Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[Cheri]

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.

Yes, You do listen to us, our experiences, our stories, and how to improve the future of deaf generations, so we can reduce the awkwardness and frustration for them.

 

[jillio]

Yes, You do listen to us, our experiences, our stories, and how to improve the future of deaf generations, so we can reduce the awkwardness and frustration for them.

Thank you, my friend. I try! Don't always get it right, but I try!

 

[shel90]

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.


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 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.

Here you go, loml. Flip has explained how speech is fitted in the BiBi programs. I am ...I thought your primary focus wasnt on the development of speech and now it is?


Speech training is conducted by educators who have the training and expertise in speech development. We have speech educators at our program to provide those services for those who will benefit from speech training.

However, the classroom teachers are responsible for delivering the instruction of the core curriculm. For a teacher to claim that they are qualified to teach speech without any speech training background makes it go against the code of ethics of education.

 

[jillio]

Here you go, loml. Flip has explained how speech is fitted in the BiBi programs. I am ...I thought your primary focus wasnt on the development of speech and now it is?


Speech training is conducted by educators who have the training and expertise in speech development. We have speech educators at our program to provide those services for those who will benefit from speech training.

However, the classroom teachers are responsible for delivering the instruction of the core curriculm. For a teacher to claim that they are qualified to teach speech without any speech training background makes it go against the code of ethics of education.

Bingo!

 

[deafskeptic]

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

Shel, I think you could throw a whole library of facts, research and books at her and Loml will ignore everything and keep trying to spread the gospel of Cued Speech as the salvation to deaf illiterate deaf kids despite our annoyance at her annoying witnessing of Cued Speech.

 

[loml]

Here you go, loml. Flip has explained how speech is fitted in the BiBi programs. I am ...I thought your primary focus wasnt on the development of speech and now it is?

shel90 - My focus isn't speech, you are quite correct.

Speech training is conducted by educators who have the training and expertise in speech development. We have speech educators at our program to provide those services for those who will benefit from speech training.

However, the classroom teachers are responsible for delivering the instruction of the core curriculm. For a teacher to claim that they are qualified to teach speech without any speech training background makes it go against the code of ethics of education.

Thank you shel90.

Are you of the opinion that the speech/oral program is meeting the needs of the students shel90? If not,what do you see as possible enhancements for the program to ensure success?

 

[shel90]

shel90 - My focus isn't speech, you are quite correct.



Thank you shel90.

Are you of the opinion that the speech/oral program is meeting the needs of the students shel90? If not,what do you see as possible enhancements for the program to ensure success?

There is always always room for improvement with any programs. We work hard to ensure that every needs are met...our big problem is the influx of students being referred to our program at an older age who have fell so far behind academically or are language delayed. Those needs are very very difficult to meet because they have a wide range of issues that need to be addressed first.

For those who have started in our program, yes their needs are being met. Some kids were able to develop speech skills..it really depends on the child. Some children just do not have the innate ability to develop speech skills but we do always give every child a chance at the opportunity.

 

[jillio]

shel90 - My focus isn't speech, you are quite correct.



Thank you shel90.

Are you of the opinion that the speech/oral program is meeting the needs of the students shel90? If not,what do you see as possible enhancements for the program to ensure success?

How many times does one have to say the same thing before you understand it?

 

[loml]

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.

flip - Again, I do not present Cued Speech as oralism, understand please that you need not voice when you cue. ASL is unhealthy, unhealthy, honestly you take this to an odd level. Do you agree that ASL is a foreign language? Do you agree that the learning of ASL can/is a difficult venture for some/most hearing families?

I promote a system that gives visual, kinesthetic and some auditory(although of course not always the case), for hearing parents to use as an early intervention tool with their deaf child. For you somehow this is a bad thing?

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?

flip - I am fimiliar with the programs locally that call themselves "bi/bi". As I have said before, nice on paper, but not necessarily the "real deal". Frankly flip, the child needs to have access to language way before they get to school. The language of their family from their family and ASL from a Deaf role model fluent in ASL, preferably.


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.[/QUOTE]


flip - Certainly reads that way for me. I habour no hostility toward ASL, a language cannot in and of itself be bad.

 

[loml]

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 - As I have posted on numerous occassions, I share information regarding Cued Speech.

 

[loml]

There is always always room for improvement with any programs. We work hard to ensure that every needs are met...our big problem is the influx of students being referred to our program at an older age who have fell so far behind academically or are language delayed. Those needs are very very difficult to meet because they have a wide range of issues that need to be addressed first.

