There has been discussion about looking at a child as an individual. Some think that ASL and spoken language are the only two options to meet the child’s needs. The spoken language approach is actually very broad. There are several different methodologies to achieve spoken language and, in fact, there have been heated debates on the CICircle in the past about which methodologies are the best to achieve spoken language. It’s actually quite funny because we all have the same goal, which is for deaf children to HEAR and to SPEAK, but there have been disagreements about which approach is the best. Let’s take a look at all the options:
- Auditory-Oral Approach
- Auditory-Verbal Approach
- Oral School
- Cued Speech
Of course, While the Auditory-Verbal approach works for many deaf children, it may not work for all of them to learn hearing and spoken language, but that does not mean that those deaf children cannot achieve the ability to hear and to speak as there are other options, such as the auditory-oral approach, attending an oral school, or using cued speech and also, human bodies are designed for spoken language as we have mouths, vocal cords, and ears.
A good friend of my sister who is deaf and has a CI started out with the Auditory-Verbal approach, and it was working well for her as she was able to learn to hear and to speak, but, due to complications from meningitis, she was not able to develop the greatest speech, and she was also having some learning difficulties in school. Instead of making the decision that she is a visual child and she wasn’t capable of learning spoken language, they looked at other different spoken language approaches to allow her to continue to be able to master spoken language. Thus, they pulled her out of her mainstream school setting and sent her to an oral school where she is making great progress. This meant that she just needed a DIFFERENT KIND of setting to achieve poken language.
A year after my little sister Jessica received a cochlear implant at the age of 15 months and attended several Auditory-Verbal therapy sessions, she was not speaking at all. She was babbling, but not developing any speech. One thing to point out was that when my mother would point to a train and say “chooo chooo” to Jessica, Jessica would respond by saying “mmmmm mmmm.” Of course, we could think that perhaps Jessica is not hearing right? Instead of thinking that the spoken language approach was not working for Jessica and that she is a visual child and needed ASL, my mother took her to a speech pathologist to get an evaluation to try to UNDERSTAND the REASON WHY she was not achieving spoken language. My mother learned that Jessica has apraxia, which meant that Jessica needed MORE than JUST the Auditory-Verbal approach to learn to speak. She needed a special kind of speech therapy, oral motor therapy, in ADDITION to Auditory-Verbal therapy. Within two months of starting oral motor therapy, she BLOSSOMED and began to talk NON-STOP.
I firmly believe that parents should not give up on their goal of giving their deaf children the ability to hear and to speak by just simply switching to using ASL, as there are a VARIETY of different options to teach children to hear and to speak. My mother looked at my sister and me as individuals by knowing that raising Jessica was not going to be exactly the same as raising me. I needed more Auditory-Verbal therapy than Jessica because I was implanted much later than Jessica. I needed oral motor therapy as I had some weak oral motor muscles, but Jessica didn’t. Jessica needed “apraxia” therapy, but I didn’t as I didn’t have apraxia. Because I had a slight language delay when I was growing up, my parents sent me to a middle school that had a hearing impaired program with a teacher who specialized in helping students to improve their language. Jessica did not need what I had in middle school as she does not have that language delay, and she is in a regular private school. However, she has a resource teacher who specializes in general special education as she has learning disabilities that are unrelated to her hearing impairment.
In a summary of this post, just because the deaf child is not achieving the ability to hear and to speak, it does not mean that the child is a visual child and needs ASL. It just means that the parents may need to look at another approach or the child may need more therapy and specialized help. The cochlear implant is such a powerful technology that it has given deaf children greater ease in learning spoken language.
I didn’t realize that the goal of many oral programs was only to teach children to hear and speak. I think it’s important to remember that we also want our children to add, subtract, read, think, understand abstract concepts, live independently, and many other things that don’t even require the ability to hear and speak.
Just to clarify… using an ASL or bi-bi approach does not mean that the child will no longer be learning to hear and/or speak.
Comment by Rox — May 31, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Rox ..
I find your comments quite entertaining. They are entertaining because you seem to feel that you are some sort of intellectual, engaged in stimulating conversation.
Ordinarily, I would tell someone like you to “pick on someone your own size,” but then I realized that would make you a bully in a class of kindergartens.
“Rox!And!
You don’t have to put on the red light
Those days are over
Rox!And!
