Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[shel90]

You are killin me man. Hearing victim? Are you Flip Wilson? Remember him? A very funny man. How about this. Why not say "I am deaf so if you want to communicate with me then you will have to face me when you speak". The the victim says, "But you can speak so well, that must mean you can hear".

That is what usually happened in my experience. I dunno why. It is funny when I think about it now.

 

[rockdrummer]

This explains well the importance of English literacy.

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

THE VALUE OF ENGLISH

Perhaps the most challenging issue that parents must meet head on is how to give their child access to a language which he has never heard. Indeed, it is difficult to have native ability in a language which one is not bombarded with daily. Why even bother? ASL is a perfectly acceptable language. It provides a good language base for a child. It is highly accessible and designed for the eyes. These are legitimate observations and good questions.

ASL is a perfect language, particularly for quick and easy communication among individuals who know the language. However, one of the drawbacks to having ASL as ones sole communication tool is that, to date, it does not have one generally accepted written form. The wonderful body of ASL literature has been passed down from one individual to the next in previous generations. Videotapes are now being used to record the wonderful visual poetry and stories shared by those who are members of Deaf Culture. Although individuals choose to remain a part of Deaf Culture, they still should have a means to access the body of literature from other cultures and times for their own edification. Without a written code to represent ASL, there is no way to transcribe the literature of other cultures into ASL aside from filming it. There is also no easy way of getting the vast body of general information available into ASL.

The other reason for learning English is one of practicality. English is the lingua franca of the land. Deaf children need to have the tools to become independent deaf adults. Some deaf children, but not all, will acquire the speech skills needed to communicate their desires within the larger society of hearing individuals. It is important to be able to clearly write if speaking is not an option. Writing and understanding English well are communication tools that will hopefully reap dividends when seeking employment as well.

 

[Buffalo]

That is my wish, too. Too many hearing see deaf as inability to speak more than inability to hear. Therefore, they believe that speech makes you less deaf. I guess we just have to keep explaining, and explaining, and explaining....

How many parents have the motivation to implant not just to improve sound perception, but with the main motivation being that their child will be able to speak as well as a hearing person? If speech were not the main goal, then the oral programs would not have survived all these years, and the philosophy would not have such a huge following of parents of implanted children.

Agreed! If they think they can teach us to speak just because we have voice. So why aren't they are using their hands?????????? What a double standard!!

 

[shel90]

Agreed! If they think they can teach us to speak just because we have voice. So why aren't they are using their hands?????????? What a double standard!!

Exactly!!!

 

[rockdrummer]

Agreed! If they think they can teach us to speak just because we have voice. So why aren't they are using their hands?????????? What a double standard!!

Buffalo, when you say "they", are you referring to the entire hearing population or are you talking about an educational setting?

 

[Buffalo]

one could argue the other side of that coin as well. If everyone knew sign language then what would be the point of speech? Or if a deaf and hearing person can communicate by any one of the means, what would be the point of learning any other means. For me I would pick what is most efficient. And I agree with you in a family setting but what about the rest of the world? Most of which doesn't sign.

Helen Keller signed and she learned to speak later on. I didn't want to learn to speak until I was 12. I was motived to speak due to the fact that I realized that I am in the minority and want to be able to get a job that's not menial.

I have said this before and am repeating in here.... the hearing people are all set if they lose their hearing for any reason. They won't lose friends when that happened. They would be able to understand everything eventhough they can't hear anymore. This is benefical to them in a big way. Why can't they see that?

Speech might be the most efficient to you but it is not to me. How the heck the student can learn anything by watching the teacher's lips? The student is not going to get 100% of what was being said. Family talked almost at once so I get lost and feel left out. How about work? I get lost in team meetings. Do I feel I am getting a fair shake? No. See what I mean? Why do I have to do all the work while they sit back and do nothing and maybe giving me a hard time. I am pretty sure that if everybody know sign language (like Martha's Vineyard) I would be much happier than I am now. The richest man in the Martha's Vineyard when everybody know sign language, happened to be a deaf man. To me, this is a proof beyond all doubt that sign language is the best thing for a deaf person.

