More Thoughts for Hearing Parents and for Us to Consider

I've been so torn up about Amy insisting that her children are fine the way they are. I've been thinking a lot about this whole thing, because it *is* much bigger than one mom and two deaf children.

Before I go on, I do appreciate Amy's willingness to continue to talk with us. She clearly wants us to understand her choices. While we may strongly disagree and continue to worry about her children, she does have the right to make the choices she's made and we need to remain courteous in our dialogue with all hearing parents, regardless of their choices. They are part of our community, period, because their children are deaf. This is true whether they want to be or not.

One thing that's concerning me is how some people are confusing two issues. The issue at hand with Amy is her denial of the benefits of sign language as well as spoken language. Some people are making this about cochlear implants, and it's not. Yes, we have different opinions about whether children should be implanted or not, but that's a separate discussion. What's troubling many of us is the idea that parents are being misinformed and getting the erroneous idea that sign language hinders spoken language development in deaf children. That's a crock. Hooey. Pure hooey. There's research proving it *enhances* spoken language development.

The majority of us would not deny that there are benefits to speaking and listening. We just don't want part of a child suppressed and denied. We want language to be fully accessible to everyone.

Very few of us would say "Don't encourage spoken language development." I should know. I learned language purely visually, and for some reason, I "lost" all of my hearing from childhood until college. (I suspect a psychological block, and it's a long story, which I don't want to go into right now.) I've experienced life as a completely deaf person, relying exclusively on sign language and as a deaf person with some hearing and who can function around hearing people in some situations, so I have an appreciation and understanding of both ways of being.

I won't deny that I've benefited in many ways from hearing and lipreading. There are so many little things that flash into my consciousness when I think about this topic. I remember when I was in grad school, a deaf classmate and I were in the train station and someone ran up the escalator. My classmate started to run up, looking at me as if to say "hurry up," and I said, "I don't hear the train. No need to hurry." He gave me a very weird look, probably because I don't emphasize my hearing or act like I have it in general so my remark confused him, and rushed up the escalator. I caught up with him after a leisurely ride up and he stared at me, shook his head, and shrugged. Other benefits include being able to take water aerobics without an interpreter and *not* being one step behind everyone else because I lipread the instructors with little difficulty. I'm able to enjoy accents, and between you and me, I can even imitate a couple. There are situations where I can function without signing nor pen and paper. The truth is, I appreciate the advantages I have.

What I just said is something I rarely talk about with most deaf people. The reason for that is because, while I acknowledge the advantages, I've lived life as a stone-deaf person and I was quite content. It's a perfectly valid way of being. It's possible to function just fine without speaking, hearing, or lipreading. Is life different? Heck, yes. But what's wrong with that??? If I had not gotten my hearing back, I would've been happy and satisfied with whom and what I am. It's perfectly OK, and yes, even *healthy* to not speak, hear, or lipread and be happy with that.

That said, I see nothing wrong with speech and listening training as long as the whole child is emphasized and language/learning about the world takes top priority. If a child benefits from audition and speech training, so be it. Don't deny the child that. BUT no matter what technology the child has, spoken language is STILL not 100% accessible 24 hours/7 days a week in all situations. The child is still deaf, period.

There is so much research out there on the advantages of being bilingual for both hearing and deaf people. There are even a few studies showing that hearing and deaf people who are bilingual in a variety of modes (speaking/listening, reading/writing, *and* signing/watching) show even more cerebral and intellectual advantages in a variety of areas. Most articles and books that I know about aren't online, but here is what I have off the top of my head. Jim Cummins, a noted bilingual researcher, has written extensively on advantages of bilingualism for hearing people. He has an unpublished paper that he presented last November that puts together a dozen or more research studies conclusively proving that signed language and majority-language bilingualism offers so many cognitive advantages and strengthens the deaf person's grasp of the majority language to the point where the deaf person is proficient in the majority language. Jim Cummins, if you're reading this, please publish your paper. We need to be able to use it as a resource and to be able to disseminate it. There's one study showing that hard-of-hearing children with deaf parents have far better ASL skills, written English skills, and far better spoken English skills than those with hearing parents. The presumption is that fully accessible language (ASL) helped enhance English-language learning. (If any of you know the author or the title of the study, please let me know. I haven't been able to find it again.) François Grosjean, a hearing Swiss researcher with few ties to deaf people, has written several compelling articles, drawing on research on deaf bilingualism. Colin Baker, one of the most respected bilingual researchers in the *world*, comes down strongly on the side of sign language/majority language bilingualism for deaf children. Chapter 16 of the fourth edition of his acclaimed book, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, draws on many studies to illustrate this fact. Baker has zero connection to deaf people that I'm aware of. Therefore, for him to draw this conclusion, the existing research must be very strong. There are so many more articles out there. But the evidence is clear: Bilingualism for the deaf child is a big advantage and makes spoken/written language even better than it would be without a signed language.

One thing that really bothers me about Amy's position is her assertion that her children are not a part of deaf culture and her implication that parents are forced to make a choice between ASL/deaf culture and English/the majority culture. That's not true. Both are compatible. My mom, who is *very* hearing in every sense of the word, allowed me to be deaf yet made a huge point of enveloping me in the majority culture. She made sure I always had deaf peers and hearing peers. She worked hard on my English development by playing word games with me, making puns, on and on. She was my best speech teacher and I give her full credit for my lipreading skills. She took an interest in ASL and deaf culture by asking questions and learning. We've had so many discussions about language and culture in general. It was never "either/or" for us. I have both and I believe I'm a better person for it. My English language skills are better for it. The best advice I can give for all hearing parents, regardless of their choices is: let your child be deaf. Expect your child to be part of your family and culture and make your family, values, traditions, and culture accessible. Give your child all the tools to be a whole person in every sense of the word.

Dianrez said here that there's no point in trying to change Amy's mind and we need to focus our efforts elsewhere. She's right. Amy is as immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar, and she has that right to remain steadfast. If she ever changes her mind or opens up some, we are here for her and we will always be here for her sons. That's why I'm writing this entry. It's for us as a community to talk about, for other hearing parents, for teachers and audiologists/speech pathologists, and for industry insiders to read, consider, and hopefully listen. We are the experts on what deaf children need, no matter what technology and teaching techniques are developed. We deserve to be heard *and* heeded.
*******
Previous posts on the topic for your convenience:
John Egbert's original entry
Barb DiGi's entry
My first entry on the topic
Deaf Tea Time's entry
This morning's entry
Barb DiGi on why it's OK to be part of the AGB protest