A small group of Americans to be taught a foreign language as their first language.
While most Americans confess that they do not like the educational system in the US, and an infinite supply of solutions continually are offered by politicians and educators alike, there remains a small group of people that is often overlooked (more on that shortly). The political ramifications of this group may well further define a number of other political issues, ranging from English as an “official” language to the best possible way to facilitate a child’s education.…
Article comments
76 - Christopher Rose
STM, that stuff they drink in the US isn't beer!
77 - kstein
Not reading carefully, Paotie.
You (#73): "You also assume the ADA ONLY requires interpreters. Wrong - the ADA requires "reasonable accommodations..."
Me (#69): "The ADA requires that service providers arrange and pay for "auxiliary aids" when needed for effective communication. This term includes interpreters, assistive listening devices, captioning, and more--even pen and paper where effective."
And my posting goes on to discuss the term "reasonable accommodations" in the same light.
You: "In New Mexico, the going rate is $50/hour with 2-hour minimum requirements."
Me (#40): "A typical charge here [east coast] ranges from $35-$50/hour for direct contracting."
Ah, we agree!
You: "Dental exams cost $25.00."
Me: Can't really make a statement like this. "MY dental exams cost $25.00" would be accurate, as would explaining, if it's the case, that this amount is your co-pay and that your insurance company pays your dentist the rest of his fee.
You: "And, you assume every dentist in America has the infinite knowledge of tax breaks and the like for the ADA and/or deaf people that you have."
Me: No--rather, I know that east coast dentists have simple access to this information. Even if medical professionals choose not to learn about their legal responsibilities from the plethora of information available to them on the web, they can't attend conferences or even open their business mail without receiving this basic info, which has been around since 1988.
Of course, as you say, even more outreach can be done here, by all of us.
You: "...not ALL deaf people require the same things. Some require transliterators; some require interpreters, and some simply require pen and paper."
Me (in case you missed it yet again): "This term [auxiliary aids] includes interpreters, assistive listening devices, captioning, and more--even pen and paper where effective."
Again--agreement! You just didn't see it. I know--you were up late yawning.
And finally--
You: "The $240/hour was a figure given on a MySpace Interpreter group by an interpreter. The area, I think, was in Mass., though I'll have to comb through the postings again to find that specific location."
Please do. I'm still waiting to find that interpreter who charged $480 for a 20-minute dental appointment on the east coast.
Oh, I can't resist...
You: "Next time you open your mouth WIIIIIIDE for a dentist, think about me."
Me: Next time you open your mouth, think about me.
(Permission to delete last statement as a personal attack :)
ks
78 - Paotie
ks ..
Again, the story I outlined did not say an interpreter charged $420 to interpret a dental exam. The $420 was based on a comment an interpreter made in a MySpace group in the vein that the interpreter shortage had created difficulties for deaf people in finding interpreters, especially for schools. I did NOT say that any interpreter charged $420 for a dental exam. Read it again.
You're picking fly shit out of pepper in disputing dental exam fees and interpreter rates. The fact of the matter is that if the deaf educational system had taught these deaf people to be self-independent and facilitate communication in ALL possible forms, including "auxillary services" then there would not have been a need for an interpreter for a simple dental exam. You imply throughout your comments that deaf people have a given right to interpreters, which the ADA addresses to some degree, but you omit the obvious and glaring problem inherent to educating the deaf:
Why teach them ASL if they cannot communicate with their dentist without an interpreter? You are advocating continued dependency of deaf people on a language (ASL) that begets more dependency on interpreters. The wonderful thing about your comments is that they reflect the problem with educating the deaf.
So, now that we've established that, consider this also: why is it that private businesses, such as a dentist have some moral or fiscal responsibility to provide an interpreter for a deaf person who has NOT been taught to be self-independent with regard to communicating with hearing people? And, if the deaf residential schools, for example, are spitting out droves of incapable, illiterate and uncommunicating deaf people, then why go to the extent to have the federal government spend upwards of $100 million per year for Gallaudet? Why do we continue to allow the existence of deaf residential schools who DO NOT TEACH DEAF PEOPLE HOW TO BE SELF-INDEPENDENT IN REGARD TO COMMUNICATING (caps added for emphasis) with the larger, hearing world?
Why is it that the New Mexico Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing noted in it's website that the primary organizations who FUND interpreter services are governmental and educational entities and NOT THE DEAF? Perhaps in pockets of the east coast, the majority of deaf people pay for their own interpreters, but given the woefully sad state of deaf education, somehow, that just doesn't seem realistic.
I love your comments. Keep up the good work.
And, you know you will think of me each time you open your mouth WIIIIIIIIDE, because you know deep down, your argument is baseless and illogical in more ways than one.
Cheers!
:o)
Paotie
79 - kstein
Paotie #78: "I did NOT say that any interpreter charged $420 for a dental exam."
By plucking a rate ($480, not $420) from one place and applying it to your story, you implied that an interpreter charged this amount for a dental appointment.
Look--you already admitted you shouldn't have quoted rates in your story, so I'm as ready as you are to drop the interpreter-rates-dental-exam-fees discussion. I was belaboring the point because it is just one example of how fabricated or manipulated "facts" lead to misinforming readers.
I'm ready to move on to hearing from knowledgeable experts on all sides about the very important issues you raise.
Anyone? Bueller?....Bueller?....
ks
80 - Paotie
ks ..
Awwww ..
Gave up, already? I thought you were some kind of expert on deaf people, interpreters and deaf education, but can't address the conflicts of your own logic, which are illogical, anyway.
