> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@...> wrote:
> > suzmccarth wrote:
> > > My point is that Mr. Daniels has quoted no research, again...
> > Pot, kettle, black.
> If the cap fits...
> > "Cued Speech is not a very well known option, but it is gaining
> >in popularity because of reading levels.
> > The average child using sign language graduates with a third
> >grade reading level.
> > The average Cued Speech child graduates from high school
> >with college level reading abilities.
> > Many children who switch from ASL to Cued Speech make-up
> >2-3 years in their reading levels in one school year."
> > http://www.cuedspeech.org/sub/viewpoints/Our_Success.asp
> Oddly enough you responded to this post of mine with an
> accusation of "child abuse". Now you forget that I even had
> evidence! Cued Speech is a way of giving access to English.
> The low literacy rates of the Deaf is from the Gallaudet website.
> The Laurent Clerc Centre now boasts that audiologists and
> Speech therapists are central to their literacy program, as it is in
> Here is another from
> "All deaf children are supported by Cued Speech at Alternatives
> in Education for the Hearing Impaired at the Alexander Graham
> Bell Montessori School in Mount Prospect, IL, USA. In answer to
> a request for statistics about reading levels the Executive
> Director Holly Trueblood, wrote:
> ÔWe test the deaf children every spring using the same testing
> instruments used across the country for hearing children. We
> need someone with some time on their hands to sit down and
> make comparisons from year to year and follow each child's
> progress. I did that project on a two year comparison a year ago
> and found that using the language, reading and vocabulary
> scores all of our children except one were scoring within a year
> of their age-appropriate grade level, and most were well above
> grade level, some as much as 6 years! Even including those
> who were on the low end, all children had shown at least a 1.2
> year gain during the intervening year, some as much as three
> years growth.' "
> The following is on the auditory method.
> "Research conducted by the Central Institute For The Deaf in St.
> Louis, Missouri, compared reading levels of 169 deaf students
> in auditory programs and 158 similarly disabled students in a
> total communications program which incorporates sign
> language with speech.
> * It was found that the auditory students at age 16 were reading
> at a 13-14 year old level, while the total communication students
> were only reading at the level of 8-9 year old. "
> I have interacted with people from the Deaf community in the
> past, but mostly to listen to a commentary on the difficulty of
> literacy acquisition. However, now I am in a position, with recent
> research, to understand how a combination of resources can
> make a difference.
If you, and all the other hearing educationalists, think that increasing
literacy is more important than being able to communicate, then you are
all ignorant sadists.