Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[deafskeptic]

Loml, u are obviously a bright deaf person but maybe with a toooo strong of a one-track mind? I have an one-track mind but u beat me hands down!

LOL, he's the only person who can beat my mother as being a one track mind person.

 

[jillio]

2c - With the assumptions that have been made regarding my "hearing status", although truly judgemental, I do find the approach of some individuals very disconcerting, but at the same time so typical.

Assumptions regarding your hearing status are not judgemental in the least. Assumptions are in no way inherently judgemental.

What one can find so typical is that a hearing individual once again has been discovered to advocate for an oral method of language for the deaf, despite what the deaf themselves had said regarding the limitations of that method, and what empirical evidence has supported.

 

[flip]

From agbell.org

"The auditory/oral, Auditory-Verbal and cued speech methods all make up a larger spoken language approach to communicating. For information about educational programming for children pursuing forms of manual communication, (i.e., Bilingual-Bicultural or Total Communication), contact the National Association of the Deaf or the American Society for Deaf Children."

I am sure visual phonics can have it's place in a bi-bi program, but the way cued speech is explained by NCSA and AG Bell, it's definitely an oral tool.

 

[shel90]

2c - With the assumptions that have been made regarding my "hearing status", although truly judgemental, I do find the approach of some individuals very disconcerting, but at the same time so typical.

Was just joking around trying to make light of the situation. If u didnt like it, all u had was to tell us and we would have stopped. Sometimes, we have to laugh at ourselves when things become too serious. Life is too short so have some fun. Your choice but if u dont like it, I will respectfully stop with your hearing status.

 

[loml]

Was just joking around trying to make light of the situation. If u didnt like it, all u had was to tell us and we would have stopped. Sometimes, we have to laugh at ourselves when things become too serious. Life is too short so have some fun. Your choice but if u dont like it, I will respectfully stop with your hearing status.

shel90- That is not what I am referring to.

 

[Cheri]

Isn't the family learning ASL a great gift TO a deaf child FROM a hearing family? If they start when the kid is a baby and keep learning, the parents could have good ASL skills when the kid is a few years old and then the kid and parents maybe are fluent. What a great gift! Since the hearing world doesn't give deaf kids a lot of gifts about language and communication :roll: and the deaf kid struggles with communication the whole life, parents learning ASL seems great - they will know the language of Deaf culture and learning the struggle to communicate.

*nods* rarely hearings knows what's best for the deaf.

*no offended to hearing parents*

 

[loml]

From agbell.org

"The auditory/oral, Auditory-Verbal and cued speech methods all make up a larger spoken language approach to communicating. For information about educational programming for children pursuing forms of manual communication, (i.e., Bilingual-Bicultural or Total Communication), contact the National Association of the Deaf or the American Society for Deaf Children."

I am sure visual phonics can have it's place in a bi-bi program, but the way cued speech is explained by NCSA and AG Bell, it's definitely an oral tool.

flip - First , lets get this clear. When I refer to oral, I am refering to AVT or speech, is this also your definition? Simply becuse other people have implemented Cued Speech to be included with an oral appraoch does not make the learning of English via Cued Speech an oral/speech program. Cued Speech does not assist in articulation.

People on this board constantly state that they support ASL & oral methods and yet have never had the foresight to explain just how this is to be accomplished. Would you provide here you solution, in detail please.

I do not approach Cued Speech as an oral/speech tool, nor am I responsible for the people that do. A family who chooses Cued Speech, does not have to be in an oral program for their child to aquire/learn English. If they do choose the oral approach implementing Cued Speech, do you have a problem with that?

I approach Cued Speech as an early intervention tool for hearing families, of course CS can be added later and still be successful, but the sooner the better.

 

[loml]

[/B]

Would you care to expand on that? Exactly what path are you referring to?