You just want to find someone who agrees with you. In the article, I mentioned groupthink - you're a shining example of it.
81 - kstein
You'll notice I never said a word about deaf education (despite a degree in the subject)--only about subjects I do know about, like interpreters and accommodations, and only then to correct the misinformation posted here.
Was letting the silence continue in order to hear from other voices (from ALL sides, as I stated before), but it seems no readers are left.
Pity.
ks
82 - Paotie
KS ..
It's all about relativity.
The article I wrote discusses deaf education.
It appears that you are as much a part of the problem of deaf education than anything.
Interpreter dependency by deaf people is what you promote.
No wonder the deaf schools across the country are churning out teenagers with reading skill levels at the 3rd, 4th and 5th grade reading level.
:o)
Paotie
83 - Paotie
ks...
By the way, given the sad state of deaf education in the United States, coupled with educators of the deaf who promote continued dependency on interpreters by the deaf, the NM Legislature recently passed a mandate to study why deaf people there don't participate in political activities.
Part of the blame could easily be placed on the interpreters and interpreter shortage. Of course, if deaf people in New Mexico had been properly educated, then there would be little need to establish a legislative mandate to study why deaf people don't participate.
It says: "WHEREAS, deaf and hard-of-hearing persons often do not vote or register to vote due to a lack of availability of equal communication access that results in their inability to decide intelligently on the issues" - New Mexico State Legislature Senate Memorial 2 (2007)
Now, we see deaf people are unable to faciliate other means to make intelligent decisions, such as reading various media outlets, blogs, editorials and so on and so forth. Instead, the focus is on access to communication, which is code for "interpreters."
There are not enough interpreters in New Mexico.
CART is typically not utilized.
But that doesn't mean deaf people can't talk amongst themselves, and/or with others in general to formulate an "intelligent" opinion.
In otherwords, deaf people are simply too stupid to formulate an opinion without interpreters or CART, according to the NM Legislature, or more specifically, the NMCDHH.
You're doing a great job of helping me illuminate the farce that is called "deaf education."
:o)
Paotie
84 - WOW
Does the fact that Deaf education levels plummeted in the 1880's, after the Milan conference and oralism spreading, sign language being banned, mean anything to you? That Deaf people in the 1830-1870's (many of whom used ASL and English, that they learned in SCHOOL from Deaf teachers) were commonly editors of hearing-based newspapers and magazines? That Deaf education levels were never higher than in the 1800's. Do you suggest that all Deaf children struggle to learn to speak and lipread a PHONETIC-based language that they can't hear? Some do succeed, what amazing minds they have, many others fail. Were Deaf people raised with in the age you are so impressed with, the early 1900's, blessed with amazing English skills?
In Sweeden, all Deaf children are taught Swedish sign language (along with their parents) as well as the written Sweedish language and spoken if their parents decide to have them learn it. There, DEAF and HEARING children have EQUAL written language skills in Sweedish and English. A place where all the children are taught Swedish Sign Language as a first language, shocking!
Also, one thing to think about, at Martha's Vineyard, for more than a century, everyone there hearing and deaf, signed. Deaf people were simply expected and required to fully participate in society, government, and all- and they did.
But I guess Sweeden and Martha's Vineyard should have just stopped using their "foreign" sign languages- as ASL is foreign in America. Yes some of its roots are from France and Laurent Clerc, but it was also greatly influenced by Americans here. You could learn that in any basic ASL Linguistics class...but wait, you don't believe ASL is a fully valuable language.
85 - Interesting
As a hearing member of the deaf community, and a deaf studies major, I am confused by some of your arguments, and i would like to know about your personal research that you've done. What has brought you to your conclusions? I understand it is your opinion, but I'm just...confused.
First of all 80-90% of deaf students are now mainstreamed, and deaf students have been primarily mainstreamed for the past twenty years (it started in the 70's, and the numbers have gone up since then.) So, although you are talking about deaf kids English being ruined by Deaf culture and Deaf school, very few deaf people are acutally affected by this. Also, in Deaf residential schools nation-wide, only about 10% of the staff are d/Deaf, so it has to be hearing, fluent English users who are perpetuating the English difficulty.
Also, isn't it possible that the real problem for Deaf children, is that they aren't exposed to ANY language as a child. We've seen what that's done to "wild children" in extreme cases, it dwarfs their language for life. Deaf children, for at least the first few years, if they do not learn sign, have no language until they can learn to lipread and speak. They may have some access to some English with hearing aids, cochlear implants, and residual hearing, but definitely not full access. A signed language, such as ASL, is the only way to make sure a child has full access to language.
When you have a strong first language, especially at a young age, it is much easier to learn a second language, and actually both can be learned somewhat simultaneously. However, a spooken language simply isn't fully accessible to deaf people, especially as young children.
Do you suggest that all deaf children learn to lipread and speak? What if they can't/dont?
Reading and writing is EXTREMELY important for Deaf children, OF COURSE, it is a necessity. I have yet to meet one educated Deaf person who says that English is not important. I have Deaf professors, as well as d/Deaf friends and all agree that written English is essential for deaf people to best function. Ironically, in my experience, and what statistics show, the pre-lingually Deaf people who have the best English skills OVERALL (always exceptions) have Deaf parents and learned ASL as a first language, with English a close second. As one of them said "It was much easier for me to connect the sign/concept I already knew, BALL (in American sign language) and connect it to b-a-l-l in written English, that it would be for a deaf child to connect lips moving in some odd way and connect that to the round thing bouncing on the floor; especially when ball, bell, bill, bowl, and bull look very similar on the lips, and a child could not see the diffence, that mouth movement, if it register at all, could have multiple meanings."