You don’t have to sell your body to the night
Rox!And!
You don’t have to put on the red light.”
Sting rules.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — May 31, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Rox
It has been said before but I will repeat it, all of these programs are designed to look at the whole child. Yes the program is to teach them to hear and speak but there is most definitely a focus on the complete development of the child including the things you mentioned, as well as social skills, social inclusion etc etc. So though named as a program for speech and hearing, they most certainly go beyond that.
Comment by Naomi — May 31, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Paotie,
I’m sorry, I do wish I could say that I find your comments entertaining as well, but I don’t. I actually find them pretty hard to understand. I guess that means I’m not an intellectual after all.
Naomi, I am pretty sure that many oral programs do focus on the whole child. It’s just so easy to become focused only on the hearing and speaking aspect, as it seems to me in Rachel’s post (”we all have the same goal, which is for deaf children to HEAR and to SPEAK”).
Now, I have a question about something in your comment. You mentioned “as well as social skills, social inclusion etc etc.” I get the feeling that you mean that ASL programs don’t include this? If I read wrong, please forgive me. But ASL programs do include social skills and social inclusion as well. Just wanted to point it out.
Comment by Rox — May 31, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Here we go again.
Both AVT and Bi-bi camps profess to treat the whole child, but if you logically examine each one, only one accurately states that it employs ALL methods and considers ALL possibilities. The other one specifically excludes ASL and tries every thing possible except introducing ASL. Both teach speech and hearing skills.
Your younger sister’s experience reminded me of my youngest daughter’s experience. Although not deaf, she was delayed in speech until approximately age four. I was not worried, although her preschool teachers were and she was transferred to a special program out of town for speech-delayed children.
Three months later I was told she did not need to be there, there was no speech delay. Sure enough, she was talking, but only when she chose.
There is much that goes on in childrens’ heads that educators can only guess at and take all the credit for fixing. In all, like Rox, I favor a multidisciplinary approach that leaves out nothing in developing the whole child.
Comment by Dianrez — May 31, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
The goal of any good oral methodology is to get them to the point where education can take place efficiently in a typical setting. Without that, eventually a child will reach a point where their options are limited.
My 7 year old “graduated” from AVT at age 3. He recently received his CRCT scores from the state of Georgia. His scores exceeded (rather than just meeting) the state standard in all 3 areas. Not only that, but he has no IEP and received absolutely no modifications to take the test other than just sitting near the front. Several parts of the test were read aloud to the students since they are in first grade; he was able to identify rhymes and various things of this sort by listening to the test administrator.
I would say that his oral “program” certainly didn’t teach language to the exclusion of concepts. Having also seen the typical deaf school’s test scores, I would say that they are having difficulty teaching the concepts in manual language, and there is probably no remedy besides allowing children to become more familiar with the language of most of society. Scaffolding off of a language which will not serve them well in most educational settings and most job settings is not going to allow them to truly have social inclusion with most people, just a select few. Bi-bi education purports to treat the whole child, but in reality creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of poor oral and listening skills. The programs themselves often only mention “written English” as a later goal after ASL proficiency. Any hearing parent who goes to meet Bi-bi kids and takes the time to meet kids in various oral programs (and checks out their test scores!) can see which program truly allows for good education.
Comment by Amy — June 1, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Amy, I beg to differ with some things you said.
The problem with the goal of getting children “to the point where education can take place efficiently in a typical setting” is that sometimes the typical setting can be limiting. As a mainstreamed student, I was doing fairly well. In high school, they started to pull out my interpreter, and I put up with it because I wanted to please my parents and teachers. Looking back, I realize that my grades suffered, my social life suffered, and I missed out on so much more than I’ll ever know. Each child is different, and as Rachel said, it is important to look at the individual child. I feel that specifically omitting ASL from a deaf child’s life is limiting them even further with their options.
I’m really surprised with your statement: “there is probably no remedy besides allowing children to become more familiar with the language of most of society.” The language used by most of society is Chinese. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that we should be teaching our children to speak Chinese
I’m curious to know how many bi-bi children you have met and fully communicated with. Were they always in a bi-bi program? Can you differentiate between scores of children who were always in a bi-bi program, and those who were bounced around between different programs and later ended up in the bi-bi program?
