So, will the deaf culture be there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wirelessly posted

I think it's sad that by saying something positive about an approach some people assume that other approaches are being trashed.

No one has said that the only true path to total awesomeness is a CI.
 
That conclusion made is one very good reason why, not coming from a household that has been fluent in ASL for generations, much less one generation, for my family, it was critical that my daughter be raised with both ASL and spoken English accessed via CIs. We want her to have full access to language: including exposure to fully developed literacy and fluency in the home and in her community as well as in her schools.

If we had chosen not to implant, she would be living in a home without a sophisticated or even adequate level of vocabulary and input as we were learning basic ASL alongside her, with language gaps all around her, given that family, friends, and neighbors did not immediately begin ASL classes. If we had opted for just spoken language, we would have significantly extended an already too-long period without full language input during a very critical developmental period, and we would not have provided her with a very powerful means of communicating not only with other deaf friends and teachers, but with her family as an alternative to spoken language or when her CIs are not on, which, when you tally up bath time, swimming time, bed time, etc, is pretty significant.

If I were from a Deaf family and environment, or had no access to the ASL resources I have in my location, our decisions may have taken us in other directions. But that's not the case, literacy is critical to us, and I've read the various reports we've all seen, including Gallaudet's literacy evaluation giving 17-18 YO deaf students a median score at the level of a typical hearing 4th grader (that is, half of those 17-18 YOs scored lower than the typical hearing 4th graders, half scored higher). Which is pretty damning. I want my daughter to have the opportunity to read and write at the same level of a typical hearing child her age.

But I'm from a hearing family in which building our daughter's vocabulary and love for literature requires us as parents to be able to make the distinctions between filly, colt, stallion, mare; sea spray, seafoam, waves, shoals; grains of sand, dunes, beach, etc. (we're currently reading the Misty of Chincoteague books to the wee one) -- I simply don't have the vocabulary in ASL yet to do that, my level of horse and beach and ocean are fine for the board books, which we can read in ASL, (although my ASL instructor gave up on finding a sign for Armadillo for one of Li's favorites from last year, so that one is "lost" :) . I rely heavily on her school to provide the sophisticated ASL vocabulary I lack.

Closing the achievement gap takes a lot more than just getting new smart white boards into the rooms (which are very cool, by the way, I've played with those a bit).

My friend who works at CSD told me that a majority of their students didnt start out attending their. Most of them transferred from other programs at an older age. That's one factor that many people keep failing to take into consideration when documenting stats.
 
That's right, Shel; now if only FJ could see that but I am done trying....
 
My BIGGEST argument is this: Go and find me a deaf person that uses CI and is perfectly comfortable in a group setting where everyone is chit chatting. By "perfectly comfortable" I mean equal to their hearing peers, including yourself, bsing around and keeping up, without any delay, without any "work" contributed from the hearing peers there....

That's true, I definitely see a huge difference in the chit chat of hearing kids and in my child's ability to interact with a large group using spoken language (right, she's great with 2-3 other kids, but at large events, birthday parties, etc. -- you see the difference). But then, I would never say that a CI provides the same as natural hearing, access to sound yes, but it's a different animal.
 
It all comes down to reading, literally.

Question though, why different schools?

I am older so of course the doctors told my mom who was 18 at the time when I was diagnosed that if I learned ASL, I would never be normal so for me to be normal, I needed to learn how to talk. I got placed in an oral-only infant/toddler program. Guess I developed good enough oral skills so by the time I was 5, I was mainstreamed. I dont know how but everyone thought I was doing fine and kept me there.

My brother started out the same but by 5, he still had no oral skills and he had constant tantrums from not being able to communicate with anyone. He was mainstreamed at kindergarten at my school but the teacher couldnt handle him and he got progressively worse with his behavior. So, the IEP team suggested that he be placed at the deaf school. My mom didnt know what to do so he had him transferred. From then on, he thrived.

I, on the other hand, spent my childhood struggling to keep my head above water in the academic and social settings. I became very very depressed later on.
 
My friend who works at CSD told me that a majority of their students didnt start out attending their. Most of them transferred from other programs at an older age. That's one factor that many people keep failing to take into consideration when documenting stats.

And at my daughter's school, they started with 30 kids in her age group and all but three have hit age appropriate in language and academics and have been mainstreamed.

Also, our bi-bi school has not had a transfer for 3 years. The kids are succeeding.
 
And at my daughter's school, they started with 30 kids in her age group and all but three have hit age appropriate in language and academics and have been mainstreamed.

Also, our bi-bi school has not had a transfer for 3 years. The kids are succeeding.

I guess that makes you jump and down for joy that all these kids are mainstreamed as the only deaf child.
 
I guess that makes you jump and down for joy that all these kids are mainstreamed as the only deaf child.

No, but the fact that they are learning language and academics in an age appropriate way makes me very happy. That is better than what is going on in some schools.
 
