How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid at that time sure, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deafness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level. Imagine trying to teach in a situation where they're all already behind and you keep getting thrown a behavioural nightmare who has 0 language every few months. You'd get nothing done.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid at that time sure, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deafness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level. Imagine trying to teach in a situation where they're all already behind and you keep getting thrown a behavioural nightmare who has 0 language every few months. You'd get nothing done.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid at that time sure, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deafness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid at that time sure, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deafness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid at that time sure, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deadness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room in most places, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deadness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room, for all the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. The parents usually opt for trying oral first, and then resort to signing years later only once they are failing badly and drop out. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioral problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others, with basically no language. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deadness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on like this for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class therefore never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done effectively given how old the kids are, so the few students that would be fine in theory are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, and then through that literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room, for the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioural problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deadness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done, so the few that would be fine are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.

How is that even possible? I get that school would be hard and shit, but wouldn’t one expect deaf people to naturally gravitate toward reading and writing?

This is very hotly debated. So what I'm about to say is more theoretical, but here is my take.

The way reading and writing is taught is an an accessory to spoken language, at a far later age than they are spoken to. Literacy is taught using the building blocks and foundation of having spoken language, and it is taught using spoken language. It is not the primary form of the language. Nobody is going around with a whiteboard and marker (or fingerspelling) and using that to communicate to the child 24/7. In a different world, purely theoretically, you could teach that early literacy yes, but nobody does it. Even the kids who are exposed to literacy early aren't exactly immersed in it in the same way we immerse them in spoken language. You need spoken language first in our world, then literacy is taught.

There are also what are termed 'critical periods'. If you don't meet certain milestones by particular ages, it essentially creates permanent damage/reorganisation in the brain. A baby's brain is very flexible, but things get set in stone and it becomes MUCH harder to learn a language if they aren't doing certain things by age 3 (soft cap) and severe damage by age 5 or 6 (the harder cap). This applies both to learning your native language, and any second language, but with different milestones and critical periods...

Deaf kids miss those milestones all the fucking time.

The 3rd big issue (this one is my soapbox) is that the signing deaf education is fucking shite, and serves as a reject room, for the ones who don't cut it in auditory-verbal/oral education which drags them all down. So basically we have these kids who weren't exposed to as much language as they should have been early on and will basically always struggle to learn language as a result, and are failing in their attempts to learn to 'hear', lipread and speak. So they drop out and get sent over to the signing class as a backup. Best option for that particular kid, but its a fucking disaster for the rest of the class. They now have another kid with a load of behavioural problems (not being able to effectively communicate causes all sorts of behavioural issues), and who is well behind the others. The one kid in that class who knows the language well because they have deaf parents, they have that understanding of language and no issues learning them in theory but for their deadness, is basically put in charge of teaching them the language. And they go on for another few months, settle in, before another drop out from the oral class is put in the signing one. The class never progresses and is always being disrupted. It's also then being taught at that low level, and working on foundational stuff to catch people up, which can't be done, so the few that would be fine are still stuck in a shitty class that isn't at their level.

And so these issues compound and make each other worse. The 3rd isn't really spoken about in the literature, but it absolutely is an issue you see when you look at the real world and how these programs are run.