There is so much more I could say, but lastly I will say this, the Deaf people who I've met, now numbering several hundred, who have been most successful with dealing with hearing people that don't sign, as well as being friendly with hearing people that do, grew up using ASL. Because they haven't had to grow up trying to struggle to catch what people are saying in spoken English all the time,-and hope they'll catch it- and they've instead been able to grow up like hearing children, -understanding most people most of the time- they are much more willing to make an extra effort to communicate by writing or gesturing or whatever they must do. I personally have had a great experience with the deaf community, and I learned English as my first and only language, and have been learning ASL later.
86 - Paotie
#84 - Actually, you are pointing out the obvious, although it may be so obvious that you're missing it. The answer to your questions were, oddly enough, answered by yourself.
If pre-Milan deaf people were newspaper and magazine editors and were taught some combination of ASL/English, then why is it that today, the majority of deaf students graduating from deaf residential schools have 3rd, 4th and 5th grade reading levels? If you go back on the comments thread, you'll notice I posted a comment about hearing children's educational standards have also been dumbed down since the 1900's. So, both hearing and deaf educational systems in the US have been dumbed down, but the greater harm is to deaf people who NEED to utilize English reading/writing skills to survive in an ever-increasingly English world while hearing children can get by in life with minimal English reading/writing skills because they can COMMUNICATE with other people, while deaf people struggle to communicate effectively with anyone - regardless of whether or not they use ASL or English (and to highlight this point, hard of hearing people struggle mightily with communicating to other people, even among themselves.)
Perhaps the educational attitudes in Sweden are what separates them from the US. In European countries, deaf people are able to learn multiple languages - deaf people in the US seemingly cannot. Care to explain why that might be?
I never said ASL was an illegitimate language.
The best point about your comments are: "Deaf people were simply expected and required to fully participate in society, government, and all- and they did." That is obviously not happening today, and a large part of the blame rests squarely on deaf culture and the political activism that continues to spit out ill-serving paradigms. The evidence can easily be found in your own comments.
#85 - Unfortunately, you appear to have been taught what to think as opposed to how to think relating to deaf education. Still, you are to be commended for asking questions.
Read the above answer to #84. Your teachers are apparently teaching you a specific paradigm, rather than encouraging you to have a wider perspective of how to educate the deaf. Perhaps you have been fed a steady stream of Harlan Lane books on deaf culture, and not enough on other perspectives, such as those by Tom Bertling and the other deaf researchers/educators he incorporated into his books.
The rest of your comments contain contradictory statements. You seem to suggest that hearing people have created poor English skills in deaf schools, and that's a weak premise for a logical argument. That also is consistent with ASL militant views. Sad that your teachers have taught you that, but it also illuminates what drives deaf educational failures today.
If anything, the comments in #84 and #85 reveal that deaf culture has created a generation (or more, actually) of culturally deaf people who are unable to read and write at sufficient levels - especially compared to pre-Milan if we abscribe to #84's comments. Why would Gallaudet allow illiterate deaf graduate students to stay in school there, let alone teach undergraduate courses?
Any other post-secondary institution that allowed illiterate graduate students to teach undergraduate courses would have been shut down immediately. If accountability were implemented, then obviously, something would have been done long ago about the educational failures at Gallaudet - and they still might if Gallaudet loses its accreditation (just so you know, I do not advocate Gallaudet shutting down, but I cannot support funding $100 million per year on a failing educational institution that continues to preach social and political values above all else - especially education itself.)
:o)
Paotie
87 - wow
Actually, you are pointing out the obvious, although it may be so obvious that you're missing it. The answer to your questions were, oddly enough, answered by yourself.
----The answers are definitely there, but the conclusions you are drawing are trying to take the answers and twist them.
If pre-Milan deaf people were newspaper and magazine editors and were taught some combination of ASL/English, then why is it that today, the majority of deaf students graduating from deaf residential schools have 3rd, 4th and 5th grade reading levels?
This was when Deaf children were allowed to use ASL, and they had primarily Deaf teachers who could use the full language the Deaf children could fully ACCESS as deaf people, and they were taught ASL which bridged them to English.
Now, VERY few deaf children learn ASL as a first language. Deaf education levels PLUMMETED after the Milan conference because so much focus was put on HOW they speak, that it wasn't about WHAT they leaned. This continues for many Deaf children today, most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work.
Again, when you are talking about Deaf people today, 80-90% are mainstreamed, the number in deaf schools is relatively small, yet reading levels are not going up when these kids go to mainstream schools and are taught only use English.
If you go back on the comments thread, you'll notice I posted a comment about hearing children's educational standards have also been dumbed down since the 1900's. So, both hearing and deaf educational systems in the US have been dumbed down, but the greater harm is to deaf people who NEED to utilize English reading/writing skills to survive in an ever-increasingly English world while hearing children can get by in life with minimal English reading/writing skills because they can COMMUNICATE with other people, while deaf people struggle to communicate effectively with anyone - regardless of whether or not they use ASL or English (and to highlight this point, hard of hearing people struggle mightily with communicating to other people, even among themselves.)
----100% agreed. That's good, we agree on something.
Perhaps the educational attitudes in Sweden are what separates them from the US. In European countries, deaf people are able to learn multiple languages - deaf people in the US seemingly cannot. Care to explain why that might be?