 

[rockdrummer]

Helen Keller signed and she learned to speak later on. I didn't want to learn to speak until I was 12. I was motived to speak due to the fact that I realized that I am in the minority and want to be able to get a job that's not menial.

I have said this before and am repeating in here.... the hearing people are all set if they lose their hearing for any reason. They won't lose friends when that happened. They would be able to understand everything eventhough they can't hear anymore. This is benefical to them in a big way. Why can't they see that?

Speech might be the most efficient to you but it is not to me. How the heck the student can learn anything by watching the teacher's lips? The student is not going to get 100% of what was being said. Family talked almost at once so I get lost and feel left out. How about work? I get lost in team meetings. Do I feel I am getting a fair shake? No. See what I mean? Why do I have to do all the work while they sit back and do nothing and maybe giving me a hard time. I am pretty sure that if everybody know sign language (like Martha's Vineyard) I would be much happier than I am now. The richest man in the Martha's Vineyard when everybody know sign language, happened to be a deaf man. To me, this is a proof beyond all doubt that sign language is the best thing for a deaf person.

I agree with you and that's what I said in my earlier posts. The family/friend circle, the school and workplace should all be accommodating. And yes, for a hearing person speaking is the most efficient way and for a deaf person signing is. It's also what I said earlier in the thread.

 

[Buffalo]

Buffalo, when you say "they", are you referring to the entire hearing population or are you talking about an educational setting?

In the general sense, and especially in education and family settings. I am tired of seeing them look down on me when I managed to learn to speak with just 4 senses while they don't learn sign language with their 5 senses. That is why I think they should learn sign language to make things even.

If I had to start over, I would rather be send to a school that offers Bi-Bi education. As for the speech, I would rather work with a machine than a therapist. I can sense the impatience from the therapist.

 

[Cheri]

The Bi Bi programs do provide speech classes. It is referring to learning English as a 2nd language in the written form because to be able to read and write, one must have a strong foundation in the first language which is ASL since it is 100% accessible for all deaf children and then learn English via reading and writing. However, speech training is offered to all deaf children when they are babies. The difference is if we see that some children arent benefitting from it or becoming too frustrated, we address it instead of continuing to force the child with the speech training classes. .

Yes they do provides speech but it is not required. I've done my homework on bi bi program, the disavantage of the bi bi program is that ASL is only use in the classroom, they do not spend time working on speech, that program mostly revoles around the use of ASL and using ASL to teach reading and writing skills in English as second. Where does speech fits in?

I thought we mostly agree for deaf children to gain full communcation access to give deaf children the oppurtunity to meet and interact all people of the people (deafs and hearings).
What good would it do for deaf children if ASL alone is use and not speech at the same time? Will there again be some communcation barries between the deafs and hearings? You got to remember Hun, 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, they will not allow their deaf child to rely soley on signs and not spoken language, they will not want to limited their child's option in their world that is different from ours.

We do not want deaf children go on suffering as usual if we limited their communcation access. Too often children were restricted from learning signs do we want to restricted them from speech?

They are not going to move forward instead they will be moving backwards just as it always been ASL versus spoken speech. The whole idea with bi bi program is to use signs to teach those deaf children how to read and write English. That sounds as biased as the AGBell organization.
Whatever happens to all forms of communication? I'm all for equal education for the deaf (signs and speech together) I know both sides of the coin.

Many professials seem to have a one size fits all metality when it comes to education for the deaf children I don't need to hear this from deaf adults either. The truth is they're hurting the deaf children by limiting their toolbox appoaches.

ASL is a great visual body language communcation for the deafs to the deafs But, speech, spoken language and lip reading is a great visual communcation for the deafs to the hearings. Is that the whole point of putting deaf children in both worlds instead of one?

This bi bi program supports the deaf culture where they share the same language, experiences and values where does this leave for the hearing world?

So this is why I don't think this program is more appopriate education for deaf student unless you can come up with a better respond when is speech is taught and how often?

