Comments seen about views of ASL made by teachers and administrators in recent months:
"This student does not have any language. He cannot learn. He doesn't understand what I am trying to teach him. He needs to move to a slower class."
A new student from mainstreamed school who never learned ASL before enrolling into the school for the deaf. The thing was the student picked up ASL very quickly, was able to interact with his peers BUT this hearing teacher's signing sucked, so he moved to a slower class. Who did the supervising teacher listen to? This teacher with bad ASL over objections of several others with whom this student had classes and were making good progresses.
This teacher concluded that this student was slow based on his lack of progress in HER/HIS class and the tragedy of it was the supervising teacher listened to this teacher because he made great progress in all of his other classes.
Diagnosis: Audism on part of both the teacher and the supervising teacher because 4 out of this student's 5 teachers were deaf.
"ASL is a social tool for deaf students. We don't have to use ASL in classroom because it is not a teaching tool."
A teacher's view on ASL. This teacher uses SimCom and considers this a tool of classroom teaching although all of her students are multi-disabled and all have varied degrees of mental retardation. These students have no intelligible speech capabilities therefore would not benefit from an oral/aural approach.
Diagnosis: Ignorance
"SimCom is still the best tool for classroom teaching because some students do benefit from listening to spoken words for some new or some familiar words they heard before but not in fingerspelled form or printed form."
This from a DEAF teacher who grew up in a mainstreamed setting. He/she doesn't believe oralism is effective but continues to believe spoken language has benefits in classroom instruction. The majority of his/her students were not oral/aural students. He/she had a few of them but those students didn't require speaking to understand language - in fact with expanded definition and prior experience using ASL, those students caught on to the what those words were rather than simply listening to the spoken version because by themselves, those spoken words are meaningless.
This deaf teacher has good speech and wears hearing aid devices daily. He/she uses speech when conversing with hearing staff.
Diagnosis: Ignorance and possibly audism.
"Fingerspelling is not important because it is not part of ASL. They only need to learn words in printed form."
Surprisingly, this was said by a deaf teacher.
Diagnosis: Ignorance
"My child can hear and speak well. That's why he/she is in the top class."
This from a deaf parent. Brainwashed parent who was told time and again that spoken language capability in a deaf student is associated with level of intelligence by his/her teachers while growing up.
Diagnosis: Ignorance and misdirected audism
"This student can hear so well. I don't understand why he is in that class (slow class)? His hearing should help him acquire language."
This from another hearing teacher who, again, associated hearing ability with intelligence.
Diagnosis: Ignorance
"Why aren't you wearing your CI? It teaches you to learn language. You need to keep it on all the time."
Of course, another hearing teacher, over student's objections that the sounds in the classroom were distracting for him/her. This student never had AVT therapy, parents who did not sign at home and had no insurance for AVT therapy, and she/he stopped wearing CI in grade school. This student doesn't speak. In fact, there are many like this student at this school. If this student never had AVT therapy following the CI surgery as a toddler or infant, it is pretty much pointless to continue wearing CI device other than hearing environmental sounds rather than language. This student's mother makes him/her wear CI at home to keep her/him safe when he/she is outside the house.
Diagnosis: Ignorance
"We are having a private conversation."
Hearing teachers' reply to a student who asked them why they were not signing in the cafeteria during their breakfast duties. This student commented that when deaf teachers needed to speak in private, they went to other place where students could not see them; it was not fair the hearing teachers took advantage and speak without signing in front of deaf students which was rude.
Diagnosis: Pure audism
"Audism is not even a word. It is a made-up word by deaf militiants."
This from an administrator during a meeting.
Diagnosis: Ignorance and audism
"We cannot teach ASL exclusively because the majority of the students in the classroom benefit from oral/aural instruction therefore we cannot teach to benefit one student but to all."
An administrator in a meeting in regards to instructional approach where he shared his educational philsophy and promoted that teachers continue with SimCom approach.
Diagnosis: Ignorance because he/she has not incorporated or accepted research data that disproved this theory that SimCom had to be implemented to meet all the needs of the individual student within a classroom. Research had showed that students with speech/aural abilities benefit from ASL instruction and even more than they would have if taught only in SimCom or even in oralism.
"ASL is not a valid classroom instruction tool because it is still in research stage."
By a supervising teacher in a meeting, essentially rejecting the ideology of CAEBER and its 10-15 years worth of research.
Diagnosis: Audism - rejecting proven data in favor of comfort zone of using SimCom to benefit themselves over the students' benefits and/or needs.
All this is happening in the recent months, not years ago. There are STILL people in employ at schools for the deaf with those attitudes and views on ASL.