--You overlook a couple things, such as the fact that they learned Swedish Sign language, (which has a completely separate grammar from the spoken language in Sweeden) as a bridge to written/spoken Swedish. The Swedish government is smarter than to have them simply try to learn spoken Swedish first, as they know it doesn't work. Deaf people there, Deaf militants as I'm sure you would have considered them, fought to have that happen, and it worked.
---After the Milan conferenc, nearly all the Deaf teachers were fired from deaf schools and hearing teachers, preferably those who didn't sign, were hired. THAT is when deaf people's educatiion levels, and bilingualism, plummeted. When deaf children were no longer taught or allowed to use ASL. Even now, 90% of the teacher in the deaf school's are hearing, and most of them are not fluent signers. When teachers can't even use a language students can fully access, it would explain why they have problems in school. Also, many deaf children, with hearing parents, have NO language access until they are 5, they are already SO language delayed, when they get to a deaf residential school or mainstream school, the schools are just desperately trying to help them catch up as much as they can. Then, many of the schools are not equipped to handle deaf students with these needs, and deaf people suffer.
---I never said ASL was an illegitimate language.
I felt you implied it, I was wrong, correct me, although you have yet to accept it as a full language, regardless of how linguists accept it as a full and complete language.
The best point about your comments are: "Deaf people were simply expected and required to fully participate in society, government, and all- and they did."
This was, AGAIN, as in Sweeden, when deaf people were allowed to use sign language fully, unlike in America where the majority of deaf children don't have access to ASL, and consequently have difficulty learning English as a first language, a language they can't fully ACCESS.
That is obviously not happening today, and a large part of the blame rests squarely on deaf culture and the political activism that continues to spit out ill-serving paradigms.
--- Or possibly it rests on the attitudes of doctor and educators who believe that a child who can't hear should continue to try and learn a Phonetic, sound-based language through a medium they can't fully access, spoken English, rather than learn it as a much more effective way, by learning a language they can fully access, and using it as a bridge to English, to be able to understand as much of it as they can.
Deaf people with Deaf parents and/or older Deaf siblings have better English than any other section of pre-lingually Deaf people, and they have ASL as a first language. They can fully communicate with their parents in a language they can fully access, while many deaf kids with hearing parents, who don't learn to sign, sometimes make it to age 5 without ever knowing their own names.
88 - Paotie
I disagree.
The basis for the existence of deaf residential schools - especially after the 1970's - was built around the supposed need to teach deaf children ASL. Otherwise, you're stating that the US has wasted millions upon untold millions of dollars on deaf residential schools - and Gallaudet itself. You essentially claim that mainstream and deaf residential schools did the same exact thing: teach oralism all the way up to yesterday, and is why so many deaf people are illiterate.
This is not 1950. This is 2007. We have technology to allow deaf children to hear phonetics, and thus English as a first language. There were few resources in the 1950's for hearing parents with deaf children. Even the past 30 years has seen an explosion of deaf linguists who proclaim ASL as a "native" language of the deaf. Your blame on hearing parents falls short of it's intended goal simply because everybody, according to you, was too busy advocating the useless function of deaf schools and ignoring hearing parents' needs.
What a lovely bunch the educators of the deaf have been.
Basically, you're saying that the crime or injustice being committed for years has been by educators of the deaf, who selectively ignored hearing parents' needs to understand language acquistion, and instead, poured millions of dollars into deaf residential schools who did essentially the same thing as mainstream schools. And, you're advocating that the deaf educational system has been a fraud for thirty years or more and that illiterate deaf children that exist today are the product of medical doctors' ignorance. And, meanwhile, educators of the deaf were socializing and hob-knobbing for the continued funding of deaf schools and Gallaudet, and when illiterate students popped out of the educational womb, it was all hearing folk's fault.
It's still happening, obviously - only this time, you pretend that ASL is the cure. Wrong. It's been the problem all along, in addition the prevalent groupthink that still exists.
By the way - your comment: "This continues for many Deaf children today, most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work." has one simple flaw: hearing people. According to that comment, all hearing people do not belong or are not allowed to have opinions on deaf culture, deafness, or deaf education.
Now you're sounding like an ASL militant.
Cheers!
:o)
Paotie
89 - Paotie
Dear Interesting and any other hearing Deaf Education students (and those with degrees):
I am sad to tell you that the originator of post #87 has declared that the ONLY opinion or the ONLY people who are allowed to discuss deaf education are those who are culturally deaf. As my article outlined, this form of ASL militantism is what drives the failure of deaf education, as well as groupthink.
#87 stated: This continues for many Deaf children today, most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work.
I am deaf. Even if I was raised in an oral environment, I was still raised in a deaf educational platform. Nevermind that you don't know whether or not I know ASL or even PSE, what matters is that the ONLY deaf people that you should listen to are those who are "culturally" deaf. Just ignore everyone else. You must do as you are told. Because you are a hearing person, your opinion is irrelevant, and you should NEVER insert your opinion, let alone formulate one without a culturally deaf person telling you how to do so.
The only opinion that matters is the one told to you by a culturally deaf person, I am said to say, based on the comment from #87. You just simply are not allowed any room for introspective, perception, research, enthographical research, and simple common experience with the deaf, whomever and whatever they may be.
With deepest regrets,
:o)
Paotie
90 - sr
My family has a history of deafness and speech impairment. Back then they use to call it deaf and dumb. You can be deaf but never dumb. I learned how to speak with my grand-parents and uncles with my hands. Still remember some of it to this day. Can you imagine what is was like for Helen Keller. Deaf, speechless and blind and then go on to earn a Phd. Their is a GOD.