(If I've made some spelling errors, sorry!! I'm on sidekick it's hard to read my whole post when typing with thumbs)

 

[shel90]

Yes they do provides speech but it is not required. I've done my homework on bi bi program, the disavantage of the bi bi program is that ASL is only use in the classroom, they do not spend time working on speech, that program mostly revoles around the use of ASL and using ASL to teach reading and writing skills in English as second. Where does speech fits in?

I thought we mostly agree for deaf children to gain full communcation access to give deaf children the oppurtunity to meet and interact all people of the people (deafs and hearings).
What good would it do for deaf children if ASL alone is use and not speech at the same time? Will there again be some communcation barries between the deafs and hearings? You got to remember Hun, 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, they will not allow their deaf child to rely soley on signs and not spoken language, they will not want to limited their child's option in their world that is different from ours.

We do not want deaf children go on suffering as usual if we limited their communcation access. Too often children were restricted from learning signs do we want to restricted them from speech?

They are not going to move forward instead they will be moving backwards just as it always been ASL versus spoken speech. The whole idea with bi bi program is to use signs to teach those deaf children how to read and write English. That sounds as biased as the AGBell organization.
Whatever happens to all forms of communication? I'm all for equal education for the deaf (signs and speech together) I know both sides of the coin.

Many professials seem to have a one size fits all metality when it comes to education for the deaf children I don't need to hear this from deaf adults either. The truth is they're hurting the deaf children by limiting their toolbox appoaches.

ASL is a great visual body language communcation for the deafs to the deafs But, speech, spoken language and lip reading is a great visual communcation for the deafs to the hearings. Is that the whole point of putting deaf children in both worlds instead of one?

This bi bi program supports the deaf culture where they share the same language, experiences and values where does this leave for the hearing world?

So this is why I don't think this program is more appopriate education for deaf student unless you can come up with a better respond when is speech is taught and how often?

(If I've made some spelling errors, sorry!! I'm on sidekick it's hard to read my whole post when typing with thumbs)

Then how do u propose using two languages at the same time while teaching classes? If those who can benefit from lipreading or listening great but what about the others who cant so at the end the ones who dont have any oral skills end up being at a disadvantage. That puts us in a position of denying deaf children access to communication and language. I am against that. The point of ASL is giving ALL equal access to language and equal access to the subjects being taught. Those who have oral skills are put in a group for spoken language instructions.

Using both at the same time would be like using Spanish and English at the same time. U just cannot mix two languages together like that.

If my brother was put in a program where the teachers were switching from ASL to spoken language while teaching, he would definitely miss out on a lot of education.

The public schools teachers dont switch from Spanish and English while teaching. If there is a Spanish-based instruction, those who understand it are grouped together. That's what the BiBi programs do. I work in one so I know how it works.

I dont know what other programs u did your research on but as far as I know, all of them have speech/spoken language programs too.

 

[Cheri]

Then how do u propose using two languages at the same time while teaching classes?

If Total Communication program uses sign language, voice, fingerspelling and lipreading then how can that not be possible? Even if a child who cannot communicate orally gets additional support from signs and vice versa.

The point of ASL is giving ALL equal access to language and equal access to the subjects being taught. Those who have oral skills are put in a group for spoken language instructions.

Humm..just spilting them in groups would just solve that problem? It's like putting all black in one group and all white in another group. I just don't see any equal access in that program.

 

[shel90]

If Total Communication program uses sign language, voice, fingerspelling and lipreading then how can that not be possible? Even if a child who cannot communicate orally gets additional support from signs and vice versa.



Humm..just spilting them in groups would just solve that problem? It's like putting all black in one group and all white in another group. I just don't see any equal access in that program.

We don't split them up in groups..the kids have speech classes for spoken language instruction but all of them are together for the important subjects like math, LA, social studies, and science and ASL is the language used. I tested using spoken language and asl with my class just an hour ago...it was a mess and 2 of my students kept asking me to repeat myself so time was wasted. So I went back to ASL and the lesson was completed. If we r going to have our students be taught with the same curriulm as the public school kids are tuaght with, then we have to stick with one language while teaching otherwise, we wouldn't get anything taught. Then the students will fall further behind...I won't put their education at risk for the sake of being able to communicate with hearing people. Education comes first.