To quote a parent:
"Excuse me, is this an oral school or a school for the deaf?" in reference in the school's overt emphasis on speech and audiological training and lack of focus on academics as well as apparent disregard or lack of respect for ASL.
Folks, this is not unique to ONE school but schools all over.
Ignorance and audism are diseases that are ailing those schools.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
True! True! Well described.
Is it possible to turn this around?
"CAEBER and its 10-15 years worth of research."
10-15 years worth!? Show us the research.
Peer-reviewed preferred.
They have done nothing but talk, talk, talk...
With all due respect, somebody just gotta tell "The Man" by the name of Dr. Nover. By being eternally clueless, he IS making things difficult for us, truth be told.
How can this guy be responsible?
Anonymous #2
You have something against Steve Nover? Have anything to share?
Anonymous #1
Yeah - what is the cure to all those diseases ailing our schools? I think we need to look to the top schools for the deaf as our models. Strong deaf community, high rate of deaf administrators and teachers are key to higher academic performance and to reduce audism and ignorance and/or outdated philsophy on deaf education.
Concidentially, anonymous #1, these top schools for the deaf utilize CAEBER in their classrooms. CAEBER improves academic performance especially for those from non-signing homes.
And folks, can you be more creative with your identities rather than simply pressing the anonymous button? Think up of a pseudoym rather than using your real name. Thanks.
thats why we are sending our children to charter school
and we are happy with that decision.
Anonymous #4
Depends on which charter school you send your child. Most states don't require charter school teachers to be certified or to teach in the field of their studies...they are not required to conform to NCLB guidelines.
I know because I taught at one once. I taught for several years and was never certified. The curriculum was poor. The teachers were not high quality. The hierarchy was not well structured. A lot of favoritism and nepotism going on. I could go on and on...I know only of a few charter schools with good reputations - Jean Massieu in Utah, Metro Day in St Paul, Minn...Learning Tree Center in Mass...it is more a private school...So these are 3 that popped in mind at moments notice. I am sure I missed a few more. The rest of charter schools are highly questionable, especially the one I used to work at.
I suggest you or hope you did some checking on your child's school unless your child attends one of the 3 schools I listed.
I used to think the same thing about SimCom. I finally realized the stupidity of it when I went to Gally and took a class with a SimCom teacher. Wow! There is SO much information that is lost when one tries to use two languages at once.
I think one possible solution is to require all dhh teachers to get their teaching certificate from a school that supports the bi-bi philosophy. But I know that takes time and is difficult to implement, especially when only 5 universities really have a bi-bi curriculum.
Rox
5 universities that offer BiBi curriculum? Can you please share which ones these are? I don't think Gallaudet even offers one. WOU used to when Laurene (Gallimore) Sims ran the master program there but she moved to Gallaudet but I understand she moved there knowing they don't offer BiBi curriculum there - she accepted the job for the pay and prestige. I think perhaps Columbia University in Texas does....
Barb DiGiovanni is much more familiar about this than I. If she ever reads my post, perhaps she can jump in and offer the names of the universities unless you know?
One charter bilingual school is now figuring out when to use total immersion for spoken language for about 40% students with CI and Hoh with aids with this need. First, they know for sure simcom is bad. It degrades both languages, no explanation needed. While these CI - Hoh students benefit bilingual ed and have the need for spoken language immersion at times especially for some of them who find phonetic reading their actual reading process, like my Hoh son, we have to figure out how to handle the challenge for access in the entire school setting where fully visual people are.
The school just formed a committee to sort out this issue. Definitely there will be certain places and times for immersion for both languages and using them both at other times. It all goes back to Martha's vineyard and families with mixed members, hearing, hoh, and deaf where ones cannot really tell speakers not to speak in front of them. Unless for private conversation, I agree, it should be in a private place, it is the same rule for hearing people anyway.
I have been in all signing environment all my life and remember seeing Hoh students speaking with each others at times and also with teachers in classroom, my reaction was and is still "That is fine with me, let them enjoy what they are benefitting as long as they are not talking about me or anyone, a simple rule." Now about my reaction not having access to spoken language..ok, if I push them out, we all lose. We will period. I already know that and if they are not talking about me or anyone, I do not care!
Ask Nover and other leading people, they say the same thing whether one likes it or not.
A synopsis here that I think works the best:
1) Sim com is never good except for a temporary need or if parties happen to be able to handle ok on their own - like my Hoh son with his Hoh friends or a non-signer happens to be temporarily in the scene.
2) Work out timeframe and place for immersion language use and where-when to use both.