And, yes, loml, you do discount the experiences of the deaf on thisboard who have been exposed to CS. Anytime one mentions ineffectiveness of the system from their experience, your reply implies that it had to be the way it was taught, the way it was used, the individual's inability or unwillingness to use the system, anything butthe fact that after 40 years there is stillno empirical evidence, and very very little anecdotal evidence, that CS is effective.

The fact that you are female doesn't impact perceptions in any way. The fact that you are hearing does. CS is system that has always been assumed to be more effective by the hearing proponents than by the deaf users. Your continual portrayal as CS as a panacea is infinitely more understandable given the fact that you are hearing. No more accurate, but indeed, more understandable.

jillio - You interpretaion of my sharing of information is simply that, yours.

 

[loml]

Isn't the family learning ASL a great gift TO a deaf child FROM a hearing family? If they start when the kid is a baby and keep learning, the parents could have good ASL skills when the kid is a few years old and then the kid and parents maybe are fluent. What a great gift! Since the hearing world doesn't give deaf kids a lot of gifts about language and communication :roll: and the deaf kid struggles with communication the whole life, parents learning ASL seems great - they will know the language of Deaf culture and learning the struggle to communicate.

Kaitin - Perhpas you have forgotten this, so I shall post it again. I have not said the family shouldn't learn ASL. In fact I believe that the family should learn ASL, preferably from a Deaf adult who is fluent in ASL so that the child/family learn the language of ASL.

 

[shel90]

flip - First , lets get this clear. When I refer to oral, I am refering to AVT or speech, is this also your definition? Simply becuse other people have implemented Cued Speech to be included with an oral appraoch does not make the learning of English via Cued Speech an oral/speech program. Cued Speech does not assist in articulation.

People on this board constantly state that they support ASL & oral methods and yet have never had the foresight to explain just how this is to be accomplished. Would you provide here you solution, in detail please.

I do not approach Cued Speech as an oral/speech tool, nor am I responsible for the people that do. A family who chooses Cued Speech, does not have to be in an oral program for their child to aquire/learn English.

I approach Cued Speech as an early intervention tool for hearing families, of course CS can be added later and still be successful, but the sooner the better.

I have already explained in detail how it works in the Bi Bi program in other threads.

 

[loml]

I have already explained in detail how it works in the Bi Bi program in other threads.

shel90- With all due respect, you have named the approach but supplied no details of what is involved for a deaf child have success orally, as in speech.

 

[shel90]

shel90- With all due respect, you have named the approach but supplied no details of what is involved for a deaf child have success orally, as in speech.

See post #172 #205 #217 #223 #227

Some details are there. If it is not enough, let me know and I can try to give u them.

 

[loml]

See post #172 #205 #217 #223 #227

Some details are there. If it is not enough, let me know and I can try to give u them.

shel90- Thank you for providing me the post number. I read how hard you work in supporting the learning of English via ASL.

As people have stated on the board they support a combination of ASL & oral programs.

What are the components and how would you maintain successful program of oral/speech skills for deaf/hoh children?

 

[flip]

flip - First , lets get this clear. When I refer to oral, I am refering to AVT or speech, is this also your definition? Simply becuse other people have implemented Cued Speech to be included with an oral appraoch does not make the learning of English via Cued Speech an oral/speech program. Cued Speech does not assist in articulation.

Good point, we all can define a word different. To me, oral = spoken language approach to communicating. It's hard for me to not think of the term "oralism" the moment you tell hearing parents that ASL is unhealthy as a first language for their child, and instead promote a spoken language approach to communication.

People on this board constantly state that they support ASL & oral methods and yet have never had the foresight to explain just how this is to be accomplished. Would you provide here you solution, in detail please.

ASL is used for instructions and group chatting for everyone most of the time. Speech training is given individually, and used in one to one or group conversation depending on the skills. Many of the deaf children in bi-bi programs use a lot of speech at home and other activities in clubs or in the neighbourhood. It's interesting that increasing findings points in a direction where deaf students from bi-bi programs have better oral skills than those from oral programs(cued speech didn't seem to help a lot in those oral programs?). I think you should visit a true bi-bi program to understand what goes on in the classroom, and perhaps ask them about their experiences with cued speech. I am sure Jillio and Shel can give you some names if you truly are interested?

