Is it ever ok for kids NOT to use ASL?

[Mrs Bucket]

Hey mr mosey, mew! your mom can give you a good rub on your belly for me.

Otay mew! Awtie FF!

 

[Daredevel7]

Hey mr mosey, mew! your mom can give you a good rub on your belly for me.

*psst.. is there something going on between Mrs. Bucket and Frisky Feline...?*

 

[Mrs Bucket]

*psst.. is there something going on between Mrs. Bucket and Frisky Feline...?*

Mr Mosey is my British Shorthair male cat that loves to have his belly rubbed and Frisky Feline is a great friend of ours[which coincidentally is a cat lover like us] that we know for such a long time!



This isn't the first time we have been accused of having something going on between us!!

 

[Frisky Feline]

i thought daredevil7 knows that mr mosey is a little fuzzy cat.

yep, its been long time, mr&mrsBucket.

 

[jillio]

Denying a deaf/CI/hoh child the basic skills of ASL--couldn't that be misconstrued as child abuse/neglect?

Well, if a parent took a hearing child and kept them in an environment where they were never exposed to effective communication, did not interact with them, and did not respond to their attempts to communicate their needs; virtually providing an environment of isolation, they would most certainly be charged with neglect.

 

[jillio]

I see that a lot of oral people here said "I wish I knew ASL." Does that mean you wish you learned it first? Or you wish you had that as an option (learning it later)?

Deafdyke, you're right that the "gift" of speech is really dependent on whether the kid can develop oral skills. (AND I am NOT talking about just being able to speak but also understand spoken English) Just questioning whether ASL really is the best route to go for EVERYONE. I just question the idea that ASL ONLY helps. This is different from the idea that ASL helps most of the time.

Well, let me ask you this:

For years, it has been substantiated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to oral only language are language delayed, thus affecting not just their ability to use language fluidly, but their cognitive processes, their psycho-social development, their academic acheivement, and their ability to become employed gainfully in accordance with their true innate abilities.

For years, it has been substaniated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to ASL from birth outperform those coming from an oral only environment, in all the above areas, those deaf children not exposed to ASL from an early age.

For years, it has been substantiated that children in oral environments show academic and social performance below what would be expected for their innate abilities. It has also been shown that children coming from an environment that includes ASL from an early point in their lives perform consistently at levels that would be expected for their innate abilities.

These conclusions have been reached, time and time again, not just from anecdotal evidence, but from hard and fast, replicable, empirical evidence. There have been any number of studies that test the cognitive processing results of deaf participants compared to hearing participants, and the conclusions are consistent that deaf participants have a distinct advantage when it comes to tasks presented that require visual attention.

Given all of that, ASL certainly is not going to hurt a deaf child, and there is a significant probability that it will indeed help. Why would you deny it to a deaf child?

 

[Daredevel7]

Denying a deaf/CI/hoh child the basic skills of ASL--couldn't that be misconstrued as child abuse/neglect?

In that case, my mom should be arrested. And my dad would be the savior to the deaf community. He was the one who wanted to send me to a deaf school.

Psst... guess who ACTUALLY raised me?

 

[Bottesini]

Denying a deaf/CI/hoh child the basic skills of ASL--couldn't that be misconstrued as child abuse/neglect?

Misconstrued means they made a mistake.

My father spent huge amounts of time with me working on oral skills and absolutely I am certain no one teaching ASL first could have spent more.

On the other hand, my communication and understanding would surely have come before five years of age if they had gone the other way.

And frankly, that was a long time ago and they thought it gave more access to the greater society.

Someone today who knows the benefits and still wants to deny their child ASL and make the rely on imperfect hearing, I wish I could give that parent the permanent gift of being hoh and see how their attitude changed then.

 

[jillio]

Misconstrued means they made a mistake.

My father spent huge amounts of time with me working on oral skills and absolutely I am certain no one teaching ASL first could have spent more.

On the other hand, my communication and understanding would surely have come before five years of age if they had gone the other way.

And frankly, that was a long time ago and they thought it gave more access to the greater society.

Someone today who knows the benefits and still wants to deny their child ASL and make the rely on imperfect hearing, I wish I could give that parent the permanent gift of being hoh and see how their attitude changed then.

Very well said, Bott. With the amount of information we have available today, the studies that have shown the advantages of a bi-lingual environment, the studies that have shown the connection between language and cognition, the studies that have shown the cognitive processing of deaf individuals, why would anyone step back and rely on a hypothesis from 50 years ago that has been disproved?

 

[Daredevel7]

Well, let me ask you this:

For years, it has been substantiated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to oral only language are language delayed, thus affecting not just their ability to use language fluidly, but their cognitive processes, their psycho-social development, their academic acheivement, and their ability to become employed gainfully in accordance with their true innate abilities.

For years, it has been substaniated, through replicated studies, that deaf children exposed to ASL from birth outperform those coming from an oral only environment in all the above areas, those deaf children not exposed to ASL from an early age.

For years, it has been substantiated that children in oral environments show academic and social performance below what would be expected for their innate abilities. It has also been shown that children coming from an environment that includes ASL from an early point in their lives perform consistently at levels that would be expected for their innate abilities.

These conclusions have been reached, time and time again, not just from anecdotal evidence, but from hard and fast, replicable, empirical evidence. Their have been any number of studies that test the cognitive processing results of deaf participants compared to hearing participants, and the conclusions are consistent that deaf participants have a distinct advantage when it comes to tasks presented that require visual attention.

Given all of that, ASL certainly is not going to hurt a deaf child, and there is a significant probability that it will indeed help. Why would you deny it to a deaf child?