Many schools for the deaf have an oral program built in somewhere, so you aren’t looking at just manual language approaches when you look at test scores from schools for the deaf.
I disagree with your last sentence. This may be true for many parents, but I know of several parents who came in and saw ASL only students and one oral student that was just moved into the program. The oral student was waaaaaay behind the ASL students, and the parents thought that the oral student was smarter than the others. Many hearing parents don’t know ASL, so can they really judge the intelligence of those who use ASL?
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Our State Schools for the deaf do not have an oral program built in somewhere. Since Amy and I live in the same state, I can say that they are a tc program with a HIGH emphasis in manual language. It’s not a bilingual approach.
Do you really think we’re all lying about our AV kids?? They are not “waaaaay” behind.
Comment by Just a mom to three boys — June 1, 2008 @ 11:47 am
becoming profoundly deaf suddenly and recently ( 9 months ago) I find these conversations fascinating. I just became implanted with a cochlear and activated last month. I also am learning ASL for many reasons. I enjoy the culture, I love the language and I want to learn more. I alos love my cochlear, I embrace the technology, and am eager to learn more about it and from it.
Comment by David — June 1, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Rox,
To say that most of society speaks Chinese is ludicrous and doesn’t serve to make any point. We all know that we’re writing in English on this blog because we live in the U.S. where most people speak English. Perhaps learning Spanish in the U.S. today would be beneficial, but mentioning Chinese is silly.
The test scores of the state schools for the deaf are, as Amy stated, very poor. In most states, the scores of students meeting state standards in English and math are at best less than 10% and, in many cases, 0%. The fact is that traditional TC deaf education of the past 20 years is failing deaf children. The bi bi approach is not that different from TC. In particular, by maintaining ASL as these children’s primary language, their ease of communication and interaction in the world at large is limited. Maybe for you going into a store and writing what you want doesn’t pose a problem, but I wanted my girls to be able to go into any environment, store or otherwise, and communicate with the same ease as their hearing peers, and this is what they can now do.
I feel like a broken record, but I’ll keep saying it until it’s understood - Deaf education today is changing to meet the needs of today’s deaf children because cochlear implant technology has radically changed the deaf child’s ability to hear and learn spoken language with ease. While many deaf children have other issues, such as Jessica’s apraxia, that in no way means that these children can’t still be successful users of spoken language. No program is etched in stone, including AV. Just as we did with Jessica, the program is tailored to fit the individual child, which then enables the child to experience success.
Comment by Melissa — June 1, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Rox ..
You’re right - you are not an intellectual. Not even a half-way intellectual. Not even a brain-dead intellectual.
It’s too bad Melissa and Amy acknowledge your baseless assumptions. Unlike you, I am sure they are smart enough to realize that the more you comment, the more you advocate for AVT and CIs.
If you were smart, you’d have noticed that by now.
So, please continue with your “intellectual” conversation.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 1, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Dianrez,
Jessica’s experience was not the same as your daughter’s. It was actually a pediatric neurologist who diagnosed her with apraxia. In apraxia, the signal from the brain to the mouth is jumbled so that, even though the child may hear the sounds perfectly clearly, they can’t figure out the motor patterns to reproduce them. Apraxia is by no means limited to deaf children, and, in fact, there are more children with normal hearing who have it. Jessica was our oral motor therapist’s only deaf student. Jessica would not have begun talking on her own had we just waited it out, and she certainly wouldn’t be speaking as well as she does today at age 13 had we not gotten her the appropriate therapy. An oral motor therapist who specializes in apraxia knows how to reconnect these kids’ brains and mouths. When Jessica started with her at age 3, her receptive language was age appropriate, but she barely said a word, and what she said was unintelligible. Within two months of beginning to work with this therapist once a week along with my following through daily at home, she began to talk. Within 5 months of starting therapy her expressive language jumped a full year.
Our whole experience with Jessica serves to illustrate Rachel’s point in this post. AVT absolutely is tailored to meet the individual child’s needs. I’m sure there have been many deaf children over the years who were not recognized as apraxic and whose parents, unfortunately, were incorrectly told that their children simply weren’t oral. That is a shame. Involved parents who recognize their child’s needs and seek information and appropriate help will always serve their child better than any single program will.
Comment by Melissa — June 1, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
oops…to number 8. The point being about the test scores for our schools for the deaf is that they are horrific. Please don’t now say that it’s b/c of all of the AV failures dumped in there who are bringing down the scores. It’s just not true and is baseless.
