Probably nothing can adequately prepare parents of deaf children for the passionate views and differences of opinion regarding various approaches to deaf education. This section attempts to point out some considerations when dealing with choosing an approach for their child.
There are numerous rationales and viewpoints for choosing what option to pursue for your child, and this document does not recommend any particular rationale or viewpoint as being more valid than others.
To help you choose what method to pursue, visit with as many deaf adults and deaf children as possible who have used each of the different approaches, talk with parents of deaf children, visit deaf education programs and schools, talk with professionals in the field of deafness, research studies about deafness, learn about hearing aids and cochlear implants, and attend Deaf culture events. Then, try to sort through all the information you have gleaned, and try to project what your choices will mean for your deaf child in one year, five years, ten years, twenty or thirty years from now. Parents sometimes try one approach for a while, and later switch to another approach, but you're better off if you can pick the right approach from the start for your child. However, if the approach you've chosen isn't working, don't hesitate to change approaches. Mixtures of approaches are also sometimes used. Also, just because you want your child to use a certain mode of communication is no guarantee the child will do well with that mode.
Consider both short-term goals and long-term goals for your child who is deaf. Consider what options or opportunities may be closed off or may be made available with each of the different goals if the goals are achieved or not achieved.
Here are some questions asking about short-term and long-term goals from various perspectives. No answers are given here to these questions - in many cases there is more than one answer to a question, and the answer may vary depending on what approach you favor. The questions are merely intended to point out areas you may wish to consider when making choices for your child. The questions are not intended to be a recommendation for any one approach, are not meant to be an exhaustive list, and the question topics are just in random order:
Advocates of sign language feel that language development by age five is critical, but contend that only by using sign can you be assured that the deaf child has access to language through a fully functioning sense, that of sight. They also point out that participating in the Deaf Culture community is an enriching experience, and that they can interact with the hearing society whenever they desire through using sign language interpreters, written notes, computer-based systems or other means of communication.
Advocates of ASL programs emphasize that learning language is what is most important for deaf children. They say that ASL gives deaf children ready access to language, and imply that children in oral programs spend so much time on speech practice that English language exposure is slighted. Oral program advocates counter that exposure to English language is an important part of their programs.
Total communication proponents say that by providing sign along with speech, that you provide a communication capability for those deaf children who have problems making it with spoken language, a kind of "safety net". They also contend that using sign does not detract from spoken language development. Others from an oral approach feel that signing while speaking as in TC results in poorer spoken language capability for deaf children.
Advocates of an oral approach feel that if a deaf child has not made good progress towards spoken language by age five, their chances of developing spoken language later are not good.
Advocates of an oral approach also point out that only if you can communicate in spoken language can you function with the hearing world without using sign language interpreters or other methods of communication. They also contend that for most children taught in TC and ASL environments, that these children will need sign language interpreters when dealing with the hearing public.
Some deaf children have more success with spoken language than do others even in the same program, due to a variety of factors. Because of this variation, critics of oral approaches to deaf education contend you are taking major risks on language development if you pursue the oral approach.
Cued speech advocates point to many advantages with their approach - they contend it is easier to learn than sign, and that it is often needed for oral-educated children who don't have enough hearing to tell the difference between similar phonemes.
One surprise to many parents of newly diagnosed deaf children is how much division there is in deaf education. With other disabilities, generally over time one approach has been recognized as the optimal one for working with children with that disability, based on a common set of goals and on scientific results. This has not happened in the field of deafness, though, primarily because there are such varied goals for deaf children. While all parents agree that having your deaf child be able to communicate is a primary goal, there are differences of opinion about appropriate methods of communication for a deaf child. Having a goal of having your child be able to communicate well in spoken English leads to one set of approaches. Having a goal of having your child be able to communicate well in sign language leads to a different set of approaches. For each of these different goals and approaches, one can find studies that indicate the particular approach is better, but this conclusion of "better" is measured in terms of the goals for that approach. No prospects for getting out of this impasse over what approach to use appear on the horizon. Indeed, some applaud the wide variety of options in deaf education, saying it provides more choices for a deaf child.
The divisions between the signing and oral approaches have existed for over a hundred years, and there continue to be signing and oral factions that are virtually at war with each other. Over this time the pendulum has swung several times as to which method of deaf education is most popular. One factor that may swing the balance again is the continuing improvements in cochlear implants and hearing aids. But factors that may swing the balance the other way include society's strong commitment to cultural diversity, research on hearing babies using sign, and studies of the bilingual-bicultural approach in Europe. One reason this division still exists is that there are few good, thorough studies comparing results achieved by children through each of these options. There isn't even agreement on what measures of success would be used in any such studies. For example, using speech intelligibility as a measure of success might be viewed as a valid measure by oral groups, but not by signing groups. English literacy likewise might be viewed by oral groups as a valid measure, but not by advocates who view ASL as the native language of the deaf. However, if "spoken language development" is a goal, then there are studies that compare spoken language intelligibility results of children from different deaf education programs.
The book by Sue Schwartz, Choices in Deafness, 2nd edition, gives descriptions of each of the five major approaches to deaf education in the United States. However, the book primarily gives reasons in support of each different option, but fails to point out possible drawbacks of the various approaches.
Some children may do better with one approach, some with another approach. CID, St. Joseph's, and the Missouri School for the Deaf provide independent evaluations of deaf children and may recommend a particular option for your child. Out-of-state centers such as Boys Town National Research Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska (402) 498-6548 (v) or (402) 498-6696 (v/tdd) also do evaluations.
To give a perspective on the options as they are available in Missouri, each option is listed below.