Putting your deaf children in which schools...and why?

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I think it would be appropriate for speech therapy, that is the point of therapy, to correct speech. but during the day, during school, the focus is on language and learning not articulation.

My daughter was stopped and corrected all during her day and not just through speech therapy about her "sloppy" speech skills. She was called ignorant and stupid by so many teacher in a mainstreamed school. She only had speech issues, her hearing loss (mild as it is) was not a consideration.

Clearly that is ignorant mainstream teachers, not oral teachers of the deaf.

 

[Bottesini]

My daughter was stopped and corrected all during her day and not just through speech therapy about her "sloppy" speech skills. She was called ignorant and stupid by so many teacher in a mainstreamed school. She only had speech issues, her hearing loss (mild as it is) was not a consideration.

Wirelessly posted



Clearly that is ignorant mainstream teachers, not oral teachers of the deaf.

I agree, and they should have been fired.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Shel, i don't know what they would do. why would he want to work for a school that teaches listening and spoken language? what job would he want?

 

[KristinaB]

I agree, and they should have been fired.

4 were fired and I recently found out that the principal who was the main reason I pulled her from public school the last time has also been fired and had his license stripped and he is no longer allowed in any public or private school. Too many complaints, but at the school board hearing, the few of my daughters dedicated teachers brought out her file they kept, and that was the straw that broke the camels back. They were so appalled at her treatment and everything, that he was fired right there on the spot in the middle of the meeting.

 

[Bottesini]

4 were fired and I recently found out that the principal who was the main reason I pulled her from public school the last time has also been fired and had his license stripped and he is no longer allowed in any public or private school. Too many complaints, but at the school board hearing, the few of my daughters dedicated teachers brought out her file they kept, and that was the straw that broke the camels back. They were so appalled at her treatment and everything, that he was fired right there on the spot in the middle of the meeting.

That's about the best example of justice I heard today. Too bad it didn't happen when your daughter was there. But better late than never.

 

[KristinaB]

That's about the best example of justice I heard today. Too bad it didn't happen when your daughter was there. But better late than never.

Yeah - considering we left that school 4 years ago. I also found out that 3 of the Para Professionals (they were aides to the special needs students) took additional training and went to the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton, MO.

 

[Silentwolfdog]

Wirelessly posted

I think parents who are responsible, good parents, won't let it get to that point. they will follow up and make sure their child has language.

i believe that parents who responsible persue oral education are doing right by their children just as much as deaf ones who choose not to amplify or pursue speech. i would never judge either, but unfortunatly many people here would condemn one and applaud the other.

I don't think this comment is fair imo.

I mean, one got to admit that oral education is a gamble especially with deaf children. One can't deny that there are already many failed cases with deaf children. After all, we were working on their weakest sense. Yes, we understand there are many many deaf children who thrives from this and become successful adults who hear and speak. But what about the unlucky ones? So for the unlucky ones, they lose out... everything from speech to even knowledge itself. The lost years can't be redeemed. What do we say to them? "Geez, sorry others were successful accord to the professionals, so I assumed you will be too."?

Where with those that choose not to pursue speech, well they still have visual, the strongest sense among deafies. So they may lose out ability to speak, BUT they don't lose out the knowledge of language at least, wait... heck not just that but...the knowledge in general. I have never heard of one failed case with deaf children who gained signing skill first instead of speech skill, all because of skill they gained. I mean there got to be a reason that hearing parent of hearing children are learning baby signs to communicate with hearing children, even. This, what I find to be the greatest irony, unfortunately.

I think this is what many deaf people feared, the risky...gamble that parent took upon their deaf children. I think this is the battle that is being fought between two sides.

I am not saying oral education is wrong, just that it's awful risky gamble to take on deaf children. I understand the critical period for the brain of the youth before it changes to visual, but eh...

