In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ANNOUNCEMENTS June 18-23, 1991 Convention of Telecommunications for the Deaf Incorporated San Diego, CA Chaired by Pat Sieglen, executive director for Deaf Community Services at TDI. For more information, contact TDI, 814 Thayer Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 589-3006 (TDD) and 601) 589-3786 (voice). June 26-30, 1991 Profession on Parade New Orleans, LA A convention sponsored by the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf and the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf. Contact Diane H. Bordelon or Connie Tullos at the Louisiana School for the Deaf, PO Box 3074, Baton Rouge, LA 70821; phone: (504) 7698l60 , ext. 211 (voice or TDD). July 2-11, 1991 Equality and Self-Reliance Tokyo, Japan The XI World Congress of the Deaf, sponsored by the World Federation of the Deaf. For people and organizations interested in the field of deafness. Contact the International Center on Deafness. Ballard House, Room 201, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC 20002. August 9-14, 1992 4th International Congress of Hard of Hearing People Jerusalem, Israel Sponsored by the International Federation of the Hard of Hearing and the Organization of the Hard of Hearing and Deafened in Israel. Seeking presentations from hearingimpaired persons, their family members and service providers , scientists, and other professionals. For further information, contact the Secretariat, 4th International Congress of Hard of Hearing People, POB 50006, Tel Aviv 61500, Israel; phone: 972 3 654571; Fax: 972 3 655674 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Dear Dr. Moores: When I began my studies at Gallaudet University, I, like many students, confronted the oral-manual controversy. This controversy, as you know, focused energy on methodologies rather than on students, with how we taught being more important then how students learned!'Sadly, as you discussed in your editorial, "Deja Vu" (.AAD1990, 135, p. 201), another controversy, the manual-manual controversy , may again draw the energies of gifted educators at the expense of progress in other important areas. Fortunately , many of our colleagues have more respect for their students and the diversity that exists among them, than for an single method of instruction or communication. They are aware (and have been for many years) that support for oral-aural communication skills development does not require total rejection of all signing. They are also aware that support for American Sign Language (ASL) requires neither rejection of all English-like signing (or simultaneous communication), nor rejection of all deaf persons who are not culturally deaf as judged by self-appointed tribunals. Given the above, and much more, for those of us that are saddened by the hatred and discrimination that is occurring because of the rekindling of the manual-manual controversy , I wish to thank you for your "Deja Vu" editorial. Also, I wish to commend Stewart for his efforts to connect research on the positive effects of using ASL and English signing to educational practices via cooperative efforts with his colleagues in the Lansing School District (AAD 1990, 135, pp. 205-210), andlwish to commend MayerandLowenbraun for their work on teachers' skills in signing English and the factors that influence these skills (AAD 1990, 135, pp. 257263 ). It was refreshing to read research that works with teachers rather than criticizing them because they do not currently match some individual's model of the perfect communicator or teacher. Frank Caccamise, Ph.D. Rochester, NY AAD Vol. 136, No. 1 ...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
p. 4
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.