264 chapter 31
WARNING: Beware of programs that teach only
oral communication
In many countries, schools for the deaf still try to make all children learn only ‘oral
communication’ (lip reading and spoken words). The results are often disappointing,
or even harmful, especially for the child who was born deaf. Lip reading at best
gives a lot of problems. A skilled lip reader can only understand about 40 to 50
percent of English words, and has to guess at the rest. (For example, “Mama” and
“Papa” look exactly the same on the lips.) Even if the child does learn to lip read
and speak some, often his words are unclear or sound strange. As a result, when
he grows older, often he prefers not to speak.
The biggest problem with teaching only oral communication is that it slows down
a child’s language development at the age when children learn language fastest (age
1 to 7 years). A deaf child usually learns to lip read and speak only 5 or 10 words by
age 5 or 6. By that age, the same child can easily learn over 2,000 signs—as many
words as a hearing child speaks.
Studies have shown that deaf children who learn to use gestures and signs can
communicate easier, earlier, and more fully than those who are taught only oral
communication. Learning sign language and other forms of communication first
actually makes it easier for a child to learn to speak and read lips.
For all these reasons, more and more experts and organizations of deaf people
recommend teaching most deaf children a combination of communication
methods, including some form of sign language.
‘Total communication’ is not new. In villages in many parts of the world, deaf
and hearing persons find imaginative and effective ways to talk with each other.
They figure out a system of hand signs, objects, face movements, pictures, and
certain sounds or words. As a result, deaf persons often manage fairly well in the
community. They can “say” and understand a lot. (See p. 276.)
We know families from villages like these who took their deaf child to
‘speech therapists’ in the city. Often the parents and child had already begun
to communicate with each other by using the local signs and inventing more of
their own. The child was happy and learning fairly well. But the therapists told
the parents that they were wrong. They told them that they must not let the
child use signs, because if he got used to signs he would never learn to speak.
They said the child should be put in a ‘special education program’ and taught ‘oral
communication’. But since the only programs of this kind are in the cities (and
often have a 3-year waiting list) the parents took their child back to the village.
Trying to follow the therapist’s orders, they tried not to use signs with their child,
and punished him when he used them. As a result, both the parents and child felt
frustrated, guilty, angry, and hurt. The child’s learning and social development were
held back. His chances of learning to speak became less than they were when
everyone happily used the village system.
Fortunately, most of these families in time realized that they simply could
not manage without using signs, and gradually went back to accepting ‘total
communication’.
In the richer countries more and more special educators and speech therapists are
beginning to favor total communication. They have changed to this approach partly
because deaf persons have organized and demanded it. Disabled persons in poor
countries, including deaf persons and their families, also need to organize. They
need to help professionals listen to them, and to respond to their needs in more
realistic ways.
Disabled village Children