Pros and cons of Oralism??

[deafdyke]

Passcifist, simply mainstreaming a dhh kid isn't going to magically change the kind of education they get. I hear this mentality so much....mainstream is an utopia. While there are some kids who excell in the mainstream, a lot of times it's b/c they are a Super Deaf or b/c their parents are really good at getting accomondations. This mentality is even more unrealistic then the "deaf schools are perfect placement" mentality that some Deaf folks have.
Sure, I'd like it if Deaf schools weren't needed.....but the fact of the matter is that most mainstream teachers have NO CLUE how to teach a dhh kid. There's also the fact that a lot of the kids with classic disabilities get lumped in with the dumbass slacker types who seem to make up the bulk of a sped teacher's caseload. Trust me.......I think me and zookeeper know a hell of a lot more about the state of our mainstream schools then you do.

 

[Passivist]

Passcifist, simply mainstreaming a dhh kid isn't going to magically change the kind of education they get. I hear this mentality so much....mainstream is an utopia. While there are some kids who excell in the mainstream, a lot of times it's b/c they are a Super Deaf or b/c their parents are really good at getting accomondations. This mentality is even more unrealistic then the "deaf schools are perfect placement" mentality that some Deaf folks have.
Sure, I'd like it if Deaf schools weren't needed.....but the fact of the matter is that most mainstream teachers have NO CLUE how to teach a dhh kid. There's also the fact that a lot of the kids with classic disabilities get lumped in with the dumbass slacker types who seem to make up the bulk of a sped teacher's caseload. Trust me.......I think me and zookeeper know a hell of a lot more about the state of our mainstream schools then you do.

Of course you do, I was speaking from an UK Perspective. I don't believe I said mainstream was Utopia, it has huge issues here in the UK too,and for those unable to progress in mainstream (Which I suggest is a minority), deaf schools should stay. I am saying mainstream is the ONLY way deaf can learn and be alongside hearing. It's the segregation that defines all the problems, and then leaving education to mainstain that segragation, I don't think this serves deaf people. You are also NOT Going to re-educate mainstream in awareness and access and equality issues by shouting from an enclosed space, WE, are our own best awareness, by being there in mainstream, and showing what are capable of and showing that capability is not angst driven because others hear more acceptance is possible than if you go to a deaf school and never meet them on a realistic level. The principle of deaf schools is wrong, if you segregate at day one, you set the tone for life. The only question youi need to ask,is do deaf people want to integrate ? if so, then deaf schools are not the best way to do it, and you won't improve mainstream issues by staying out of it.

 

[deafdyke]

Passcisfit, on the other hand the days when going to a Deaf school meant total and complete segreagation, are over. Just b/c someone attends a school for the Deaf, it doesn't mean that they can't also mainstream and reap the benifits of mainstream. Actually you ARE saying that mainstreaming is this wonderful option with so many benifits, practically a utopia.
As with communication, you gotta be very flexiable and open to change. Yes, totally segragated education isn't good, but it's probaly so rare as to be nonexistant! Virtually EVERYONE in this day and age has been mainstreamed at some point in their edcuational journey. It used to be that Deaf education was the norm, and if you did really well, you were mainstreamed. Now, it's mainstream as the norm, and Deaf ed if you can't hack it.

 

[deafdyke]

Just wanted to say that your view of mainstreaming is in essense a utopian view. YAY, we get to experiance mainstream education! Rah, rah, rah!!!!
We're not in speshal schools......but the thing is, just b/c a kid is in a mainstream school, it doesn't always translate into them reaping the benifits of being mainstreamed. It's exactly like how while some black kids acheived better after Brown vs. Board of Education, as a whole desegregating schools did not lead to enourmous educational acheivement gains for black people.

 

[gnulinuxman]

Just wanted to say that your view of mainstreaming is in essense a utopian view. YAY, we get to experiance mainstream education! Rah, rah, rah!!!!
We're not in speshal schools......but the thing is, just b/c a kid is in a mainstream school, it doesn't always translate into them reaping the benifits of being mainstreamed. It's exactly like how while some black kids acheived better after Brown vs. Board of Education, as a whole desegregating schools did not lead to enourmous educational acheivement gains for black people.

An interesting perspective.

To me, it's kind of like taking a kid with a mental disorder and forcing the kid to be "normal". Sure it's going to cause problems for most of them. That's why deaf schools even exist--to teach deaf kids the way they learn best.

