Originally Posted by jillio
I will look for the link to the research I referenced. Sorry about the delay...I've had a hectic couple of days and haven't been on line much. The book sounds like a good resource, too. I haven't read it, but will certainly add it to my list.
I think that one thing that keeps getting overlooked in these discussions is that speech therapy is an adjunct service, not a part of the academic curriculum. Just because the curriculum is taught in an oral manner does not imply that speech therapy is a part of the academic curriculum. When we speak of education, we are referring to academic curriculum. Delivering classroom material in an oral mode of language does not mean that lessons in speech are inherent. Additionally, a classroom is a receptive environment. What we need to be concerned with is not how well a child can speak, but how well they are able to receive information in the classroom from an oral base. The level of speaking skill is not necessarily correlated to the level of reception skill. Being able to speak well does not improve academic functioning. Being able to receive and comprehend the information being presented is the key to improved academic functioning. The teacher's job is to get the information in, not to provide speech therapy.
I agree but unfortunately my oral deaf ed teachers, regular ed teachers, audis and speech therapists took my good speech as a sign of having the ability to understand what is being said around me most of the time. It was the total opposite. I spent so much time counting the patterns on the ceiling and on the walls during class. Heck, I even memorized all the Presidents in my History class. What a great lesson I learned throughout the whole year, huh?