Here's what he/she said after reading previous comments:
Interestingly, a number of readers posted their own experiences or views that seemingly reinforced a number of my own. These are independent and largely anonymous voices that lend validity to some of my assertions. Of course, there are always the naysayers.
Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.
There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!
The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.
The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.
I shall stop now. May I ask those whom seem more interested in speculation about my identify and the desire to "defrock" me before the Deaf establishment that will cause the hammer to come down, please be so kind to simply focus on the message. I understand that you probably can't but then its sufficient evidence that what I am saying must grate at your sensitivities, perhaps even create a bit of paranoia?
I am Fiver!
Interesting comment. And, seriously folks, I don't know who this guy is. But he/she certainly brings up some interesting discussion. Are Deaf culture and ASL under assault?