Comment by Just a mom to three boys — June 1, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Just a mom, I didn’t mean that your kids are waaaaaay behind. The particular student I was mentioning was. My point was that not every parent will truly be able to know the abilities of a child that uses a different language. I recently read a quote by a well-published linguist that went something like: “When you compare two languages, it would be wise to know one of them!”
Melissa, I agree that it was pretty silly for Amy to say that “there is probably no remedy besides allowing children to become more familiar with the language of most of society.” I view my “society” to include the entire world, and the language most commonly used in the world is Chinese. This information is easily found on the web. So I’m not sure why you think that mentioning Chinese is ludicrous when it IS the language most commonly used in the world. Perhaps this wasn’t clear earlier?
Again, you seem to think that ASL users aren’t able to communicate with the same ease as their hearing peers. Am I correct or am I reading this wrong?
I agree that each child is an individual, and that in no way means that these children can’t still be successful users of ASL.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to modify your sentence… Deaf education has ALWAYS been changing to meet the needs to today’s deaf children…
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Melissa ..
You will notice a stark truth about many deaf residential schools: they do not believe in accountability. In fact, the excuses have mutated over the years and culminated recently with a certain school of the deaf being sued for turning away other-disabled deaf students. In in the course of that case came the subtle implication that the reason why deaf residential schools continue to churn out functionally illiterate children is because those schools are unable to properly educate children who are not “perfectly” deaf.
Another thing about people like Rox: their parents are nice and lovely, but everybody else’s parents are screwed up if they do not conform to some stupid notion, such as “AVT sucks! Bi/Bi is best!”
Ya’ll are talking about educating a child and that’s vastly different than the so-called paradigms of “deaf education”.
People would do well to remember that.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 1, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Just a mom, I’m not sure if your #12 comment is directed to me, but if it is… I do recall reading somewhere that most deaf children start out in different programs, while 30% start in a school for the deaf. By the time they reach high school, that percentage goes up to 60%. So it isn’t baseless when half of the students from schools for the deaf started in other programs (not necessarily AV). There are many other reasons for these low scores, including the high number of students with additional disabilities (40%), and the number of parents who aren’t involved with their education. To say that these scores are low simply because they are using sign language would be baseless.
And I agree, many scores of deaf students suck everywhere. In CA, someone told me that the % of deaf students in CA that pass the high school exit exam was 8%. The % of deaf students from the school for the deaf that passed was 99%.
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Melissa ..
Another thing: recently, a deaf residential school teacher proceeded to state that two of her oral deaf students were ostracized by both the teacher and signing students. Rather than focus on educating children to become well-rounded citizens of society, the teacher proceeded to justify her actions by stating that because her mother was hearing and loved music and the teacher did not, she declared that an ASL-CI deaf woman was no longer part of “deaf culture” because that woman attends rock concerts.
If there has been one constant complaint over the years with regard to deaf residential schools, it has been the lack of focusing on a holistic approach towards educating a child. Instead of educating children, and by inferring from the above situation (which was picked up on DeafRead, by the way), deaf residential schools are SOMETIMES “deaf culture” indoctrination camps.
Not ALL deaf residential schools are like that - just SOME.
Likewise, there ARE bad AVT programs in existence.
This argument is simply redundant.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 1, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Actually Paotie, I didn’t have a great relationship with my parents while growing up. Just recently, (8 years after throwing away my hearing aids and turning off my voice) my mother has finally accepted that I am happy without using hearing aids and my voice.
I don’t think AVT sucks. It worked well for Rachel, didn’t it? Bi-Bi is not for everyone either.
I believe I know the school you are talking about, and I thought it was a rather interesting case. It can be a topic for a great discussion, but I have a feeling Rachel isn’t interested in hosting that debate on her blog.
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
School statistics, including test statistics, for the California School for the Deaf:
http://www.city-data.com/school/california-school-for-the-deaf-northern-ca.html
I don’t see where there are stellar scores for this school. As with other deaf schools, they are lagging behind their peers with normal hearing.
Comment by Melissa — June 1, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Rox ..