I don't doubt that most of the time deaf children who learned ASL outperforms oral deaf kids. I've seen some of the research myself. But what most people are saying here is that it's NEVER okay to not teach deaf children ASL. Probably not when you're only thinking of language development and educational settings, however I don't believe that being submerged in ASL has absolutely no consequences for later in life when they are adults.

*gets ready for all the examples of: "OH YEA?! Well I know someone who learned ASL first and he is doing perfectly fine in the hearing world!"*

I can just as easily give you examples of those who are NOT doing perfectly fine.

Have you noticed that there is a lack of research for long term effects for pre-lingually deaf adults? This is something I'd be very interested in.

 

[Daredevel7]

Ya know what I keep thinking? "Be careful what you wish for."

"I wish I knew ASL first so I can develop language earlier"

*poof*

"Oh... this is not what I expected...."

 

[jillio]

I don't doubt that most of the time deaf children who learned ASL outperforms oral deaf kids. I've seen some of the research myself. But what most people are saying here is that it's NEVER okay to not teach deaf children ASL. Probably not when you're only thinking of language development and educational settings, however I don't believe that being submerged in ASL has absolutely no consequences for later in life when they are adults.

*gets ready for all the examples of: "OH YEA?! Well I know someone who learned ASL first and he is doing perfectly fine in the hearing world!"*

I can just as easily give you examples of those who are NOT doing perfectly fine.

Have you noticed that there is a lack of research for long term effects for pre-lingually deaf adults? This is something I'd be very interested in.

Oh, yes, being submerged in ASL as children definately has consequences for deaf adults. And those consequences have been found, over and over and over, to be positive outcomes.

There is no lack of research on the long term effects. In fact, there are entire books containing research on the long term effects. You might want to start with Psychology of Deafness authored my Marc Marsharck, et.al. It contains numerous studies on cognitive processing done on deaf adults who are native signers.

 

[jillio]

Ya know what I keep thinking? "Be careful what you wish for."

"I wish I knew ASL first so I can develop language earlier"

*poof*

"Oh... this is not what I expected...."

Yep, most will tell you that it is not what they expected at all, when they are finally given the opportunity to learn ASL. It is much, much better than what they expected.

 

[Daredevel7]

Oh, yes, being submerged in ASL as children definately has consequences for deaf adults. And those consequences have been found, over and over and over, to be positive outcomes.

There is no lack of research on the long term effects. In fact, there are entire books containing research on the long term effects. You might want to start with Psychology of Deafness authored my Marc Marsharck, et.al. It contains numerous studies on cognitive processing done on deaf adults who are native signers.

Thanks I'll check out that book. By the way, for a moment, I thought you knew that author... See above..

 

[jillio]

Thanks I'll check out that book. By the way, for a moment, I thought you knew that author... See above..

Oops, typo. It is a dry read. Get ready to read scientific data. But it is also very informative and eye opening.

 

[Daredevel7]

Yep, most will tell you that it is not what they expected at all, when they are finally given the opportunity to learn ASL. It is much, much better than what they expected.

Oh of course. Why wouldn't it be? They are NOW bilingual. They experience a new world. They experience a new way of understanding people.

If an American starts dating an Indian, and he starts learning about their culture and language. Of course he will be happy having more education and to experience something new, that doesn't mean he's gonna regret his childhood, "GOD! WHY DIDN'T MY PARENTS RAISE ME INDIAN?!"

If he does.... sorry but that's kinda messed up.

 

[jillio]

Oh of course. Why wouldn't it be? They are NOW bilingual. They experience a new world. They experience a new way of understanding people.

If an American starts dating an Indian, and he starts learning about their culture and language. Of course he will be happy having more education and to experience something new, that doesn't mean he's gonna regret his childhood, "GOD! WHY DIDN'T MY PARENTS RAISE ME INDIAN?!"

If he does.... sorry but that's kinda messed up.

It isn't just a matter of learning a new language and experiencing a new culture. It is the experience of learning a language that allows them a degree of comprehension and communication that they have been denied. And it is matter of experiencing a culture that accentuates their sameness rather than their difference.

That is quite different on a cognitive level, a psycho-social level, and an emotional level than just increasing one's learning experience.

 

[chris' mom]

Chris' mom.....is your son enrolled in a Deaf School or a Deaf program? He may find it helpful.

He is not. He is in a regular Pre K program. I am in the works on getting him in interpeter for next year so that he'll get all the information. If I feel like he isn't progressing like he should be then I will look into the Deaf programs around here. Maybe it's denial or maybe it's stupidity but I want him to be around "normal" kids and sucessed in life. Who knows.

 

[shel90]

He is not. He is in a regular Pre K program. I am in the works on getting him in interpeter for next year so that he'll get all the information. If I feel like he isn't progressing like he should be then I will look into the Deaf programs around here. Maybe it's denial or maybe it's stupidity but I want him to be around "normal" kids and sucessed in life. Who knows.

Many deaf kids from Deaf programs are normal and have grown up to be successful adults.


It is like telling your child that he is not normal if hearing kids are "normal"...just a fyi.

 

[Daredevel7]

Isn't there a vicious cycle here? Shel90 is always talking about the amount of language delayed kids (from oral programs) in her program. Now look at it from the parent's perspective. Any REASONABLE parent would not put their kid in a classroom with even just half of really delayed kids. A few is understandable, but if you have that many.... the teacher will not be able to accommodate the natural progression for BOTH the "normal" and "delayed" kids at the same time. I am willing to bet that even deaf parents with deaf kids were worried about putting their children in a deaf school with a lot of delayed students.