This is the language in the article that concerned me:
"Most deaf adults read at no better than a fourth-grade level, he said, and it is directly related to the education they have received. Without early detection of an impairment and early education, deaf children are doomed to fall way behind."
Note that it says MOST when it is supposed to be a median. That term "median" comes from this OUTDATED page at Gallaudet University: http://gri.gallaudet.edu/Literacy , as pointed out by Mike McConnell. I have e-mailed the Gallaudet Research Institute asking about more up to date statistics because if you read that page, you will see that the citations are from 1996 and 1997! More than a DECADE ago.
Some commenters have claimed it is not a myth. In my opinion, if a fact from over a decade ago keeps getting repeated (as well as stated incorrectly, as pointed out by commenter guy in midwest) without being updated with newer statistics that reflects the current achievement level of deaf students (in schools for deaf and mainstream/center programs), it has morphed into a myth. Don't forget we now have the majority of deaf students receiving cochlear implants - that may have boosted the achievement levels of at least some deaf students. I want up to date statistics from the Gallaudet Research Institute or another source, so we can start to debunk this myth.
And, if newer, up to date statistics indicate that we still have a fourth grade median, then obviously more work needs to be done in deaf education.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Funny how no one ever notes that hearing people read at a fifth to sixth grade level, so it's not like hearies are all waltzing around with our noses in Descartes.
I still remember being advised, when writing for the government -- for elected officials! -- to write at a sixth grade level.
Somehow they never bring that up when disparaging deaf people's reading comprehension, though.
Jamie:
I stand corrected, somewhat. I did not realize the information being used was so old, so I agree with you that more recent information should be used, as well as disagreeing with their usage of the word MOST.
However, until such information is released or available, I do not feel it is a "myth" to report those facts, as disagreeable to us as they may be.
In the meantime, until better and more accurate data IS available, I would suggest that our focus as a deaf community must be on: 1) advocating for the full funding of IDEA, as well as any necessary changes in wording that will give it real teeth for failure to comply; 2) Pushing for mandatory hearing screening of newborn babies in each and every state, territory and district in the United States (some states STILL don't require this, they only "recommend" it) on a yearly basis from 0-4; and 3) Pushing for a "Deaf Child's Bill of Rights" in each state (details are on the NAD website).
Regards,
Eddie
(ThumpaFlash)
The word "median" is often misused. People think it means "average", but the two are determined differently. Statistically, median means a "middle" value in a sequence of numbers. In other words as many read above the fourth-grade level as below.
However, that can be misleading because averages are determined differently.
EX: If you take the numbers 0,1,3,4,8,9,10 , , , the median is four. But the average is 5. Why? Because in an average you add up all the numbers, then divide. With a median, you've simply picked the number in the middle.
One should never compare averages from one population against the median of another, though you often see this mistake over and over in the media, then these numbers get passed along as "fact" because our uneducated public doesn't know the difference.
My husband is a HS teacher, and the first time I expressed shock about that 4th grade reading statistic, he said that general statistics for all children across the country weren't much better. He pointed me to several dept of education sites with just awful stats: most were around the 8th grade level, and a few showed a 9th grade median for US HS seniors. And apparently the US compares terribly with most other countries!
I'll see if we can dig those #s up, I realize it doesn't help to put out more hearsay. But I'd love to see some accurate numbers for deaf children (and find out how they are categorizing those: mainstream vs. deaf schools, etc.). I have a real incentive for knowing: my deaf toddler is currently at a wonderful school for the deaf, but I want to make sure she doesn't graduate from HS with a 4th grade reading level, that's for sure!
At Gallaudet University
2007-2008: 65 undergraduate students have a cochlear implant (representing 6 percent of all undergraduates)
24 of them being new students (representing 11% of the new students enrolled)
Special thanks to Gallaudet University Clerc Center's Cochlear Implant Education Center for the statistics. Click here to go to their website.
At Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT/NTID)
1999: 29 identified students and one faculty that have cochlear implants.
2007: 217 students have cochlear implant.
http://aslci.blogspot.com/2008/03/cochlear-implant-statistics.html
Also, to get an idea on educational level (also literacy levels) is to check California's STAR reports of schools, including schools for the deaf, and compare the various subjects, including English. It does add some legitimacy to the "4th grade level" of those at age 17 and 18 years old.
http://star.cde.ca.gov/
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2007/Viewreport.asp
"we now have the majority of deaf students receiving cochlear implants" Do you have stats on that? And how many of them were actually successful beyond hearing environmental sounds?
Majority of deaf children are now receiving cochlear implants? Thats some hogwash. Where are your stats to back up this statement?
Double anonymous,
I don't have statistics and don't know if anyone does. How do you get statistics on how many parents are choosing to implant their deaf babies versus those who are choosing not to? All I know is, I often search for blogs about newly identified deaf children to see what the parents are choosing to do. The majority are choosing to implant. It is increasingly rare for me to find a blog where the parent has chosen not to implant. Logically, if a deaf child has access to sound, it is easier for that child to pick up language. This is true whether that sound access comes through an implant or a hearing aid.
As for the average reading level of hearing people - that is true. I remember vaguely that way back when the newspaper USA Today launched, it was written at about the fifth grade level so that more people could read it.
Jamie:
While I understand your rationale for using the word "majority" after reading your last post (at 7:13 p.m.), I have to say that I believe your reasoning to be a little flawed.
The reason I say that is not to argue with you so much, as to point out, that I believe you see more blogging about the children receiving CI's simply because parents of children who have received CI's are probably more likely to network and search out other parents and blog or network about the issues, therefore being more visible.
I still appreciate all of your very educational posts, and hope you don't take it as a personal affront, I just happen to respectfully disagree on this issue. I posted on DeafRead, a blog pertaining to the statistics that I have found from research. I think, while not answering everyone's questions, a broad picture can be painted with those numbers.
Regards,
Eddie Runyon
(ThumpaFlash)
Post a Comment