Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fALE42028655; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:04:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:04:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3BFBB231.EEB235A9@san-marcos.isd.tenet.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Vicki Alford <vicki.alford@san-marcos.isd.tenet.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3792] Re: Deaf, communication issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) Status: O Content-Length: 4540 Lines: 83 Kathleen, I never said that SEE helps the deaf to communicate with the hearing world. What I said was that SEE helps deaf students' literacy skills. It helps them to read and write better. You're right about students dropping SEE after they graduate from public schools systems. I want to reiterate that we do not force our students to sign SEE, they sign they way they sign. Our students are essentially bilingual because they learn English in our classes and develop ASL from interacting with native deaf signers AND studying ASL as a foreign language. I agree with you that it is a failure of deaf education when we graduate students with a 3rd-4th grade literacy skills. As I stated before, I don't think that SEE is the only way nor do I think that SEE works for everyone. If we find that SEE is not an option for a student, then we don't use SEE with that student. It has worked, however, for most students with whom we work. We graduate students with literacy skills above the national norm. I'm fully aware of the dislike for SEE. This dislike is fed by myths and by "us" vs. "them" mentality. Does it have to be either or? Are all deaf people alike? Does only one method work for all deaf people? Surely not, why can't we leave options open and use what is best for the student to achieve his or her potential? Some students need a bilingual approach, some students can progress well in an exposure to English "through the air" approach, some students need both. Do all deaf people think the same way? Do the deaf either think deaf or hearing person or both? I'm not saying that English is better than the other approaches. That is what we use, and that is what I know has worked with most students with whom we work. I just think that it is disastrous when we start to close options, because we can't start pigeon holing deaf people. There is not only ONE method for reaching their literacy goals. I have read the second language research. It looks promising. I'm not against bilingual education. I stated my reasons for why we have decided to not implement this in our school systems in a previous email. The Sign Writing system also looks promising and seems like it would be very helpful for the bilingual approach. ASL needs to have a written component so to be effective (according to Cummins Model). I agree with you that we cannot settle for "marginally better." Deaf educators need to continue to WORK TOGETHER to achieve this goal. I'm not for the "this camp" and "that camp." That mentality is counterproductive and further stagnates achieving our goal. Vicki KathleenBombach@aol.com wrote: > > Where in the world did anyone get the idea that languages like SEE > help deaf communicate with the hearing world? Maybe I live in an > unusual place, but very few hearing people sign here in El Paso. > Reading and writing help deaf communicate with the hearing world, but > signing is not an interface to the hearing world. > > I must admit that I know only two credentialed deaf educators (both > hearing) but I do know a lot of deaf people. They are adults, some of > whom went through the local school district deaf ed program which > teaches SEE. They come out of high school reading at the third or > fourth grade level after twelve years of SEE--the school district > called me once to see if they could put each years' high school > graduates in our deaf literacy program because their reading and > writing skills were so poor. They were no longer eligible to attend > high school since they had already graduated. This is educational > failure any way you look at it. > > The staff I hired who had gone to the Texas School for the Deaf in > Austin or the New Mexico School for the Deaf were very vocal in > expressing their opinions of the different sign languages (all > considered SEE and SE artificial languages prefered only by hearing > people), the hegemony of hearing people over the lives of the deaf, > and the hearing world's denial of their autonomy and right to make > their own decisions. Who am I to tell them what sign language is > 'better'? I live in a hearing world and I am unable to think like a > deaf person just as much as I am unable to conceptualize and use > echolocation. I let them tell me what language is theirs. > > BTW, many deaf abandon SEE/SE as soon as they finish high school. > > I will look for the references on teaching reading and writing as a > second language to the deaf and post them to the list. > > Kathleen Bombach
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:05 EST