91 - Wow
I disagree.
--- I'm not surprised :)
The basis for the existence of deaf residential schools - especially after the 1970's - was built around the supposed need to teach deaf children ASL.
--- Most Deaf residential schools were established in the early 1800's, and all Deaf students were sent to them, nearly all were "schools for the deaf and blind" and were seen by the parents sending their children there as a place to take care of "handicapped children." For a long time they were considered institutions, much like mental institutions. Deaf people were sent there because no one else knew how to or wanted to deal with "them."
Ironically, attendance at Deaf residential schools declined heavily in favor of mainstreaming in the 1970's, right when you are talking about this heavy influence. VERY few Deaf schools teach ASL, one that does however Maryland School for the Deaf, produces Deaf graduates who read English at much higher grader levels than most deaf people.
Otherwise, you're stating that the US has wasted millions upon untold millions of dollars on deaf residential schools - and Gallaudet itself.
--- Gallaudet's goal is not to accept ASL as a language, it doesn't even except it as a "language other than English" to satisfy the second language requirements for students, hearing or deaf. Also, still, most deaf schools still have very few fluent ASL users as teachers, as I've already pointed out.
You essentially claim that mainstream and deaf residential schools did the same exact thing: teach oralism all the way up to yesterday, and is why so many deaf people are illiterate.
Yesterday is exaggerated, but yes. For several decades Oralism was considered THE only acceptable way to teach deaf children, and still is by many people, when oralism started was when deaf education levels plummeted, there is a strong correlation. How do you feel about oralism by the way? Do you think any sign systems or languages should be used?
This is not 1950. This is 2007. We have technology to allow deaf children to hear phonetics, and thus English as a first language. There were few resources in the 1950's for hearing parents with deaf children.
First of all, not all deaf children. There are some deaf children for whom hearing aids and cochlear implants don't work. Even for those who it does work, the results vary with the individual, and I think you'd agree that it requires a lot extra work by the students parents and educators, which you could argue is true no matter what with any deaf child, but it also requires a LOT of very hard work and hours of therapy and dedication by the student. Learning to hear for deaf and hard-of- hearing people STILL requires a lot of work, work that hearing children don't have, and work that deaf children who sign using ASL first, and from a young age, don't have to do in order to learn language.
Even the past 30 years has seen an explosion of deaf linguists who proclaim ASL as a "native" language of the deaf.
Your blame on hearing parents falls short of it's intended goal simply because everybody, according to you, was too busy advocating the useless function of deaf schools and ignoring hearing parents' needs.
---This paragraph is confusing how does the "even the past 30 years..." sentence correlate with the rest of the paragraph? I could draw several conclusions, but I'd rather have you clarify that have more misunderstanding.
---I will say, to respond to what I do understand of your message, I never said that deaf residential schools were useless in function. One important aspect is the ability to easily communicate with people, something deaf people don't have the privilege of doing with most hearing people. Deaf people can/do interact with hearing people every day, but as you said. "deaf people struggle to communicate effectively with anyone"--that is except other deaf people and hearing people who sign. Oral deaf people have to struggle to communicate with everyone, signing deaf people have to struggle to communicate with everyone who doesn't sign. Who is more limited?
Also, to respond to something you said in your original blog, ASL was not even recognized as a full language by deaf or hearing people until 1960...before that, there was no huge stigma to those who could sign using English-like signs, (there was no official SEE) and speak, in fact, many deaf people even assumed that those who signed in a more English-like way were more intelligent. Deaf children were not encouraged to use ASL and not English in educational settings almost ever....
Anyway, please elaborate on your original point.
What a lovely bunch the educators of the deaf have been.
--They've been pretty bad, obviously something we agree on, or you wouldn't have written the article. Our solutions are different but we both agree the issue is in deaf educators.
Basically, you're saying that the crime or injustice being committed for years has been by educators of the deaf, who selectively ignored hearing parents' needs to understand language acquistion, and instead, poured millions of dollars into deaf residential schools who did essentially the same thing as mainstream schools. And, you're advocating that the deaf educational system has been a fraud for thirty years or more and that illiterate deaf children that exist today are the product of medical doctors' ignorance. And, meanwhile, educators of the deaf were socializing and hob-knobbing for the continued funding of deaf schools and Gallaudet, and when illiterate students popped out of the educational womb, it was all hearing folk's fault.
So much to say here:
---Up until the 1870's in America, Deaf people controlled deaf education, and deaf people did well. Laurent Clerc, a French deaf man, helped establish and teach at the first schools for the deaf, and his students were those who initially established most other schools for the deaf. When HEARING educators of deaf people got together at the Milan conference, and decide to ban sign language around the world, deaf education levels plummeted and have never recovered. Hearing people are still the ones who are heavily the controllers of deaf education. So yeah, I would say hearing people then do hold a lot of the responsibilty. When educated deaf people were educating Deaf children, and those children nearly all used sign language, deaf children and deaf people did the best they have ever done.
-Addressing the Deaf residential schools again, they also serve a huge purpose educationally, but a LACK of funding and LACK of qualified teachers (deaf teachers were not hired for decades, often still aren't) hasn't helped. In that way, they are similar to mainstream schools, but, unlike most mainstream schools, most deaf schools have some VERY qualified staff, and there are other deaf adults and role models around- and again, you can't negate a child's socials needs that are being met at a deaf school, that are not met in mainstream schools, again "deaf people struggle to effectively communicate with anyone" - (anyone being those who don't sign) most deaf children feel SO isolated from the hearing students around them AND get a crappy education.