For those who have started in our program, yes their needs are being met. Some kids were able to develop speech skills..it really depends on the child. Some children just do not have the innate ability to develop speech skills but we do always give every child a chance at the opportunity.

Thank you shel90.

If I recall, you have stated that some of these children with language delays can be coined "oral failures". I believe you also support oral skills for deaf children, what do you beleive needs to happen for these children, so that they are not "oral failures"?

 

[jillio]

flip - Again, I do not present Cued Speech as oralism, understand please that you need not voice when you cue. ASL is unhealthy, unhealthy, honestly you take this to an odd level. Do you agree that ASL is a foreign language? Do you agree that the learning of ASL can/is a difficult venture for some/most hearing families?

I promote a system that gives visual, kinesthetic and possibly auditory
(although of course not always the case), for hearing parents to use as an early intervention tool with their deaf child. For you somehow this is a bad thing?

No matter how many ways you say it, you are still promoting the use of an orally based language as L1. How dare you say that ASL is unhealthy. Your true colors are showing. ASL may be a foreign language to you, but to numerous deaf/Deaf, it is not. Just because English happens to be your native language does not mean that it must also be the L1 language of deaf. Yes, ASL can be difficult for some hearing families. But learning of orally based languages is difficult for all deaf children. The families are not the priority, the deaf child is. That is where you continue to make your fatal error in reasoning. Your priorty is to serve the hearing family, not the deaf child.


flip - I am fimiliar with the programs locally that call themselves "bi/bi". A I have said before, nice on paper, but not necessarily the "real deal". Frankly flip, the child needs to have access to language way before they get to school. The language of their family from their family and ASL from a Deaf role model fluent in ASL, preferably.

Given you demonstrated lack of understanding regarding a Bi-Bi educational and familial environment, your assessment lacks credibility.


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.

flip - Certainly reads that way for me. I habour no hostility toward ASL, a language cannot in and of itself be bad. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps you harbor no outward hostility, but you continue to relegate it to inferior status throughout all of your posts.

 

[loml]

Drama Queen

flip - Certainly reads that way for me. I habour no hostility toward ASL, a language cannot in and of itself be bad.

Perhaps you harbor no outward hostility, but you continue to relegate it to inferior status throughout all of your posts.[/QUOTE]


Jillio - again your biased interpretation.

Oh and so you know those were flips words not mine.

 

[jillio]

Thank you shel90.

If I recall, you have stated that some of these children with language delays can be coined "oral failures". I believe you also support oral skills for deaf children, what do you beleive needs to happen for these children, so that they are not "oral failures"?

The very fact that they are even termed "oral failures" is the problem. A child who is unable to develop oral skills is in no way a failure, not is the child who has been restricted from developing linguistic skills due to an oral environment a failure. It is the system that has failed the child, not the child who has failed the system.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps you harbor no outward hostility, but you continue to relegate it to inferior status throughout all of your posts.

Jillio - again your biased interpretation.

Oh and so you know those were flips words not mine.[/QUOTE]

And, once again, interpretation is not necessary. You promote the learning of English as a first language for deaf children, therefore, your intent is very clear.

And the claim that you bear "no hostility" is yours, not flip's.

 

[loml]

The very fact that they are even termed "oral failures" is the problem. A child who is unable to develop oral skills is in no way a failure, not is the child who has been restricted from developing linguistic skills due to an oral environment a failure. It is the system that has failed the child, not the child who has failed the system.

jillio - If I wanted to ask you a question I would. This is a question for shel90, thank you.

 

[jillio]

jillio - As I have posted on numerous occassions, I share information regarding Cued Speech.

There is a difference between sharing information, and shoving it down other's throats. Sharing is a dyadic proposition. The deaf have already informed you that they do not wish to engage in this dyadic reciprocity with you.

 

[jillio]

jillio - If I wanted to ask you a question I would. This is a question for shel90, thank you.

And the reply is mine. What's your point?

 

[loml]

Need you eyes checked?

Jillio - again your biased interpretation.

Oh and so you know those were flips words not mine.

And, once again, interpretation is not necessary. You promote the learning of English as a first language for deaf children, therefore, your intent is very clear.

And the claim that you bear "no hostility" is yours, not flip's.[/QUOTE]

jillio - I was referring to the word unhealthy.:roll:

Guess you must of missed this yet again.:roll: I promote learning the familial language via CS and ASL from a fluent Deaf role model. In my utopia it would be for both, upon diagnosis, but this is the real world here.

 

[loml]

And the reply is mine. What's your point?

Simply what I said .

jillio - If I wanted to ask you a question I would. This is a question for shel90, thank you