I mean if I got deaf children, of course I would try and see if they can develop speech and hearing aspect of their brain. Just that... I acknowledge the importance of offering both and I am not gonna worry too much if they can't speak. As long as they got knowledge, while the world may be harsh on em or that they may hate me for not help them develop the speech skill...I know they will survive as long as they got knowledge and it will give em a fighting chance regardless. I can't say that for those who got speech skills, but no knowledge to back em up. Knowledge in the end, probably will always outweigh the speech skills.

Acknowledging all of that is important I would think.

~

 

[deafdyke]

Yes, we understand there are many many deaf children who thrives from this and become successful adults who hear and speak. But what about the unlucky ones? So for the unlucky ones, they lose out... everything from speech to even knowledge itself. The lost years can't be redeemed. What do we say to them? "Geez, sorry others were successful accord to the professionals, so I assumed you will be too."?

Actually that would be true for even the kids who develop good oral skills. Oral abilty does NOT allow for automatic 100% access to the hearing world. That's why you have tons of honor role oral kids still struggling socially, as well as tons of orally skilled people saying they dont feel like they fit into the hearing world. Heck, if being oral meant that ASL isn't useful, we wouldnt have a ton of hoh folks posting here saying they wish they'd had access to ASL and Deaf culture from the start. The key is that we need to introduce ALL dhh kids to the full toolbox option, and see what THEY find useful. There may be some oral kids who never find ASL all that useful.....but its still a good tool to have in a toolbox!

 

[shel90]

I don't think this comment is fair imo.

I mean, one got to admit that oral education is a gamble especially with deaf children. One can't deny that there are already many failed cases with deaf children. After all, we were working on their weakest sense. Yes, we understand there are many many deaf children who thrives from this and become successful adults who hear and speak. But what about the unlucky ones? So for the unlucky ones, they lose out... everything from speech to even knowledge itself. The lost years can't be redeemed. What do we say to them? "Geez, sorry others were successful accord to the professionals, so I assumed you will be too."?

Where with those that choose not to pursue speech, well they still have visual, the strongest sense among deafies. So they may lose out ability to speak, BUT they don't lose out the knowledge of language at least, wait... heck not just that but...the knowledge in general. I have never heard of one failed case with deaf children who gained signing skill first instead of speech skill, all because of skill they gained. I mean there got to be a reason that hearing parent of hearing children are learning baby signs to communicate with hearing children, even. This, what I find to be the greatest irony, unfortunately.

I think this is what many deaf people feared, the risky...gamble that parent took upon their deaf children. I think this is the battle that is being fought between two sides.

I am not saying oral education is wrong, just that it's awful risky gamble to take on deaf children. I understand the critical period for the brain of the youth before it changes to visual, but eh...

I mean if I got deaf children, of course I would try and see if they can develop speech and hearing aspect of their brain. Just that... I acknowledge the importance of offering both and I am not gonna worry too much if they can't speak. As long as they got knowledge, while the world may be harsh on em or that they may hate me for not help them develop the speech skill...I know they will survive as long as they got knowledge and it will give em a fighting chance regardless. I can't say that for those who got speech skills, but no knowledge to back em up. Knowledge in the end, probably will always outweigh the speech skills.

Acknowledging all of that is important I would think.

~

Most of us here and I am sure most of us out there want deaf children to have both. Why do you ,parents, continue to resist it? I think it is fear and many wont admit it.

 

[GrendelQ]

Most of us here and I am sure most of us out there want deaf children to have both. Why do you ,parents, continue to resist it? I think it is fear and many wont admit it.

I don't think there's fear, I think it's a matter of availability and cost.

From what I've read of FJ, it sounds like she fought long and hard to get ASL integrated into her child's program from the start, against enormous obstacles. There was no bi-bi school that provided both ASL and spoken language available (FJ, correct me if I'm wrong there, please).