U can disagree with the BiBi program ..that's your right. As a teacher who has been in the field for 5 plus years, I have seen TC, BiBi and oral programs and I see that the BiBi approach is working the most effectively if the goal is to teach deaf children using the same curriculm as the public schhols use. It is all about giving our deaf students equal access to what hearing children learn. For me, their education comes first and I will use what works the best for ALL. Using both languages in my classroom won't work for 3 of my students but will work for one. It wouldn't be fair for my 3 who have no auditory nor speech skills. Heck, even me who has excellent oral skills wouldn't benefit either cuz I would miss out too much on what is being taught. I can't do that to my students' learning process...what happened an hour ago proved that it disrupted their learning process. Wish it wud work for all but it is not that simple.

If u really want to see how it works, then I suggest try working in a classroom in all kinds of programs. Being a teacher is not easy especially when using 2 languages.

I wud love to work in a CS program as a volunteer to see how it really works. Reading it on paper is not the same as actually seeing it in action.

Iam just giving u my experience as a teacher and what I have seen. U don't have to agree with me.

 

[rockdrummer]

In the general sense, and especially in education and family settings. I am tired of seeing them look down on me when I managed to learn to speak with just 4 senses while they don't learn sign language with their 5 senses. That is why I think they should learn sign language to make things even.

If I had to start over, I would rather be send to a school that offers Bi-Bi education. As for the speech, I would rather work with a machine than a therapist. I can sense the impatience from the therapist.

Yes I agree with you and thanks for clearification.

 

[rockdrummer]

Yes they do provides speech but it is not required. I've done my homework on bi bi program, the disavantage of the bi bi program is that ASL is only use in the classroom, they do not spend time working on speech, that program mostly revoles around the use of ASL and using ASL to teach reading and writing skills in English as second. Where does speech fits in?

I thought we mostly agree for deaf children to gain full communcation access to give deaf children the oppurtunity to meet and interact all people of the people (deafs and hearings).
What good would it do for deaf children if ASL alone is use and not speech at the same time? Will there again be some communcation barries between the deafs and hearings? You got to remember Hun, 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, they will not allow their deaf child to rely soley on signs and not spoken language, they will not want to limited their child's option in their world that is different from ours.

We do not want deaf children go on suffering as usual if we limited their communcation access. Too often children were restricted from learning signs do we want to restricted them from speech?

They are not going to move forward instead they will be moving backwards just as it always been ASL versus spoken speech. The whole idea with bi bi program is to use signs to teach those deaf children how to read and write English. That sounds as biased as the AGBell organization.
Whatever happens to all forms of communication? I'm all for equal education for the deaf (signs and speech together) I know both sides of the coin.

Many professials seem to have a one size fits all metality when it comes to education for the deaf children I don't need to hear this from deaf adults either. The truth is they're hurting the deaf children by limiting their toolbox appoaches.

ASL is a great visual body language communcation for the deafs to the deafs But, speech, spoken language and lip reading is a great visual communcation for the deafs to the hearings. Is that the whole point of putting deaf children in both worlds instead of one?

This bi bi program supports the deaf culture where they share the same language, experiences and values where does this leave for the hearing world?

So this is why I don't think this program is more appopriate education for deaf student unless you can come up with a better respond when is speech is taught and how often?

(If I've made some spelling errors, sorry!! I'm on sidekick it's hard to read my whole post when typing with thumbs)

Cheri you have made some very compelling points which are re-enforced in the article I provided. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

 

[rockdrummer]

We don't split them up in groups..the kids have speech classes for spoken language instruction but all of them are together for the important subjects like math, LA, social studies, and science and ASL is the language used. I tested using spoken language and asl with my class just an hour ago...it was a mess and 2 of my students kept asking me to repeat myself so time was wasted. So I went back to ASL and the lesson was completed. If we r going to have our students be taught with the same curriulm as the public school kids are tuaght with, then we have to stick with one language while teaching otherwise, we wouldn't get anything taught. Then the students will fall further behind...I won't put their education at risk for the sake of being able to communicate with hearing people. Education comes first.