Okay, so you agree AVT works for SOME. Amy, Melissa and Rachel agree that AVT works for SOME. Likewise the bi/bi method works for SOME, but I am in agreement that the purported “bi/bi” method has been sabotaged in favor of “Deaf” political ideals.
On paper, the “bi/bi” method looks nice. In reality at many deaf schools, the truth is closer to “ASL-only, and English when time permits” - I refer you back to the aforementioned vlog made by the deaf residential school teacher.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Melissa, I’m not sure what your point is in #19. I agree that many schools and programs for the deaf have terrible scores.
Paotie, I agree that it sucks that many deaf schools haven’t instituted the bi-bi approach when it has been very successful for many deaf people. Could you post a link to the vlog you mentioned?
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Rox ..
I will bestow the honor of providing the link of the vlog to you. You stated Rachel would not want to continue the discussion regarding this particular issue, so I shall leave the task to you.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Melissa, stop making false assumptions about the BiBi approach. You do not work in one and you do not know ASL so you do not know anything about them. Geez!
Comment by shel — June 1, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Rox,
Some people are just too biased and close-minded here. They wont step out of their oralist view to see things from a different perspective. I say just forget them and just focus on making a difference in those deaf children who have suffered from the AVT and oralist philosophy. I applaud you for standing up for those who have been discriminated by people with this kind of view.
Sincerely,
Shel
Comment by shel — June 1, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Rox and Shel,
Please name a few deaf adults who were raised successfully with the bi-bi approach by parents who hear normally and share their stories.
Comment by Rachel — June 1, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Rox– I absolutely AM talking about Chinese, if one lives in an around Chinese people. Here, our family speaks English and so does almost every person who educates or employs. However, I wholeheartedly agree that Chinese would be a great first language and better than a manual one for the majority of deaf kids born to hearing parents. Whatever is the primary language of the society and culture around the child, and is used in employment, is likely important to know. When I talk about schools for the deaf, I am not referring to oral schools. The deaf schools which also incorporate some speech therapy while educating all day in manual language are not oral schools. Oral schools are usually private and educate primarily in spoken language. They are on the rise, but they are not the statistics I’m talking about.
Shel, One doesn’t have to work in an ASL or B-bi setting to see the results. They are easily accessible by state educational websites and others which accumulate state test scores, AST scores and disability statistics. They eat up huge amounts of our tax dollars and have very little to show for it in the end.
Comment by Amy — June 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Rachel, the people you want named in #25 are easily found. Just ask around the colleges that have deaf students, also ask about their deaf professors. And that’s just a starting point.
The thing to remember is not to dis ASL in your quest to promote the CI/AVT method; criticizing one is not going to build up the other, and omits the fact that there are also many children that were failed by the oral/AVT methods. To find these people, just ask at the schools for the deaf where they were dumped. Also, ask at the colleges where some of them went in hopes of attaining a more easily accessible education and having to learn ASL at age 18 so they can.
Your theory that enforcing a pure AVT approach is going to assure deaf kids of automatic inclusion in a hearing society and that they all will compete on hearing terms is a highly debatable one. The most ardent opponents you will have will be deaf people who went through it and found fulfillment in adopting ASL at some time in their lives.
The truth is, that AVT siren call is going to mislead many parents and children into a position of disadvantage because their early education was truncated by deliberate omission of one of several approaches available. Every child deserves a total, multidisciplinary approach at the start.
Comment by Dianrez — June 1, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
shel, thanks for the support. I do work with children who originally came from oral programs, and it hurts so much to see the neglect, ignorance, and closed-mindedness from parents everyday. There’s a part of me that still wants to stop this from happening in the first place, hence the reason I keep coming back here.
Rachel, that’s easy. Take a walk at Gallaudet and meet some people. You’ll find many who were raised with the bi-bi approach. In fact, I had noticed that a large number of the successful and involved students were from the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, or Model Secondary School for the Deaf. I later learned that they use the Bi-Bi program. You’ll also find many who were originally in oral programs and the programs failed them.
Amy, going by your example, my family uses ASL, so does almost every person I work with, as well as every person that my future children (hearing or deaf) will go to school with. Just because a language is manual, that doesn’t mean that a child can’t be in a society that uses it.
One wouldn’t have to work in an oral program to see the huge numbers of children being denied the right to a language.
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Rox, perhaps you’d care to share the scores for MSSD. I cannot find them online, and if they are something to brag about, I would think that they would be available.