I do not approach Cued Speech as an oral/speech tool, nor am I responsible for the people that do. A family who chooses Cued Speech, does not have to be in an oral program for their child to aquire/learn English. If they do choose the oral approach implementing Cued Speech, do you have a problem with that?

I have never said cued speech is bad for deaf children, and really don't care if they use cued speech or not, but you keep on saying ASL is bad for literacy. I have problems with the hostility toward ASL from you, National Cued Speech Association and AG Bell.

I approach Cued Speech as an early intervention tool for hearing families, of course CS can be added later and still be successful, but the sooner the better.

 

[jillio]

From agbell.org

"The auditory/oral, Auditory-Verbal and cued speech methods all make up a larger spoken language approach to communicating. For information about educational programming for children pursuing forms of manual communication, (i.e., Bilingual-Bicultural or Total Communication), contact the National Association of the Deaf or the American Society for Deaf Children."

I am sure visual phonics can have it's place in a bi-bi program, but the way cued speech is explained by NCSA and AG Bell, it's definitely an oral tool.

Thank you! To even attempt to imply that it isn't is nothing sort of absurd!

And, yes, it could have a role in a bi-bi environment as a tool for teaching English as an L2 langauage. But loml pproposes its use for language acquisition. That is a very dangerous proposition where a deaf child's access to whole language is the issue.

 

[jillio]

*nods* rarely hearings knows what's best for the deaf.

*no offended to hearing parents*

None taken, Cheri. That is why it is my practice to ask the deaf what they find most useful and best for their needs, and listen to what they tell me.

 

[jillio]

jillio - You interpretaion of my sharing of information is simply that, yours.

No interpretation needed, loml. You have stated your position in English, I have read it in English. I daresay my command of English is sufficient to see not only the the actual meaning of your posts, but the implied meaning, as well.

My understanding of your posts is not my understanding only. There are numerous others whpo view your bomardment of CS posts in the same way I do. Shall I refewr you to some of the replies made to you by deaf members, as well as other hearing members? The fact of the matter is, you are not convincing people of what a wonderful tool CS can be, you are alientating people. Perhaps if you changed your tack, and attempted to discuss CS as apossible tool in the learning of English as a second language, rather than continuing to insist that it is some sort of panacea that wilol cure all the problems of language acquisition and literacy experienced by the deaf child, you would gain some greater degree of acceptance for your views. And a little empirical evidence wouldn't hurt,either.

 

[jillio]

Kaitin - Perhpas you have forgotten this, so I shall post it again. I have not said the family shouldn't learn ASL. In fact I believe that the family should learn ASL, preferably from a Deaf adult who is fluent in ASL so that the child/family learn the language of ASL.

That does not mitigate the fact, that in nearly all of your posts, you recommend that ASL be learned after the child has learned English. Yous till propose that a deaf child learn an oral language prior to a signed language. That is what makes your view and oralist one. And one that continues to mire deaf chidlren in language deprivation.

 

[jillio]

I have already explained in detail how it works in the Bi Bi program in other threads.

It has been explained over and over again. Loml simply refuses to comprehend the explanation. She is being puprosely obtuse.

 

[jillio]

shel90- With all due respect, you have named the approach but supplied no details of what is involved for a deaf child have success orally, as in speech.

Ay, there's the rub. Your concern is what it takes for a deaf child to be an oral success. The concern of advocates for Bi-Bi are concerned with what it takes for a child to be a success academically, socially, vocationally, and personally. Quite a different situations. We see deaf children as holistic beings with many needs. You see them as ears and a mouth.

And here you go with the contradictions again. First CS is not a tool for speech, then it is a tool for speech.