Editorial

Editorial Total Communication and Bi-Bi Recently, I have observed in several classrooms and some different schools that the line between bilingual-bicultural (Bi-Bi) programs and total communication (TC) programs has become blurred. Although the stated communication philosophy may vary, in reality there may be more variation within any school than across schools. In fact, both inside the classroom and outside, it is sometimes difficult to know which of the two approaches is being used. In both settings, I have observed teachers and children signing with voice and without voice. I have also observed sign communication following English word order as well as communication that was clearly ASL. Some people apparently believe that if they sign without voice, then it is by definition ASL, even if they include invented signs to indicate English tense, number, adverbs, articles, the verb to be, and selected pronouns such as he, she, and it. There are other examples, as well. I have observed oral classes and cued speech classes where most or all of the childto -child communication, not to mention teacher-to-child communication, has been through some form of sign. However, at this time I want to concentrate on Bi-Bi and TC programs. Of course, there are differences. From my observations, deaf teachers tend to use ASL more and code-switch more effectively from English to ASL. However, there are many exceptions to this. There are many deaf teachers who are not experienced, skilled signers, and there are many hearing teachers who are. There are also some schools—in my observations a few schools—that consistently use ASL exclusively for through-the-air communication. Most seem to function along a continuum from ASL to English, with great in-school variation. The trend toward incorporating ASL within total communication programs has existed for almost three decades. In fact, Roy Holcomb, who led the movement toward total communication, was clear in his position that total communication included all aspects, all modes and systems— speech, simultaneous speech, and signs (Sim-Com), finger spelling, gestures, reading and writing. However, in practice , most total communication programs in the 1970s were slow to embrace the use of ASL and essentially equated Sim-Com with total communication. This changed gradually , and by the beginning of the present decade, most total communication programs had incorporated both ASL and English-based sign systems, although the English emphasis has tended to dominate. Because the establishment of Bi-Bi programs is a more recent phenomenon, at least in the twentieth century, the evolution has not been as noticeable, but I think it is now emerging. Part of the impetus may be the desire that a bilingual program utilize two through-the-air languages: ASL and English-based sign. It may well be that by the next decade, we will have total communication programs with ASL orientation and total communication programs with English orientation, but that the differences will not be great. The gap is already closing. It seems to me that another potent factor is starting to be felt. That would be the growing number of cochlear implants in very young children. Regardless of anyone's opinion about their efficacy or desirability, cochlear implants are a fact of life, a fact that will have an increasing impact on our field. We already have substantial numbers of parents of implanted children in this country and abroad who are frustrated with what they perceive as the dichotomous either/or, oral/manual choices facing them. This is especially true of those whose children have not had the miracle cure that had been expected. Many such parents want oral-only programs to add sign communication to their instruction. Other such parents want sign-based programs either to add or to strengthen oral components to their systems. In my opinion, the influence of these parental positions will have profound effects on the education of deaf children as we approach the twenty-first century and the third millennium. Donald F. Moores Editor Volume 144, No. 1, 1999 American Annals of the Deaf ...