Here are some of the test scores for the California School for the Deaf in Fremont.
Schoolwide or LEA-wide ELA Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above: 18.1%
Here: 18%
State average from 164 schools: 41%
Schoolwide Math Percent of students scoring Proficient or Above: 22.8%
Here: 23%
State average from 163 schools: 32%
Comment by Melissa — June 1, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Rox, even on Martha’s Vineyard there isn’t an isolated deaf culture. That you are in one (?) is simply by your own avoidance of hearing society. It’s all around you. By denying kids the chance to listen and speak, which happens all the time, we see kids denied the right to language. Your family may all be deaf, but that isn’t the case for most kids, and they need the language of their family. And they can. if they can start early and often. The so-called “dumped kids” were overwhelmingly not given the appropriate opportunities in the beginning, usually. They needed more, rather than less, spoken language. They need early CIs, early hearing aids, early AVT, and lots of language modeling. They need to be read to, to be loved, and be able to be comfortable speaking with their mom, their grandmother, their cousin, their friend next door, their pediatrician, their dentist, their preschool teacher, and so on.
Gallaudet? Is that the educational example we must hear about? How about an institution whose accreditation isn’t on probation? None of the schools you mentioned were regular colleges and universities. The fact is that a “bi-bi” students are scarce on college campuses across the nation.
I would say that the siren call of ASL has long been shown to fail kids educationally, and will continue to do so without rapid intervention when kids are first diagnosed with hearing loss, which is a neurodevelopmental emergency, to borrow Carol Flexer’s terminology. Sure, any kid can learn a few hundred signs along with their hearing parents or speak full ASL with deaf parents, but can they communicate for a lifetime with the entire world? This is the crux of the issue, and what will never be solved by the theory that deaf people can somehow be separate but equal with their own language in their own world. Oral ed. has always been about incorporating people into full society, and with today’s techniques and technology this is more possible than ever. And so, to deny full spoken language is to deny the best to a child. Deaf children don’t live in a deaf vacuum and then never will. They will always have to deal with the rest of the world. If you desire to be fully separate, then by all means, stick with ASL. Parents who want more than that will always seek oral options.
Comment by Amy — June 1, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Rachel,
My brother is one of them. He is going to grad school at a hearing college for his master’s. Is that good enough proof for you? He has no oral skills but is living an indendepent and product life as a 32 year old man. In fact, he is driving all the way from AZ to MD ALONE! U people really have no idea what you are looking at. It seems that u are just looking at the numbers instead of each individual. Isnt what this article is supposed to be about? Geez. I am so tired of views like these.
Comment by shel — June 1, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
Amy…over 50% of the children enter the BiBi programs so language delayed hence the low scores. Maybe we should be looking at why they arent getting full access to language during their early years instead of at the Deaf schools..hmm? I was raised orally and used to carry the same views as you and everyone else about the Deaf schools until I started working at one. Until one works at one, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Numbers do NOT tell everything.
Comment by shel — June 1, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Amy…u need to stop saying that ASL is the root of the educational problems. If ASL was the problem then why are deaf children from deaf families possess higher literacy skills? You people complain and whine about false assumptions about CIs and AVT by the Deaf community when you are just doing the same thing yourselves. Cant have it both ways.
Comment by shel — June 1, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Melissa, I don’t know where one can find statistics on MSSD. I can only say this from personal experience that I noticed a larger number of the SBG participants, valedictorians, and people that were involved and well-known came from these schools. Of course, many of them were also from other schools, but there is that reputation about those particular schools and a few others. I can’t speak for other colleges because I haven’t gone to them to meet students at these colleges.
The scores you mention, if I’m reading them correctly, compare deaf students to hearing students. This isn’t something that I’m trying to deny. Many deaf children are behind their hearing peers, and it sucks.
Amy! Holy assumption batman! There is nobody in my family that is deaf. There are no deaf adults at the school where I work. When I go to class, I have 3 deaf classmates, and many more hearing classmates. I hardly think I’m avoiding anybody. Sure, I chose a deaf field over one that employs mostly hearing people, but I hardly see that as an avoidance.
Are you making another horrible assumption by thinking that ASL users aren’t comfortable talking to their mom, their grandmother, their cousin, their friend next door, their pediatrician, their dentist, their preschool teacher, and so on? Are YOU comfortable talking to your own children? Would you be comfortable chatting with them if they decided to use only ASL?