You again have ignored that most deaf children are language-delayed because they are 3, 4, 5 years old before they are even exposed to language. When deaf students get to school, they are so far behind schools are just working to help them catch up, residential schools almost always have better resources for that than mainstream schools. But lack of LANGUAGE during the CRITICAL period is the biggest reason deaf people struggle with English.
It's still happening, obviously - only this time, you pretend that ASL is the cure. Wrong. It's been the problem all along, in addition the prevalent group think that still exists.
Wait...you last sentence isn't negating that ASL is a legitimate language?
Again, language access...what language can deaf people fully access (in America). For a second time you ignored that Sweden and Martha's Vineyard acted in the way the American Deaf community you so disagree with wants to, using a full sign LANGUAGE to bridge to a spoken one, English. They are two obvious success stories, Sweden a modern-day one, yet I guess their success is different because American minds are so different than the rest of the others in the world. We just "can't learn multiple languages" as you strongly imply.
By the way - your comment: "This continues for many Deaf children today, most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work." has one simple flaw: hearing people. According to that comment, all hearing people do not belong or are not allowed to have opinions on deaf culture, deafness, or deaf education.
----I did say, "This continues for many Deaf children today, most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work."
First of all, I am a hearing member of the Deaf community, so if I really believed that only deaf people could get involved then I would be excluding myself.
I never said that hearing people can't be involved in the Deaf community, or when or how they are involved, I just stated the time when most Deaf people do. As I'm sure pleases you, most deaf people don't even know much about ASL and the Deaf community until they get out of the K-12 system, and either go to college, get a job, or do whatever else they're going to do.
I said, "hearing people with beliefs similar to yours." You stated earlier that you are deaf, I recognize and respect you as a deaf person speaking your opinion. I would like to hear more about the hundreds of deaf people you've met and interacted with that know who support your perspective, I would like to hear about your personal education. You talk the only opinion possible being that of "culturally" deaf people, have you honestly had deep discussion with an educated member of the Deaf community? I've had many discussions with oral deaf people who don't sign, and don't like sign, just wondering how much you've really tried to see the other side, REALLY see it, and not just accepted what's been taught to you by the people who raised and educated you.
Now you're sounding like an ASL militant.
----I am an advocate of accessible language first, for nearly all deaf children in America (pre-lingually in particular) that is ASL. Being literate in English is TOTALLY necessary for deaf people in America, as nearly any Deaf person with Deaf parents will tell you. Learning a language that you can fully access in order to learn a second language you can't makes sense.
Cheers!
92 - sr
Sometimes I think it would be an advantage to be blind and not read the BS comments on BC including my own. Goodnight.
93 - Cairo
Worse, you'd though sr, you could have to listen to BS comments while JAWS or another screenreader service read them to you.
94 - Paotie
Hey Wow ..
Just admit it: you're an elitist hypocrite. First you say deaf people have no business formulating an opinion about Deaf culture; then, you say you're hearing and are allowed to be an "expert" - but not deaf people.
[Edited]
Anyway, the sooner you admit that you're an elitist ASL militant, and a "Deaf groupie" the sooner you can face reality.
Mostly, I think it's funny you created so much rent in your brain just for me.
Awwww .. how sweet!
:o)
Paotie
95 - Wow
Hypocrit, hmm... you were the one who argued it was wrong that only Deaf people in Deaf culture could say anything, then a hearing person does, and you're not happy with that either...guess nobody can say anything but you
You gave up I guess, sometimes when the truth comes at you too many times, it's too hard to take, ah well.
Good discussion, I appreciated it.
Here's to the future of better deaf education!
96 - Paotie
Hey Wow ..
To illustrate the contradiction in your logic, you said:
"most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work"
And then you said:
"First of all, I am a hearing member of the Deaf community."
You really don't even know what you're doing, do you? You validated my article in more ways than one. Outstanding! And the best part was you tried to discredit me, and in the process, you ended up making yourself a hypocrite.
It's ok - I understand. Your beliefs are only because of Deaf people telling you what to think - much like your claim about hearing people telling me what to think.
Good thing I don't believe in that, even if you do. It just goes to show the hypocrisy inherent to deaf culture.
Pleeeeeease keep commenting! I love it!
:o)
Paotie
97 - Wow
Three times now you have ignored two societies where Deaf people have been most successful, modern day Sweeden and Martha's Vineyard in the 1600, 1700, and 1800's...places where they use/used a sign language different from it's spoken language counterpart. Modern day Sweden's Deaf children have Swedish and English skills equal to the hearing children there. A place where all Swedish Deaf children are allowed to sign, and their parents are required to learn sign, (through classes the government pays for) and they have Deaf mentors who, as you would probably look at them, are pro-Deaf culture. The people who fought for this were what you would call Swedish sign Language "militants," when they got it, it worked! There is no society that uses only a spoken language approach where Deaf people have been as successful and educated. America tried it from the 1880's to the 1970's, it didn't succeed for the high majority of Deaf people here.
First I said, "most deaf people get involved in the Deaf community, in college or later, after they've grown up being raised by hearing people with beliefs very similar to yours and it simply doesn't work"
Then I said, "I am a hearing member of the Deaf community."
Where is the hypocrisy? Where is the contradiction? Some hearing people have beliefs similar to yours, some have beliefs similar to mine, most are just ignorant of the issues all together.
Again, yes, I said that many deaf people become involved in the deaf community after being raised by hearing people with beliefs similar to yours. Some deaf children are raised with hearing people who have beliefs similar to mine, hence the clarification. Two examples of this would be Martha's Vineyard and modern day Sweden, where deaf people are highly successful and educated.
