an unbiased, comprehensive, evidence-based informational pamphlet for newborns and infants identified as deaf or hard of hearing about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language (ASL), and Listening and Spoken Language, that is sufficient to allow a parent to make an informed decision on which options to choose for his or her child.Well, that's good and dandy. And just to be fair for each of the visual, auditory and language options the pamplet must also provide risks and benefitis for each of the option provided, including ASL seen on page 3 of the bill.
The pamphlet shall contain both benefits and risks of all options.....In other words, this pamphlet MUST provide benefits and risks for the ASL option as well as for any options described in it. And in an unbiased manner, too. It'd be foolish and folly to think that ASL will be excluded from the risk part if every other options must describe the benefits and risks when everything is of equal weight and value in terms of information provided for the parents....in an unbiased manner.
We already know the benefits but what are the risks for the ASL option? I could probably name a few potential risks in using the ASL option. Although I'm surprised nobody even saw this little line regarding the "benefits and risks" that must be described for each option. This should get interesting on what ASL stakeholders will say about this one. It'll be equally interesting to see exactly what the risks are for the ASL option coming from ASL stakeholders, too, who will undoubtedly be a part of this pamplet development in an advisory stakeholder panel.
My, my...a can of worms from this bill? A conundrum? A new warning label for the ASL option from ASL stakeholders?
17 comments:
Hmmm... I'll throw in what I think the risk factors for ASL might be, based on what I've witnessed in the span of forty years.
Because ASL is very convenient and easy to learn it makes some deaf people too comfortable and lazy to learn English language. Many deaf people simply learn ASL without ever trying to learn English.
ASL also seem to instills some kind of silly notion and illusion into deaf people's head, making them believe that a deaf world really exist. Thus, the birth of radical extremists.
And above all, it's also a direct pathway to a closed society, provided the individual does not expand, linguistically and culturally beyond ASL and the so-called deaf world.
Should be interesting to see what they are going to come up with.
I'd have to agree with theHolism. There is no real proof that ASL or bi-bi helps with English. Deaf people can point to so and so that has good English, supposedly due to their being exposed to ASL first or having deaf parents. But, that isn't proof enough. I have yet to see majority of kids from a bi-bi program that indicate excellent English proficiency. Until there is absolute proof, this is one of the major risks.
This historic opportunity is known as Assembly Bill 2072 by Assemblymember Tony Mendoza that changes the way deaf babies are handled once they’re determined through the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs.
As civilization evolves and advances, the communities within advances as well. Not all communities are willing to advance with civilization. The sign language based deaf community is one of them. They may seem to advance with technology, but they remain in a medieval state of mind that still believe in staying dependent on taxpayers and living in a closed society.
The costs of maintaining a dependency based deaf community is enormous. Theresa Bugler wrote in the lifestyles magazine that it costs $800,000 to teach a deaf child sign language. The costs go beyond the $800,000 when taxpayers has to pay for their interpreters in their schools, pay for their videophones in their homes, and finally pay for their living expenses for the rest of their lives because they usually end up not working. Modern Deaf Communication has determined that deaf people who routinely use videophones have a lower job occurrence in the deaf society.
Given these times when California is strained financially, it pays more to create a new deaf community that does not end up as dependents on society as we’ve seen they have become and does not end up as a drain on the taxpayers.
It pays more to give the parents the options on how their deaf babies are to be raised. Lets return the deaf babies back to the soft warm loving arms of their parents instead shipping them off to the hard cold crab claws of a closed deaf society.
It has been proven many times over through deaf video blogging websites such as deafvideo.tv, justdeaf.com, aslrocks.net, jdeaf.com, deafcube.com, and also seen in facebook.com, tokbox.com, and many other video sharing websites that the closed deaf society do not care about their members. There is never ending infighting over picky issues, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. Speaking of which, a well known deaf entrepreneur recently recruited a deaf college professor to preach hatred under the misunderstood guise of combating hate crimes against deaf people. Many deaf members oftentimes have to go through painstaking gauntlets of litmus testing because most members of the dependent deaf society seek “the purity within” by weeding out those that are determined not deaf enough physically and literally.
Should we as a responsible society be sending the deaf babies out this way? NO!
Do parents need to sacrifice their deaf babies to the dependent deaf society as it is? NO!
Parents need to have a strong say on how their deaf babies are to be raised and lets give them that opportunity by supporting and passing AB 2072.
Lets return the deaf babies back to the soft warm loving arms of their parents.
While as some people here may say that there are risk factors involved with ASL, but there are also indeed risk factors with it comes to listening and speaking as well, so the bigger question is...are they really going to list all the risks involved?
But aye, I agree, bottom line is that its the decision of the parents. They just need to be fully informed and notified of all risks involved without this pamphlet being biased towards any particular language options.