To answer your question, “can they communicate for a lifetime with the entire world?” I don’t think anybody can communicate with the entire world. Remember, we aren’t going to teach our kids Chinese, are we?
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
shel, good points
Comment by Rox — June 1, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Amy and Melissa brought up good points. There is so much that I have to say, but I’m not going to waste my time typing them up as you all are very set in your own mind and my adding more input is not going to change anyone’s mind.
Rox,
Why don’t you move on and help those who you feel that have failed to thrive in the oral education/AV settings while I continue to help other AV parents like Amy and Just a mom to three boys to ensure that their children continue to thrive in the AV settings.
Comment by Rachel — June 1, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Rachel, I’m not moving on because I want to help children BEFORE they get to the failure point, because really, by the time they get into a program that works, sometimes the children are 9, 12, or even 15 years old. You seem more intent on helping hearing parents. While that is fine with me, I could just as well suggest that you should move on and get out of deafread. But I won’t. I guess we are both around to stay. Here’s a pillow, let’s get comfortable!
::hands over a pillow::
Comment by Rox — June 2, 2008 @ 10:03 am
https://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Priorities/presentations/BOTpresentations/2002-10-17/1-NDE_Achievement_FY_2002.ppt
Above is snapshot of MSSD scores. I would suggest one go to Clerc Center online. There are lots of information there.
Apparently one has to take into consideration the underserved groups such as belonging to a racial/ethnic groups, disabilities (other than deafness), from non speaking English families, living in rural areas or are lower achieving academically. At Kendall (elementary school on Gallaudet Campus) 75 of KDES students belong to at least one traditionally underserved demographic group and at least 40% belongs to more than two.
So,it’s hard to see the real data that isn’t mixed with additional disabilities such as learning disabilities and kids who live at home where English isn’t spoken.
I know for a fact MANY hispanic kids with C.I. are failures because many of their parents do not speak English and they are not getting support. I don’t have that fact on paper, but, I can tell you which mainstream program to visit, to see it for yourself and/or I can direct you to someone who actually works with these kids.
Finally, it is a no brainer for parents who wants their children to have C.I., to go with the AVT approach. And I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I do not think that ASL hinders speech at all because I am living proof. However, in the end, it is always the parents who makes the final decision. Yet, Rachel’s success is attributed to AVT, therefore, this is what she is sharing with the rest of the world.
Rox, obviously Rachel is only here to share information and give support to those who are interested in AVT. That is all. I find it interesting that Rachel is constantly being bothered by people like you who don’t know how to leave good enough alone. Your being here isn’t helping those who you feel need help. You would do well by starting your own blog doing exactly the same thing Rachel is doing but focusing on ASL and Bi Bi approach.
Comment by CANDY — June 2, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Rox,
What Rachel is promoting is a program that does exactly what you espouse…..av programs are designed so that children have age appropriate language by or before kindergarten. I would place a wager on the fact that you will not see a 9, 12, or 15 year old who has COMPLETED an AVT program at a failure point due to language delay. Now the question remains AV can be for every child, but not every family. By that I mean that if a parent isn’t going to follow the necessary guidelines, put in the time and energy,etc. his/her child isn’t going to reap the benefits of the program. That could be said for a family who wants their child’s primary language to be ASL as well. A deaf child needs immersion in their language, and if a parent’s not willing to commit to that, his/her child will struggle and reach the failing point you speak of in your comments. Even if a child comes to you during the day, they still have to go home where the majority of the time is spent with his/her family. The problem with deaf education is in the hands of the parents, too.
I think we all do agree that Language is the most important factor. The issue doesn’t seem to be if parents like myself have a problem with ASL, the issue is that there are those who come here and tell us that we are wrong, we don’t know what we’re talking about, ASL is a must for every deaf child, we are “playing Russian Roulette” with our child’s lives, and the list goes on. We say each to their own as far as choices in language, but don’t come here and tell us AV is not a viable option, that it’s wrong, and that our children are not accepted unless they can sign. That’s when the momma bears in all of us come out. Many “bait, bait, bait,” from one side of this fence, and then when we defend our children, you cry foul. Rachel is who she is…she’s not going to tuck and run. For that we’re thankful.