U can disagree with the BiBi program ..that's your right. As a teacher who has been in the field for 5 plus years, I have seen TC, BiBi and oral programs and I see that the BiBi approach is working the most effectively if the goal is to teach deaf children using the same curriculm as the public schhols use. It is all about giving our deaf students equal access to what hearing children learn. For me, their education comes first and I will use what works the best for ALL. Using both languages in my classroom won't work for 3 of my students but will work for one. It wouldn't be fair for my 3 who have no auditory nor speech skills. Heck, even me who has excellent oral skills wouldn't benefit either cuz I would miss out too much on what is being taught. I can't do that to my students' learning process...what happened an hour ago proved that it disrupted their learning process. Wish it wud work for all but it is not that simple.

If u really want to see how it works, then I suggest try working in a classroom in all kinds of programs. Being a teacher is not easy especially when using 2 languages.

I wud love to work in a CS program as a volunteer to see how it really works. Reading it on paper is not the same as actually seeing it in action.

Iam just giving u my experience as a teacher and what I have seen. U don't have to agree with me.

One of the major problems as I understand it is that you can't compare one bi bi program to another. You can't compare one TC program to another becuase as many have mentioned before, there are programs out there that claim to be bi-bi and that claim to be TC but are really not by definition. This is because of many factors of which few, if any are controlable. Personally I believe that exposing a deaf child to all methods is a good approach. I think there is importance in the education no doubt. But there is also importance in communication with the majority. ASL while a beautiful language and an efficient means of communication, does have it's drawbacks. A deaf child is going to have a bit more of a load on his back than hearing children with regards to education not only in a bi bi program but also in a TC program. It's an extra load to have to learn two languages and a further load to have to learn speech. It's a tough road for these kids but with a TC approach I believe they will be better prepared for life in the real world.

 

[shel90]

I want to add...we take the kids on field trips out in the hearing world. We just took them to a play that used spoken language (yes terps were provided cuz not all deaf children are able to catch everything being said..heck, I can't either!). So, how r we just limiting them to the Deaf world only?

The definition of bi means two so we offer BOTH..asl and english, deaf and hearing worlds. Maybe it is me, but I don't see one thing wrong with the BiBi approach.


As for using both speech and signing while teaching, it creates a confusing learning environment for the students especially those who don't have any speech skills. That to me is not a healthy educational environment and will frustrate the kids even more. The last thing we want is to frustrate them even more and have them become discouraged from learning. The curriculm is hard enough for all kids even hearing kids. No need to make it even more difficult for deaf kids. I don't see the point of it. If others think speech is so important in the classroom, your choice but for me, education and learning is the most important of all. I want these kids to graduate with so much knowledge, be able to utilize critical thinking skills, develop problem solving skills, and so much more.

 

[rockdrummer]

The definition of bi means two so we offer BOTH..asl and english, deaf and hearing worlds. Maybe it is me, but I don't see one thing wrong with the BiBi approach.

Teaching english and teaching speech are two different things.

As for using both speech and signing while teaching, it creates a confusing learning environment for the students especially those who don't have any speech skills.

I think that is part of the point. Why aren't speech skills part of the cirriculum?

That to me is not a healthy educational environment and will frustrate the kids even more. The last thing we want is to frustrate them even more and have them become discouraged from learning. The curriculm is hard enough for all kids even hearing kids. No need to make it even more difficult for deaf kids.

I'ts going to be harder for deaf kids no matter how you slice it. Teaching two languages puts additional load on these kids. Life is not easy and I wouldn't risk a childs chances to succeed in the real world by taking the easy way out.

I don't see the point of it. If others think speech is so important in the classroom, your choice but for me, education and learning is the most important of all. I want these kids to graduate with so much knowledge, be able to utilize critical thinking skills, develop problem solving skills, and so much more.

Yes education is important but what's wrong with adding speech. And what good is it to have all of those skills but not be able to articulate them to the hearing population?

 

[shel90]

Teaching english and teaching speech are two different things.