Hi Valhallian. When it comes down to your very own child, after learning about the child's deafness from the professionals you're not going to look into risk factors of the options that are presented on the table?
I'm not saying every parents are going to be interested but a good amount of them are going to want to know the Pros and Cons of the choices that they are given. I know I would.
Heya Holism,
I would certainly hope that they would want to look at all the risk factors as a parent. But I was putting the emphasis on the word ALL, meaning it ALL should be put on the pamphlet.
For example, they need to put down the fact that whatever option they choose, they must also really dedicate themselves to that process in order for it to succeed.
If they choose the ASL path, then they need to learn ASL themselves too. If they choose the listening and speaking path, then they need to learn that process so that they are able to work with their deaf child at home on it too as opposed to solely relying on such a program in itself and just think they can do all the work.
Its going to require intensive parental involvement within the language option path they they choose in order for their child to succeed in language. We have too many hearing parents that may think learning ASL themselves is too hard and time consuming, when the reality is that for some of them, actually going about with the listening and speaking path is even harder and more time consuming during the earlier years of the child's life.
Additionally, they may assume that oh once they learn to speak, they are set for life, but there are actually times when they may get left out of certain parts of their later years in life. They need to learn that even if their child gets a CI, they are still deaf.
I am not here to promote one language option over another as that is the parent's decision themselves.
To Fight or to Ignore Fallacies about ASL?
http://dianrez.xanga.com/731448932/to-fight-or-to-ignore-fallacies-about-asl/
Well...
I'd have to say that the benefits of ASL are worth it. I am saying this, with my experiences with two bilingual deaf schools. Knowledgeable teachers and dedicated parents are the keys to the child's success in mastering both ASL and English. I have noticed when one does not understand a concept in printed English, another would "translate" the concept in ASL and then the readers would read the concept again in printed English and would understand it better...
I believe it's tough, because of where we live... the majority language is often English, of course, and the economics and social status have to do with education. I have seen BOTH deaf children succeeding and failing in the mainstreaming. I have seen some parents (both deaf and hearing) "dumping" their deaf child at deaf school, not having to do with the child's progress. I have seen other parents (both deaf and hearing) being zealous in making sure that the child succeeded.
I acknowledge that there's a need for MORE and MORE research on bilingual approach. The "risks"... might not be worthy for anyone whose learning style might be aural. Maybe parents not finding time or willingness to learn ASL. ....
We could debate until we are blue in our faces.
There are benefits and risks to every communication/ language option. It is my hope that the pamphlet that AB2072 will require has a realistic approach about each option. The hearing/ speaking options are certainly no miracle-workers and require that parents have to be just as involved and committed in order for the deaf child to be successful. ASL requires the same parental commitment to learn the language and their involvement with the deaf community in order for their deaf child to be successful. The pamphlet will also indicate that parents can choose more than one option, if so desired.
In addition to a language option or options, parents shouldn't emphasize communication over reading and writing. Literacy needs to come hand-in-hand with communication, whatever the choice, as the child starts to grow up.
Add all that to the big job of parenting, no small feat.
Ann_C
I guess we should label all the risks with learning English as well. And all the languages in this world.
anony,
In this case with the pamphlet the bill requires that for each communication option will require information regarding benefits and risks. Not about English. This is like going to an interview and you say everything positive about yourself and what you can do but the interviewer asks you to describe something negative about yourself. This is sort of like that with ASL and the AB2072 bill requirement on describing risks and benefits so that parents can make an informed decision on what to do next or where to go next for more information.
Which is why it'll be interesting to see how an ASL stakeholder, appointed by the governor of California will describe the risk part for the ASL/signing communication option.
Diarez,
No where did I present a naysayer approach about ASL in my blog the way you've inferred in your own blog about mine. I've already stated in my blog saying, "We already know the benefits but what are the risks for the ASL option?" The focus is on the risk part for this communication signing option and made a point it'd be interesting to see what or how ASL stakeholders would say this (i.e. a representative) in a pamphlet in such an unbiased manner. Exactly what would the risks be. Nothing puzzling about my question or my blog.
Like some of you said, one of the risks I can think of would be parents not willing to learn and use ASL consistently with their child. I would also be concerned about the school or environment the child would grow up in. Will they be constantly exposed to good sign language models? From some of the schools for the deaf I have seen and worked in, many of the hearing teachers' signing skills were horrible, all while they dumbed down the education as they struggled using a language many of them are not fluent or native in.
(e
The biggest risk about ASL is the parents' unwillingness to learn ASL to communicate with their loved deaf ones. ASL is the natural language for the deaf , hands down. Not lipreading , forget it, stratch that! Pffffffffffffffffffttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's Theresa Bulger, not Bugler, who made the comments. Please correct the spelling.
Post a Comment