itself is not sufficient. If it were, we would not continue to see the problems in literacy, the adjustment issues, and the discrepancies in academic functioning that are prevalent within the deaf population of students as a group.

I could not care less what names you call me for it is more of a reflection upon you than myself, however I will respond to your attacks upon my child and as, in this case, your mispresentations and distortions of my positions.
Rick
Click to expand...

And, once again, no one has attacked your child. A criticism of the oral only method in educaiton is not an attack on your child. Itg is what it is.....a criticism of the oral only method and the harm it contiues to do to deaf students. Widen your view, and accept that the world does not resolve aorund you and your daughter. You have the habit of taking everything far too personally. I have repeatedly informed you that your daughter does not concern me. I am concerned with the students who continue to recieve ineffect and substandard eucation. Advocating for those students has nothing to do with your daughter. You only assume it is an attack on her. You, or she, has absolutely nothing to do with it. To accuse anyone on this board of attacking your daughter is unfounded an untrue, and so very typical of your overdeveloped defense mechanisms.
 
rick48 said:
"Why" thread, post #50
Click to expand...

Already answered that false accusation. See where you already posted it in jackie's thread. You better check all the other posts in all the other threads, rick. Someone might be talking about you. :Ohno:
 
do not attempt to distort the fact that my daughter, who is oral and who has a ci, is part of both the hearing and deaf communities. I have never maintained that if one has a ci then they will be fully assimilated into the hearing community as a fully oral person
Click to expand...
No, but its implied!
Your daughter also is not a part of the Deaf community, as of now simply b/c she does not sign. That may change, but b/c she doesn't sign, she doesn't have access to the Deaf community. She has access to other "hearing impaired" people (which is good) but that's not the same as the Deaf community. Not at all.........
 
deafdyke said:
I am SO sick of that argument. It seems to be used mostly by hearing audist(VERY hearing chaunavistic) parents. It's like their reasoning is "Oh my child is doing well. They don't "need" Sign/Cued/speechreading. Hearing parents need to realize that their job is to equipt their kids with a full toolbox of tools, not to decide which methodology is "best"...............
Click to expand...

Again, hearing loss range from mild to profound, and so therein lies the number of options best suited for that deaf or hoh child. It may be all of the tools in the toolbox, a few or just one. Just because a child does very well aurally only, for example, doesn't mean that sign language is necessary for language development in order to succeed. Or even needed for social reasons and so on. It's never so black and white all the time.
 
Back
Top