Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!ncifcrf!haven!udel!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!231!230!John.Kyle
From: John.Kyle@f230.n231.z1.fidonet.org (John Kyle)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Sign language  Part 1
Message-ID: <15210@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 90 03:58:29 GMT
Sender: news@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: John.Kyle@f230.n231.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:231/230 - Ordovician Ooze, Indianapolis IN
Lines: 27
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 11332

I saw your interesting reply to Sign Language part I, especially the
part about oralism, and felt I had to respond. First, oralism is NOT
always just teaching the kid to say the letter a. They do teach the
other stuff, like aritmetic, etc. That only teaching the letter a
would only apply to those deaf kids who can't use voice much anyway, so
there would be no point in teaching a anyway. I agree that total
communication is the better form, as a person in two worlds will likely
survive better if he/she learns to operate in both worlds, not just
one world. I am deaf enough to have to wear an aid, but not so deaf
that I can't use my voice very well. It's not perfect, but it's good
enough. When I was taught oralism, I certainly did not spend hours
just learning how to say the letter a. I went to a special school
in my preschooler years and learned how to speak there. Then I went
to an elementary school where I took classes with regular kids. I only
spent about an hour or two each week to learn more about speech and
practice it with a special teacher while I was there.
 Maybe what's needed is that it should be recognized by everyone, deaf
and nondeaf, that there are degrees of deafness, not just deaf, or
nearly deaf, and that is what will determine how the child should learn
speech and/or sign language.
                           John Kyle

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!231!230!John.Kyle
Internet: John.Kyle@f230.n231.z1.fidonet.org