Please show me the hypocrisy.
98 - sr
Does deafness and speech impairment skip a generation or two. Would truly like to know. I have been told this however have not spent the time to research it. Thanks, sr
99 - Wow
Sr,
Some causes of deafness are genetic, some are not. When it is genetic, from what I know and the people I've met, yes it can "skip a generation." It seems to just become a recessive gene in hearing children of deaf parents, and when it is combined with their partners genes, they may or may not have deaf children.
100 - wildnfree
Paotie,
Allow me to introduce myself, I too am deaf, and NEVER learned ASL. The schools where I went had "excellent" programs for deaf students that shepherded them through school, and today sadly most of them still have to be herded through life. Through the use of an extremely powerful hearing hearing aid in the one ear that is capable of hearing anything at all, and plenty of speech therapy, I HAVE NO HANDICAP. At times I hated my parents for forcing me to endure the cruelty of "normal" children. ('til I learned to kick their asses!)
There have been times when I have run across some of the other deaf children that attended the schools that I did, and even today they are trapped in a separate world, like animals in zoo. They only fellowship with each other and for the most part only date/marry among themselves. A couple of them have succeeded in the academic world but most of them are stuck in the menial world of low paying jobs or survival on government benefits.
Well meaning (perfect hearing) friends who attend the local social events for the deaf have invited me to come but I was a complete outsider, but my hearing friends just didn't understand why it was so sad for me to see these poor souls.
There is nothing wrong with these children learning ASL as long as it is used to build a bridge into society, and not a wall to keep it out. It can be done and I'm the living proof.
My life has been great without ASL... Been through some women, none deaf (most could hear too good:0)
Before putting myself back through college at night I worked as a mechanic (..lady your car sounds good to me..) Raised my (hearing) child mostly alone.
My plea to everyone dealing with people with any physical disability is please do not try to lock us away in our own worlds, and protect us. Instead teach your children to forge full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. That is living and if we get hurt or killed in the process at least we got to LIVE!
Sorry Do-gooders but most of the time you do more harm than good.
101 - Paotie
Hey Wow ..
Just so you know, I have the same gene that causes deafness, and in Martha's Vineyard, that gene is quite prominent in deaf populations.
Sweden ain't the US.
Maryland ain't the rest of the US.
You promote ideals that offer minimal reality for the majority of deaf people throughout the US, and your insistence to compare Maryland to New Mexico, for example, fails miserably on too many levels. Sweden has a smaller population than the US, so the impact of poor deaf educational systems probably is more profound there than it would be for the US simply because of population sizes, among many other things.
Nice try.
:o)
Paotie
102 - Paotie
WildnFree ..
Your comments hit home on many levels.
Perhaps now we see the result of deaf culture:
Culturally deaf people reject the idea they have a disability. They are seriously handicapped with poor education and poor communicational skills given the fact so many deaf children have 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade reading levels. In any case, they insist they are handicapped because they require interpreters simply to function in society.
Oralism, you seem to suggest, teaches deaf people that they DO have a disability (deafness), and reject the idea they have a handicap. What do you think?
:o)
Paotie
103 - Karen Mayes
I have been following this with some interest.
I too share similiar concerns with Paotie...
I have a few burning questions. What is the percentage of oral/CI mainstreamed students that goes on to being mainstreamed at the hearing colleges?
At what percentage of this 80% group decides to delve into ASL Culture?
Etc.
Everytime when I view vlogs, read blogs and comments by "failed" oralists, blaming the oral education, I take it with a grain of salt. Really? I do know several oral deaf people who have successfully mastered the language English without learning ASL.
104 - Paotie
Hey Wow ..
Couple of quick hits: are you of the mind that Oralism is oppressive?
And that the NAD (National Association of the Deaf) is wrong for allowing a book on SEE to exist?
:o)
Paotie
105 - wildnfree
Paotie,
The problem really is not the teaching of ASL, but the teaching of only ASL. We would gain a great number of hardworking, intelligent, fellow citizens and possible friends if we could just tear down the walls of the prison that they are kept in.
Some accommodations have to be made by the rest of society but not as many as claimed by professional advocates.
Education for the deaf and hard of hearing is stuck in the latter part of the 19th century and kept there by a group that depends on this to put food on the table.
There are some who are completely an-acoustic and may never be able to fully function with 100% independence, but even they should be able to function in most work or social situations.
We will never be able to change the minds of the hearing people who dis-agree with us because they really in their hearts believe that they are doing the right thing. BUT if we can inspire just one other person like ourselves to try the implants or wear the really expensive and annoying hearing aids, and tell others to look at me and speak plainly. Then this discussion will have been worth it, because we have set some poor captive on the road to freedom.
Deaf and hard of hearing people join us, become reasonably prosperous and maybe even get laid occasionally. Sure you will have to make some accommodations for the hearing world, but I have discovered that once you get past the time of teenage stupidity that most people are gracious and helpful. The ones that aren't? shoot them!
106 - Karen Mayes
Check out this link... seems there is a big division between two socieities... oral and ASL societies. Thought you'd be interested in reading it.
107 - kstein
Thanks, Karen, for that outstanding link. Soooooo refreshing to read an author who avoids knee-jerk reactions, name-calling ("You're an ASL militant! And you, over there--you're an ASL militant, too!"), and willy-nilly fingerpointing (at all deaf educators, at the voting system in NM, at deaf people wanting dental exams) and instead poses cohesive, logical, and substantiated arguments. While I agree with some of that author's points and question others, I am secure in knowing that at least he 1) generally knows what he's talking about, and 2) is able to state his points clearly and rationally. People LEARN from reading that post.