No, but the fact that they are learning language and academics in an age appropriate way makes me very happy. That is better than what is going on in some schools.

Meaning deaf schools and the use of ASL. right?
 
Some schools you don't really know about, FJ. Even though you think/opine that you do....
 
Quick question: if the study shows that deaf kids who went to deaf school THE WHOLE time still shows sub-par academic levels, would you all accept that there is something wrong with the system or will there be other reasons? Just curious if the transferred delayed kids is the only reason for the low numbers in statistics.
 
Quick question: if the study shows that deaf kids who went to deaf school THE WHOLE time still shows sub-par academic levels, would you all accept that there is something wrong with the system or will there be other reasons? Just curious if the transferred delayed kids is the only reason for the low numbers in statistics.

I see people like my brother, PFH and so many others who went to deaf schools and grew up with ASL who have great literacy skills. I am taking what FJ says with a grain of salt because what I see personally is not the same as what she sees personally. I am seeing the opposite constantly.
 
I see people like my brother, PFH and so many others who went to deaf schools and grew up with ASL who have great literacy skills. I am taking what FJ says with a grain of salt because what I see personally is not the same as what she sees personally. I am seeing the opposite constantly.

You bet your bippy, Shel! :lol:
 
I'm guessing that you've also seen deaf people who have gone to deaf schools exclusively who have poor literacy skills too. I know I have. In fact I would say that I've seen every single combination possible (deaf school-good literacy, deaf school-bad literacy, mainstream-good literacy, mainstream-bad literacy or "oral failure"). If statistics show me that one system is very skewed towards bad academics, that doesn't mean EVERYONE does bad, just that they are more likely to do bad. You can take the worst school ever and still get academic stars out of it. After all, people say oral schools suck but don't they still get a handful of people with a well rounded education and people skills? Right?
 
Quick question: if the study shows that deaf kids who went to deaf school THE WHOLE time still shows sub-par academic levels, would you all accept that there is something wrong with the system or will there be other reasons? Just curious if the transferred delayed kids is the only reason for the low numbers in statistics.

Great question, I'm surprised how difficult it's been to find literacy success rates for the deaf by type of program (bi-bi, tc, AVT, aural/oral, special services w/in public schools, mainstream), I've been looking.
 
For a lot of residential deaf schools, the problem is both the teachers who give up and the system.
 
I see people like my brother, PFH and so many others who went to deaf schools and grew up with ASL who have great literacy skills. I am taking what FJ says with a grain of salt because what I see personally is not the same as what she sees personally. I am seeing the opposite constantly.

And I take what you say with a grain of salt as well. It would kill your job and you are clearly concerned about what will happen to your community and language if kids don't learn ASL.

Are you actually saying that ASL has no downsides? If ASL is a child's first language, ALL reading and testing will forever be in their second language. That can't possibly be part of the problem?? What about the fact that kids who don't hear have trouble with phonemic awareness (rhyming and the such), that couldn't be part of the issue either? How about the fact that since there are SO MANY English words that do not have exact ASL translations, so the vocabulary of ASL and English are very different (Sign for coat, jacket, hoodie, windbreaker, pullover, etc). Could that be a problem? Nah, it is only oralism....
 
I'm guessing that you've also seen deaf people who have gone to deaf schools exclusively who have poor literacy skills too. I know I have. In fact I would say that I've seen every single combination possible (deaf school-good literacy, deaf school-bad literacy, mainstream-good literacy, mainstream-bad literacy or "oral failure"). If statistics show me that one system is very skewed towards bad academics, that doesn't mean EVERYONE does bad, just that they are more likely to do bad. You can take the worst school ever and still get academic stars out of it. After all, people say oral schools suck but don't they still get a handful of people with a well rounded education and people skills? Right?

So true.

For example, there is an oral school in Oregon that has an 85% college graduation rate (Yes, they tract their kids all the way through college). Clearly those kids are not failing and ending up with a 4th grade reading level.

I have seen residential Deaf school people (from age 18 months) who can barely read and I have seen ASL users who read and write WAY better than me!
 
And I take what you say with a grain of salt as well. It would kill your job and you are clearly concerned about what will happen to your community and language if kids don't learn ASL.

Are you actually saying that ASL has no downsides? If ASL is a child's first language, ALL reading and testing will forever be in their second language. That can't possibly be part of the problem?? What about the fact that kids who don't hear have trouble with phonemic awareness (rhyming and the such), that couldn't be part of the issue either? How about the fact that since there are SO MANY English words that do not have exact ASL translations, so the vocabulary of ASL and English are very different (Sign for coat, jacket, hoodie, windbreaker, pullover, etc). Could that be a problem? Nah, it is only oralism....

Look at PFH...are you discounting him?

And dont bring up my job agian, do you understand? This is about the kids' well-being and I dont believe that oralism is the answer to literacy. I believe in giving BOTH is the answer. I still see tooo many children coming from the same programs you support with literacy and self-esteem problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top