 

[Passivist]

Just wanted to say that your view of mainstreaming is in essense a utopian view. YAY, we get to experiance mainstream education! Rah, rah, rah!!!!
We're not in speshal schools......but the thing is, just b/c a kid is in a mainstream school, it doesn't always translate into them reaping the benifits of being mainstreamed. It's exactly like how while some black kids acheived better after Brown vs. Board of Education, as a whole desegregating schools did not lead to enourmous educational acheivement gains for black people.

Clearly the American and UK ways differ. Unsurprising as we are still riddle with 'class' systems (We invented it !), and the deaf here are not any exception to the rule. I suppose it tends to hinge on how deaf are 'mainstreamed', here it tends to take the stance (From a deaf school perspective), where deaf 'visit' hearing environments, show them some sign language do the occasional joint thing, then, go back to the deaf world, is THIS 'mainstreaming' ?

It can look like tokenising access. Mainstream isn't Utopia, it's hard and can get a lot harder when you're adult ! The only point I was trying to make is that if integration IS the ultimate aim of deaf people via access campaigns and equality laws, then this demands deaf are 'out there', I think often, the 'community' such as it is, avoids the question altogether, this is suss, it suggest integration is not a real option they see as viable themselves.

With a universal choice of the 'full box' would culture survive better communication options ? The 'full box' ALSO includes oral options too. Culture tends to depend entirely on the disablement that is deafness continuing doesn't it ? To most who lose hearing this seems quite wrong, (immoral in part), here is where 'two tribes' seem at odds too, and I suspect where 90% of the aggro comes from, NOT mainstream. In the UK the maon protagonists are not oral versus deaf educational issues, but oral deaf versus signing deaf, it can get quite heated debates here on it, with the 'mainstream' is against us, losing ground to other deaf are against us..

 

[jillio]

Clearly the American and UK ways differ. Unsurprising as we are still riddle with 'class' systems (We invented it !), and the deaf here are not any exception to the rule. I suppose it tends to hinge on how deaf are 'mainstreamed', here it tends to take the stance (From a deaf school perspective), where deaf 'visit' hearing environments, show them some sign language do the occasional joint thing, then, go back to the deaf world, is THIS 'mainstreaming' ?

It can look like tokenising access. Mainstream isn't Utopia, it's hard and can get a lot harder when you're adult ! The only point I was trying to make is that if integration IS the ultimate aim of deaf people via access campaigns and equality laws, then this demands deaf are 'out there', I think often, the 'community' such as it is, avoids the question altogether, this is suss, it suggest integration is not a real option they see as viable themselves.

With a universal choice of the 'full box' would culture survive better communication options ? The 'full box' ALSO includes oral options too. Culture tends to depend entirely on the disablement that is deafness continuing doesn't it ? To most who lose hearing this seems quite wrong, (immoral in part), here is where 'two tribes' seem at odds too, and I suspect where 90% of the aggro comes from, NOT mainstream. In the UK the maon protagonists are not oral versus deaf educational issues, but oral deaf versus signing deaf, it can get quite heated debates here on it, with the 'mainstream' is against us, losing ground to other deaf are against us..

Survival of the culture is not dependant upon the disablement of deafness, It is dependant upon language, values, and norms.

 

[deafdyke]

Oh agreed good point.......but the thing is that demanding some access, doesn't mean that we want total and complete integration. Very few dhh kids can sucessfully totally and completely integrate into hearing society.
We're a part of society yes, but we're not nessarily a full part of average middle class white Christian society. We can be a part of society under the crazy quilt theory, but we can't be a part of society under a melting pot theory. Even many if not most oral deaf superstars have significent emoitional-social difficulties.
I don't think we're going for an assimulation approach to access. We 're going for a "we want some access, but we ALSO want our own culture" sort of approach.

The 'full box' ALSO includes oral options too.

True, but it doesn't include an oral-ONLY mentality.

Culture tends to depend entirely on the disablement that is deafness continuing doesn't it ?

Nope, that's inaccurate.......Yes, most people who are Deaf have some form of hearing loss, but there's also a subpopulation that uses sign as a primary language due to things like apraxia or tracheostomies.....Here in America there are even many hh folks who strongly strongly ID as Deaf! Not all Deaf folks have severe or profound losses! Deafness is something that ANYONE who has a hearing loss (even an unilateral one) can ID as!

NOT mainstream. In the UK the maon protagonists are not oral versus deaf educational issues, but oral deaf versus signing deaf, it can get quite heated debates here on it, with the 'mainstream' is against us, losing ground to other deaf are against us..

I do know a lot about the sitution in the UK, and I just have to say that if the oral deaf folks weren't all high and mighty about their oral skills and supposed supioror education, then a lot of the debate would die down.