3) When speaking among signers who do not have access to spoken language, rule: do not talk about anyone, go in a private room, same rule applies to signers.
4) Keep in mind, show respect for both languages, it is easy for spoken language to overtake in power, very easy. Speakers need to be aware of it because truthfully signers who are fully visual do not have anywhere else except their own school, home, and few places where they can be at home.
Hey who is selling these ASL pendants?
Anne Marie,
No idea who sells these pendants...copied them off the internet from a website which is apparently now defunct. I would like to give credit to the owner of the website but there's no info available.
As to your post, you offered good ideas. It doesn't bother you that hearing staff converse without signing or teaching conversing with student without signing, but it bugs the heck out of me...I consider it simply rude and consecending. In a classroom of hearing students, the students are aware of teacher conversing with student and can listen in to what is said between them while in a deaf classroom, the students in the classroom do not have the same opportunity. The point is not that "it's ok as long as they are not talking about me or anyone else in the room."
You probably don't know that for a fact because I know teachers DO talk about students while conversing without signing which is very reason why they elect not to sign. Indeed, it is not the case every time, but happens pretty often.
Therefore I think they need to follow the same rule as the deaf teachers - go elsewhere to have the conversation or wait until a later time when there are no students around.
It is interesting about your audiological reading immersion. Do you see success in this methodology?
PreciousASL,
I got that info from Genie Gertz... I did ask which universities, and she told me Gally, CSUN, McDaniels, BYU, and I forget the last one. But I agree with you on Gally's so-called bi-bi program, I went through half of it before I quit and finished it somewhere else, with a lot more information.
I also find it rude when hearing people are in the same room with me chatting, then all of a sudden burst out laughing. If it's private, make it private!
"You probably don't know that for a fact because I know teachers DO talk about students while conversing without signing which is very reason why they elect not to sign. Indeed, it is not the case every time, but happens pretty often."
Yes, that did happen to me, I knew these two teachers were talking about me and others in the front of us. I stood up and told the class that they were exploiting us. That was 25 years ago.. Rox is right, go in private no matter.
But I do a good point about not being able to listen in or see others' conversation, this is not ok. So, do we get cart or an interpreter? Nothing is perfect, it is not ok for speakers not to be able to use their natural spoken language because some of us do not have access to it? That is why I settle for a simple rule, no talking about anyone unless in private. Then for the rest, "Hey you must have a great joke, share it with us pls!"
"It is interesting about your audiological reading immersion. Do you see success in this methodology?"
Yes definitely for people who are more auditory oriented, they are brain wired this way. From what I see my son doing in reading and writing, his memory depends on sounds he latched on when listening and "voicing it out" while reading books. An example, I asked my son, hey what is that odd looking character's name in chapter 2? He said, oh, then started mouthing words searching for a name that he can remember through auditory processing. I do not read like this but I respect his approach despite his being fluent ASL signer and being culturally Deaf like me. Interesting.
Another example: During evaluation for his reading processes, a speech audiologist gave him two - three different sounds spelled non-word word. She asked him to place color blocks according to what he hears. She started with bsm, then sbm, then mbs switching sounds in places. My son switched color blocks accordingly and up to 5 different sounds, he got 85 out of this test doing better than some hearing children who are more visual learner. Interesting? : )
He will take listening-reading sessions this summer twice every week so that he be better prepared for his 3rd, 4th grade classes when things go faster or I would have him go to more ASL oriented program.
Which colleges train teachers in bi-bi methodology?
Deaf Ed Teacher Prep programs that list their philosophy as bilingual/bicultural on deafed.net
(note: some programs -- which may be bibi programs -- did not specify their philosophy for this list)
* Boston University
* Lamar University
* McDaniel College
* University of California, San Diego
* University of Hawai'i at Manoa
* Utah State University, Logan
* Western Oregon University
Source: http://deafed.net/PageText.asp?hdnPageId=120
CAEBER Preservice Training: Star Online Project
"In addition to training inservice teachers, CAEBER has developed a college curriculum for preservice teachers, called STAR Online. STAR Online is a three-semester college curriculum that incorporates both online and in-class features, to be used by teacher-educators at university deaf education teacher preparation programs to prepare preservice teachers in ASL/English bilingual instructional theories and techniques.
Seven universities currently use the curriculum from online courses:
* Gallaudet University
* Lamar University
* McDaniel College
* Western Oregon University
* University of Tulsa
* California State University, Northridge
* University of Hawaii
Two universities, Gallaudet University and Lamar University, utilize the full online components while the other universities use parts of the online components and online curriculum as meets their needs."
Source: http://caeber.gallaudet.edu/preservice.aspx
Post a Comment