Comment by Just a mom to three boys — June 2, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Candy,
Amen!
Comment by Just a mom to three boys — June 2, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Candy,
I can assert your statement about the failure of Hispanic pupils. During my teaching practicum assigned by New York University in 1980, I witnessed the failure of Hispanic pupils at two different schools, one at the School of Language Arts in the uptown Manhattan and the other at PS #47 in the mid Manhattan. That was in 1980. Some pupils wore hearing aids whilst the others did not. The project, “Bilingual Education,” which was a trend before the turn of the new millennium, at the aforementioned schools prepared by the overambitious Hunter College doctorate students turned out to be such a disaster that the pupils became terribly confused. I could not believe the lack of senso comune not only amongst the doctorate students but also at some surrealistic educators. True enough, in the 1990s, I read in NEWSWEEK Magazine an article declaring the miserable failure of Bilingual Education in the State of California. My friends and I were talking about this very topic over the weekend, and they (scholars) agreed. Alas , some educators still have a baby’s “milky eyes”.
Comment by Jean Boutcher — June 2, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Jean ..
Deaf education has “failed” because it became inherently too political. That is why there are deaf residential teachers indoctrinating their students with DEAF POLITICAL VALUES, rather than teaching them basic math, reading, etc. skills.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 2, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Jean ..
Ironically, another “deaf expert” published a blog that was picked up by DeafRead: click here.
Yup. Politics do not belong in schools. Period.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 2, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
my, my this is an interesting discussion.
Point #1″ just because deaf schools underperform compared to hearing schools (which stink up something terrible as well) does not mean ASL is the underlying cause. Correlation does not mean causation.
Point #2: I’m not denying deaf schools stink - most overachieving deaf/HOH folks are choosing not to go to these schools because of ADA/IDEA/Rehabilitation Act because they have the choice. I dont’ blame them - my parents made the same choice for me and I thank them for it. Really, the problem is usually lousy teaching, wrong emphases in the cirriculum and the education systems’ stereotypes of deaf students.
That said, i think choice for deaf children is a wonderful thing and Jessica is very lucky to have such a perpective and strong mother. Just do what works, try all different options to find the best one. Dont’ be scared of oral/AVT or even ASL. If done right ASL can enrich a person’s intelligence by exposing a child to a different language.
I will say that my speaking/reception skills has been indepensible for my success thus far, but so has ASL. What irks me is that people don’t understand the beauty and complexity of ASL. The thing is that, like English, there is a ‘low-functioning’ and ‘high functioning’ ASL.
Comment by ASL/CI Anonymous — June 2, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
ASL/CI Anonymous ..
I agree with you. Public schools are a constant source of complaining by parents across the country. Likewise, many public educators complain of parents with poor parenting skills, and having to “babysit other people’s kids instead of teaching them about geography.” Add issues about homework, and you’ll get the big idea.
Here’s another example:
A deaf leader of a certain bi/bi method movement has admitted to suffering from dyslexia. In stories told by this person, he suffered needlessly because of “oralism” and was harmed because he struggled with English. Long story short: he grew up angry and frustrated because he could not properly learn English; when he became an older person, he discovered ASL and then became Cujo about the “bi/bi method.”
If one were to think constructively about this man, his deafness and dyslexia, one would be able to see the bigger picture: here is a deaf man who suffered from undiagnosed and untreated dyslexia and blames “oralism” for his difficulties with English.
Additionally, consider the fact that there have been articles posted by alleged deaf residential school instructors complaining of “Diseases in Deaf Schools.” At the end of a long litany of excuses by this blogger, I was inclined to ask if the writer had been fired from their job.
Is it not possible that the aforementioned deaf instructor who blogged may have been fired for .. alcoholism? Drug abuse? Abuse towards students? Staff? Poor teaching performance? Poor educational skills?
Public school teachers are routinely fired for those problems/issues and this infers - based on numerous comparisons between sex scandals in public and deaf schools made by these same “deaf experts” - that deaf residential schools are not different than public schools. If we use that context, then we must allow for the possibility that a disgruntled deaf instructor may be lying, hiding or manipulating facts and truths.
Or quite possibly be unaware of the reality of the world, as in the case of the founder of a certain bi/bi method group.
:o)
Paotie
Comment by Paotie — June 3, 2008 @ 1:22 am