What's more, the subsequent discussion on that site is heated yet civilized and provides all sorts of useful information from a wide variety of perspectives. Many responses contain witty banter and sarcasm while remaining informative and respectful. Delightful!
Conversely, I feel the author of this piece, on Blogcritics, (ab)uses this forum as an outlet for personal frustration and rage, which results in the watering down of key points that could have been informative to us readers.
It's like the schoolyard bully trying to pick fights--at some point, that person is the only one left on the schoolyard.
ks
108 - Paotie
kstein ..
Tell us: do you think the Jewish Holocaust was some fictional thing? Comparing Alexander Graham Bell to Hitler (which the link above did) is absurd - even if both believed in eugenics. Hitler put it to work. Bell had a deaf wife AND mother.
Anyway, it's ok. You are an interpreter for the deaf. It is ok that a deaf man is highly educated and can form an opinion different that the one you've created.
It is ok. You don't need to be projecting yourself towards other people. This is America, people are allowed to formulate opinions, rightfully/wrongfully. You think I'm wrong - great. I think you're wrong - great.
:o)
Paotie
109 - wildnfree
This is what I meant, the disagreement is based on what I believe to be a very genuine effort to help. Paotie speaks from experience as do I. Although it is probably useless to ask, please consider opening your minds to greater possibilities than exist now.
Lets face it people who are any way different make the majority uncomfortable, thus they prefer to keep us tucked quietly (pun intended) away, to protect themselves from us. They just do not realize it, they think they are protecting us.
This will be my last post on this, as it is getting bogged down in trench warfare and will only end when the next to last fighter dies.
110 - Paotie
Anyone who doubts the veracity of the original article, check out a Washington Post article.
:o)
Paotie
111 - Paotie
Hey Kstein -
In reference to your claims that interpreters charge around the $50/hour range on the east coast, one interpreter in Maryland charges $110+/hour with 2 hour minimums. See this.
So, simple math suggests $220 to pay an interpreter for a 15-minute dental exam.
Oh, and it was in Maryland - not New Mexico, where the rate is $50/hour.
:o)
Paotie
112 - Todd
I find it this whole discussion very inappropriate. Here is one hearing persons opinion, with comments from many people who have not heard any other points of view.
If this discussion interests you, why not ask a Deaf person about their point of view. I am constantly amazed how many hearing people think that all Deaf people need "fixing". It's so easy to pass judgment and make assumptions when you do so from an impersonal, distant vantage point.
I urge anyone reading this post to get informed. While the blog posts encourages thinking of the Deaf as a statistical group, these are real people with real feelings that can do anything that hearing people can do (except hear).
113 - kstein
The only reference I found to interpreter rates on the east coast in the link you provided, Paotie, says this (cut and pasted):
"I work as a Freelance Interpreter in DC. I usually charge an initial fee of 110-120 for the first 2 hours.. and then its 45 per hour after that. But peoples rates are different."
This means that this interpreter charges $110-$120 for 2 hours of work, not for 1 hour. After 2 hours, each additional hour is $45. Charging a two-hour minimum is standard practice for many freelance interpreters and interpreting agencies around the country.
Your original claim in your story is this (cut and pasted):
"on the east coast, interpreters can charge $240/hour, with 2-hour minimum charge, which is the norm for interpreters - in this case $480"
My role here remains as always: to correct misinformation about topics that I know, and to learn more about those topics I don't know.
ks
114 - Retired Rhonda
Now that the ranting and raving seem to be settling ...
There are several studies that show that Language Deprivation in the first years of life creates educational and intellectual deficits that are extremely difficult to overcome.
I beleive that one study showed that Deaf children of Deaf adults perfommed equally well in school compared to hearing children of hearing adults.
(Hearing children of Deaf parents performed above average - most likely because their little developing brains were exposed to both spoken and visual language; and deaf kids of hearing parents performed below average.)
This means that Deaf kids who grew up with daily exposure to visual language - i.e.: ASL - grow up with intellectual and educational skills comparable to hearing children.
However, deaf kids who grow up in hearing familes are not exposed to ANY language during the critical years when the language centers of the brain are developing. These deaf kids cannot hear their parents' spoken language and the parents - usually - do not learn and become proficient in a visual language.
These kids face life long deficits.
Please note: these are generalizations. There are exceptions. As Todd noted above, every child - deaf or Deaf or hearing - is a unique individual raised in a unique family.
The problem is not ASL or Deaf Schools. The problem is language deprivation in the critical years of brain development.
Instead of arguing about the use of ASL in deaf education, instead of arguing about the cost of interpreters in different markets, we should be advocating for programs and laws that require hearing parents of deaf children to provide those kids with access to visual language.
Thats my two cents.
115 - Paotie
Kstein -
Where ever art thou?
In case anyone disputes the dentist story, here's a more realistic and obvious case for you to stir your brains around with. This comment came from DeafDC.com - a Deaf blogging site that includes Gallaudet instructors who are bloggers as well. The comment?
I know that most interpreting agencies charge around $150-200 bucks an hour with a two hour minimum. Now, the class that my wife was trying to register our daughter for is only 45 minutes long. That would mean we deaf consumers would be OUT anywhere from $300 to $400 bucks just for a measly 45 minute class ...
Click here to follow the link to the blog.
:o)
Paotie