 

[loml]

Passivist

Culture tends to depend entirely on the disablement that is deafness continuing doesn't it ?

I agree with you here Passivist. Language is the tie that binds.


deafdyke

Nope, that's inaccurate.......Yes, most people who are Deaf have some form of hearing loss, but there's also a subpopulation that uses sign as a primary language due to things like apraxia or tracheostomies.....Here in America there are even many hh folks who strongly strongly ID as Deaf! Not all Deaf folks have severe or profound losses! Deafness is something that ANYONE who has a hearing loss (even an unilateral one) can ID as!

deafdyke,

I really think you are grasping at straws here - sign as a primary language, in this case really, is not language at all.

As far as many hh people who identify as Deaf..... granted in the States the number of individuals with hearing loss is higher, based purely on population, but to suggest that MANY ID at Deaf, I seriously have my doubts.

 

[jillio]

Access to the benefits enjoyed by the majority (hearing) population, but freedom to choose access depending upon cultural affilliation. Correct?

 

[deafdyke]

sign as a primary language, in this case really, is not language at all.

Wait, are you saying that Sign really isn't a real language? Kids who use Sign as a primary language due to other disabilites are just as adapt at grammar and syntax as native Deaf signers. I'm not talking about people with MR who use a handful of signs to communicate very basic concepts.

As far as many hh people who identify as Deaf..... granted in the States the number of individuals with hearing loss is higher, based purely on population, but to suggest that MANY ID at Deaf, I seriously have my doubts.

I didn't say that many hoh ID as Deaf(as a whole population).........What I meant is that there's a significent population of hh who ID as Deaf, if that makes any sense. Look at our own Levonian.....and I remmy a few other unilaterally dhh folks posting here to say they ID as Deaf.

 

[loml]

Wait, are you saying that Sign really isn't a real language? Kids who use Sign as a primary language due to other disabilites are just as adapt at grammar and syntax as native Deaf signers. I'm not talking about people with MR who use a handful of signs to communicate very basic concepts.

deafdyke,

ASL is a language, but to suggest that the sign that is used for communication purposes with any child with special circumstances, is a language, is simply false.

I didn't say that many hoh ID as Deaf(as a whole population).........What I meant is that there's a significent population of hh who ID as Deaf, if that makes any sense. Look at our own Levonian.....and I remmy a few other unilaterally dhh folks posting here to say they ID as Deaf.

I understand what you are saying, I simply doubt that it is an actual fact though.

 

[deafdyke]

but to suggest that the sign that is used for communication purposes with any child with special circumstances, is a language, is simply false.

Yeah, but how? I am not talking about Sign used with MR kids. That is not language. I am speaking of the kids who use Sign for expressive language, due to things like apraxia or tracheostomies. In other words they have normal intellect, they just have physical conditions that inhibit their expressive language.
Also, I think that the hoh IDing as Deaf is probaly age dependant. A hoh kid who grew up in the '50's and 60's was encouraged to assimulate at all costs, and to be as hearing as possible. Younger hoh kids may have gotten exposure to ASL....I even know of a kid with UNILATERAL loss, who is attending a school for the deaf and is learning Sign!

 

[loml]

deafdyke

Yeah, but how? I am not talking about Sign used with MR kids. That is not language. I am speaking of the kids who use Sign for expressive language, due to things like apraxia or tracheostomies.

deafdyke,

"sign for expressive language"......please, these children are not using complete ASL, and to imply that Sign is language is wrong.

Younger hoh kids may have gotten exposure to ASL....I even know of a kid with UNILATERAL loss, who is attending a school for the deaf and is learning Sign!

In your statement: Younger hoh children may have gotten exposure to ASL. If these children are getting exposure to ASL as you claim, I highly doubt that it is with a native ASL person. You cannot become a fluent user of a language without accurate access to the complete language.

It is unfair to parents visiting this board, who are new to the world of deafness, language and education, to continually make statements, that imho, are quite frankly, unsubstantiated.

 

[Passivist]

Survival of the culture is not dependant upon the disablement of deafness, It is dependant upon language, values, and norms.

Survival of deaf culture is ENTIRELY dependant on levels of decibels the individual/group has, and has nothing to do with sign language/values/history or such, if you can hear you will not adopt any deaf culture, or develop it. Culture deaf-wise is based on the fact people are DEAF (i.e. have no useful hearing), you suggest it would STILL exist if deafness didn't ? why would it ?

