"Cued Speech
as an
Option"
by: Stevie Fenton
This letter was written to include Cued Speech as an option for
public school deaf and hard of hearing students. Permission is given to
reproduce this letter in its entirety [not in parts] for the purpose of training
and student or parent education.
May 1, 1997
To the Members of the Cued Speech Task Force:
I am writing to express my support of Cued Speech as a viable option in
the education of deaf students. My support stems from training in Cued Speech
that I have received, my experience with the current low English competence of
the average deaf student, my strong belief in the theoretical model of Total
Communication which supports the use of any and all methods of communication in
order to increase comprehension, and my belief in parental choice and
participation in the student's educational experience.
Let me begin by outlining my experience in the field of deafness. I have
worked in some capacity with deaf people for over 17 years. I have a bachelor's
degree in Deaf Education/Elementary Education. I was a teacher of deaf students
in three public school districts spanning 9 years. These settings have afforded
me the opportunity to work with students ranging from 4 to 20 years of age in
self-contained, resource, inclusion-like, itinerant, and consultative
placements. I've also had the opportunity, through my college experience, to
work in a residential setting. I have been directly responsible for the
education of over 30 D(d)eaf, hard of hearing, and multi-handicapped students
with hearing loss using communication modes ranging from oral, aural, auditory
verbal, various English signing systems, and American Sign Language. I am
currently working outside the school system as an interpreter for the deaf with
Vocational Rehabilitation. I am part of a team of professionals working with
adults with hearing loss to acquire or maintain employment.
Throughout my varied experience, I have been disturbed by the prevalence of
lower than average comprehension of English in most pre-lingually deaf students
regardless of communication modality. The possible reasons for this are many,
taught in every teacher preparatory program, and seem to have caused an
acceptance of lower expectations in regards to reading and writing for these
students. These lower competencies often equate to fewer vocational options for
these students when they graduate from high school.
Having said this, I wish to address the pros and cons of Cued Speech as I
see them. I first heard of Cued Speech as simply a "little used, little
researched system" during my college training. When I had an opportunity to
explore Cued Speech last year, I signed up. I was resistant at first, believing
it to be a cumbersome system with few benefits. I took the training in order to
gather enough experience to be able to dismiss the system as useless to me. I
surprised myself. The more I researched the system, the more I saw it as a
compliment to the current systems. Cued Speech represents English with the goal
of improving the comprehension of appropriate English grammar in deaf students.
I have read research and testimonials, have contacted professionals and parents
advocating for Cued Speech, and have spoken with people (adults and children)
with hearing loss using Cued Speech. These activities have impressed on me that
Cued Speech is a viable option for some deaf people.
I do not, by any means, discredit signing as a communication system. I
recognize that English signing systems were designed and are put forth as a
means to acquire English grammar. In my experience, it has not helped most
students to truly acquire the rules of English. It conveys content in English
form but it does not generally translate into better English production by most
of the students. ASL conveys the content clearly but is in a different
linguistic form which does not immediately or often assist in English
production. There are many reasons for this; reasons related to school system
methodology, teacher skill, extended services, and more. One reason often given
for low language production in this environment is that there is low or no
exposure to sign systems or language at home. In my opinion, this is a
formidable task for parents to learn a new language with ever increasing
vocabulary and complexity. We have seen that when parents learn sign and use it
consistently with a student, the student's language production is better. What
of the students whose parents don't (won't?) (can't?) do this??
I do not, by any means, discredit any of the oral methods. Oral methods
depend on the child's knowledge of English and ability to "fill in the gaps"
through residual hearing, lipreading, and "guesswork" as to the parts unheard or
unreadable. Success in these methods can be compromised if equipment is broken
or environments are not conducive to speech reading. Pre-lingually deaf students
using this method often struggle to acquire the English required to be
successful. If the student does acquire it, however, his/her language production
is better. What of the students who doesn't (can't?) acquire sufficient skill?
Cued Speech is a method by which English is visual. The system itself is
easier to learn and practice (for parents) and lessens the guesswork (for
students). It assists with speech reading which, in turn, can assist with speech
production. An added benefit to students using this system is the ability to
learn a foreign language verbally as well as in written form since the system is
phonetically based.
Last year, I used Cues to support my sign systems with Middle School
students on a limited basis in two situations:
- mainstream spelling words with complicated endings such as -ability
(in
order to differentiate from -able or -ible)
- as an auditory discrimination and speech production exercise
I was pleased to see some success in both situations. Had I stayed in the
classroom this year, I would have continued to experiment with ways of using
visual representation of English with these older students. I do not advocate
changing whole programs to Cues only as that again limits the options available
to be attempted for these students' success but do see that Cued Speech has
potential benefits in various settings even with these students who are strong
signers.
I am an advocate of the concept of parental participation in the educational
process. Besides the legal reasons of not limiting parental options, there are
also ethical reasons not to. These parents, in the long run, are responsible for
these students; having them participate gives a feeling of ownership in the
educational decisions which in turn strengthens and supports the activities of
the school which ultimately benefits the student. Parents of a deaf child make
very difficult decisions regarding the very basics of being human -
communication. These decisions and the parents' participation have lasting
effects on the child's long term development. If Cued Speech can allow for
communication between some parents and children in the home, if a parent can be
trained to use it easily, if it will assist the child to be more successful, I
believe that parents and school should work together. I believe that Cued Speech
should be unbiasedly evaluated as to its place in a Total Communication
philosophy.
In closing, I support the inclusion of Cued Speech as a component of the
Total Communication language philosophy. Cued Speech should be another option in
the student's individual educational process of acquiring English competence.
With the evidence of low competence in English and the poor communication
available at home for many students, Cued Speech may be a possible solution.
Parents who are currently using Cues and whose children are learning to
understand Cues should be supported in their endeavor to increase their child's
understanding of the English language. Cued Speech should be evaluated by
incorporating a limited study of a few students or a small group, gathering
results, and determining its success after a designated period of time. Given
the barriers that these students must overcome in order to be successful in this
'hearing' world, adults from home and school should work together to find the
most successful system for each student, enabling them to be on an even keel
with their hearing peers. In this way, we will be providing a truly equal (and
equalizing) education.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my beliefs, opinions, and
observations.
Sincerely,
Stevie Fenton
Permission is given to reproduce this letter in its entirety [not in
parts] for the purpose of training and student or parent education.