I think that is part of the point. Why aren't speech skills part of the cirriculum?

I'ts going to be harder for deaf kids no matter how you slice it. Teaching two languages puts additional load on these kids. Life is not easy and I wouldn't risk a childs chances to succeed in the real world by taking the easy way out.

Yes education is important but what's wrong with adding speech. And what good is it to have all of those skills but not be able to articulate them to the hearing population?

Cuz deaf kids can't hear so speech and spoken language isn't fully accesible to them or so what I thought?

Why teach using a language that they don't have full access to? I guess the ideal classroom would have having the kids and teacher constantly misundertsanding each other if speech was incorporated to the lessons. I sure wouldn't want that additional stress on the kids. Didn't u read what I said about testing that with my students a few hours ago? Already within 5 mins, their frustration level shot up and they were constantly asking me what did I say or to pls repeat myself. Can u imagine them being in that kind of educational setting 6 hours a day 5 days a week? That will lower the quality of education for them and for me, that is just wrong. I sure wouldn't feel good about myself as a teacher if I didn't ensure that they all have equal access to language and communication. That wud just go against my principles.

That is why speech is not in the general curriculm. We r using the public school curriculm so, of course, speech is not designed into it cuz hearing children don't need it hence our speech classes.

We have speech classes for all the concerns u have posted. In a perfect word, all deaf kids would aquire speech skills but the fact is just the opposite.

I am speechless (not literally) that people think it is ok to use both at the same time during instruction. It doesn't make sense to me to do that to those who have difficulty with their speech and lipreading/listening skills. Using a language that is fully accessible to them makes more sense to me.

Pls..have either of u have experienced teaching a classroom full of deaf/hoh kids?can u both become teachers and maybe u both can design a curriculm that all deaf children can successfully learn from using both speech and ASL at the SAME time during instruction. Then I can learn from u.

 

[jillio]

You have made some very valid points rockdummer.

I do not feel that face to face communication needs to be limited. I believe that if hearing parents are aware of all their and their childs' communication options, they can make informed decisions, guiding and learning with their child(ren). This would provide the growing child the basis to choose what fits when.

Unfortunately, the "system" doesn't meet the needs of the parent(s). My experience with various institutions and rehabilitaion centers is that the change must come from the parents. Not by any means an easy task.

Being informed is the first step.

While I can agree that the system fails to meet the needs of the parents by properly informing them of all options, and the possible consequences of choices, as well as educating them regarding deafness and all of its implications, it is not the parent's needs that are of the utmost importance. It is the child's needs that are of the greatest importance. The change needs to be system wide, and includes the attitudes of hearing society, as well as professional attitudes, toward deafness.

 

[jillio]

I never said it was the most important.

The same applies for hearing people learning to communicate with the deaf population. It's not easy. I constantly see posts where deaf people are blaiming hearing people for taking the easy way out. I believe its hard in either direction and if taking the easy way out for hearing is no excuse then it's should not be for deaf people either. There should not be a double standard. And it's not speech I am talking about, it's communication by any means. I understand that it's harder for a deaf person to speak than to sign. Again, for face to face communication you options are limited. You either sign, talk or read and write. The mode you choose is going to be dependant on the capabilities of those involved.

I'm sure it is nice to be amongst those that communicate efficiently using a common mode. The reality is that not everyone knows ASL. If you are not motivated to use spoken language that's your choice. You have then limited your ability in face to face communication with non-signing hearing to reading and writing. I guess that's where literacy in the native language of the hearing population becomes an important factor.

I agree. Total access is important and it's unfortunate that not everyone is on board with that. You also have to keep in mind that not every hearing person needs to learn ASL. I have said many times that most of the hearing population will not ever encounter deafness in any form in their entire life. That's a simple matter of the numbers. One thing I wish would happen is that schools should offer ASL as a second language that the students can get credit for. Like they do with French and Spanish.

ASL is beginning to be offered for foreign language credit. At my university, it falls only behind Spansih in students enrolled. That is being expanded into several high schools in the state. Are there enough? No. But we are making progress.