The fact many deaf cultural persons/groups are so anti CI's/Aids/BAHA's and oral things seems to clearly show us all, they know culture WILL fail if hearing is introduced, at least that is how it seems to the 'middle deaf', those who acquire it, or, are borderline, which is the majority really. For this huge and major sector of deaf/HI people, hearing cannot come quick enough, research cannot be highlighted enough.

At present it is hypothetical, mass 'cures' do not exist, but deaf culture is like a house built on sand, it's fine, until the tide coms in. Whether we all agree or not, there is a view deaf cullture is entirely based on a disability, that disablement is deafness, if you can hear, that culture no longer serves any purpose.

 

[jillio]

Survival of deaf culture is ENTIRELY dependant on levels of decibels the individual/group has, and has nothing to do with sign language/values/history or such, if you can hear you will not adopt any deaf culture, or develop it. Culture deaf-wise is based on the fact people are DEAF (i.e. have no useful hearing), you suggest it would STILL exist if deafness didn't ? why would it ?

The fact many deaf cultural persons/groups are so anti CI's/Aids/BAHA's and oral things seems to clearly show us all, they know culture WILL fail if hearing is introduced, at least that is how it seems to the 'middle deaf', those who acquire it, or, are borderline, which is the majority really. For this huge and major sector of deaf/HI people, hearing cannot come quick enough, research cannot be highlighted enough.

At present it is hypothetical, mass 'cures' do not exist, but deaf culture is like a house built on sand, it's fine, until the tide coms in. Whether we all agree or not, there is a view deaf cullture is entirely based on a disability, that disablement is deafness, if you can hear, that culture no longer serves any purpose.

I disagree with you entirely. The identifying factor of culture is shared language. It has nothing to do with level of hearing loss. If decibel levels were the only criteron used to identify a member of the Deaf culture, many who affiliate would be excluded because their hearing loss was not profound enough to guarantee membership in the culture. The identity of the Deaf community as a culture is based on the fact that ASL is a separate language, and as such is used to pass cultural values and norms from generation to generation. Any elementary anthropology course will teach you that in order to be identified as a separate culture, a separate language must exist, and that thought processes and cognition of that culture is dependant upon that shared language. If you view deafness as a disability, you have a subgroup within the majority culture, but not a separate culture. A group and a culture are not one and the same. That is the heart of the struggle for the Deaf community to be identified as a cultural and linguistic minority. To use decibel level or disability as the criterion for membership in the Deaf community is equal to telling someone with a moderate loss that they are not deaf enough to qualify for interpreter services through the ADA.

 

[deafdyke]

Thank you jillo!!!!! Passicifst, here in the US we've gone past that decibel loss equates to being really deaf. Yes, there are extremists, but if you're open to learning Sign, then you're accepted into deaf culture. Yes, we still have some extremists who are anti CI.......but you know what? Back in the old days many Deaf people were anti-hearing aids! And I mean it has gotten a hell of a lot better in the past few years.

loml, why isn't using Sign for expressive purposes "real ASL?"
The kids I've seen use ASL are as fluent as any DODA......

 

[jillio]

You're very welcome, deafdyke. I have been trying to explain the cultural identity concept to people for years now.

 

[loml]

loml, why isn't using Sign for expressive purposes "real ASL?"
The kids I've seen use ASL are as fluent as any DODA......

deafdyke,

You seem to interchange ASL and Sign on a regular basis. I do not view them as equal, primarily because ASL is a language and Sign (PSE, MCE, SEE, and CS) are not.

When ASL signs are borrowed and dropped into an English sentence, you are not learning a language. Again, if a child is not given complete and accurate access to a language, they do not learn language.

Is this making sense now?

 

[loml]

Survival of deaf culture is ENTIRELY dependant on levels of decibels the individual/group has, and has nothing to do with sign language/values/history or such, if you can hear you will not adopt any deaf culture, or develop it. Culture deaf-wise is based on the fact people are DEAF (i.e. have no useful hearing), you suggest it would STILL exist if deafness didn't ? why would it ?

The fact many deaf cultural persons/groups are so anti CI's/Aids/BAHA's and oral things seems to clearly show us all, they know culture WILL fail if hearing is introduced, at least that is how it seems to the 'middle deaf', those who acquire it, or, are borderline, which is the majority really. For this huge and major sector of deaf/HI people, hearing cannot come quick enough, research cannot be highlighted enough.

At present it is hypothetical, mass 'cures' do not exist, but deaf culture is like a house built on sand, it's fine, until the tide coms in. Whether we all agree or not, there is a view deaf cullture is entirely based on a disability, that disablement is deafness, if you can hear, that culture no longer serves any purpose.

Passivist,

IMO, without deafness there would be no ASL. I think we are on the same page here.