My family is SO lucky to have access to a wonderful bi-bi school that provides an auditory access program specifically for cochlear implant and HA kids as well as ASL immersion. We just have to keep a threshhold of these amazing little kids in the program for it to continue. Tough, against some of the negative preconceptions about what kind of child gets 'dumped' in a school for the deaf and the costs. It's early education, but the level of education my daughter is getting is as good or more advanced right now than I see in any of the toniest of private school preK environments. She's thriving, speaking, hearing, signing. We've chosen a school for the deaf that provides her with the best possible access -- for her -- to the full educational experience AND language instruction in 2 languages.

But, like any private school, it's enormously expensive. My local school district is paying $60K+ every year to send my daughter to this wonderful school. How long will they (and our neighbors paying the taxes to support this) assume that burden on the school's budget? I don't have an extra $60K a year in my bank account to send my 4 YO to private school if they decide to cut the program and offer her instead an itinerant TOD/aide and accommodations (seat up front, tennis balls on chairs, carpeted floors and an FM system) in their mainstream classrooms -- or no accommodations at all depending upon how they interpret her testing (and whether or not I can discreetly flick off my daughter's CIs just prior to the test ) .

I think this combination of access to an ASL+spoken language+rigorous academic program AND a subsidized or free ride is very rare. And I thank my lucky stars every morning when she delightedly steps into that van to the school she loves. If it were available, I think you'd see a whole lot of pick-up among those who have only the oral-only option right now.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Swd, my only point was that both sets of parents would be "limiting" their child's future options.

dd, there was a recent study that disagrees with you. it followed a group of ci kids and compared them to hearing kids in math, reading, language, speech and self esteem, and at the end of 5 years there was no difference between the groups in any of the areas.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Grendel, i agree with you!

if parents had access to high acheiving, bilingual programs that allowed their children to have fluency in both languages (with emphasis on on auditory as well as asl) i believe they would flock to them.

as it is right now there are few programs with asl and audition and many schools for the deaf are "dumping grounds" for kids who are behind. parents don't want that.

the reason my daughter is in the oral program at home is because her bi-bi school flatly refused to provide anything auditory.

the idea that a child can learn fluent spoken language in an hour a week of pull out therapy is ludicris. a deaf child needs language immersion, and that is what the oral schools offer.

 

[KristinaB]

Wirelessly posted

Swd, my only point was that both sets of parents would be "limiting" their child's future options.

dd, there was a recent study that disagrees with you. it followed a group of ci kids and compared them to hearing kids in math, reading, language, speech and self esteem, and at the end of 5 years there was no difference between the groups in any of the areas.

imo, that "study" was not logical since it may not have included kids or children in all social and educational settings. I don't think that is a fair representation on the education of children with CI's and without in oral, bi-bi, deaf or mainstream. There just wasn't enough variety of all children, therefore, it doesn't give the whole picture. Interpret it any way you want, but please stop quoting it as the "end all and be all" for this discussion. All people are entitled to their opinion and it's no ones place to slam or discredit their opinion. Some of us know what we went through, others of us know what our children are going through, and still others are going through it now, whether they are the student, the parent or the teacher. There is no one correct answer, but in my honest opinion (some other will not agree, but I think most will) it makes more sense for ALL children to have both oral and ASL. If they are not able to attain oral skills, then stop pushing it. Not all children will learn oral skills and they should not be looked down upon or even ridiculed. They tried, the education system tried and it didn't work. Anymore these days, most states do not have the funding to provide all the services you are advocating and think is law.

This thread asked for our own opinion on what we we provide our children. I think most of us answered that and may not have been expecting to be "slammed" or "shamed" for our decision. I can't say that someone messed up or screwed up because they didn't get all the services. I didn't and other's didn't. I am seeing that not all CI users are not happy with their CI. You will notice, I said not all. Yes, some do like their CI's and are glad to have them, but there are others of all different ages that don't like them. I know of some people off this forum who absolutely hate their CI and are planning on having the whole thing removed and going without anything because their parents made the decision without taking into consideration their feeling and wants. They were 4-10 when the implants were done.

This is just my two cents for today.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Posting issues, sorry (on my phone)

 

[A]

Have you seen sound and fury , the lastest one?, the little girl had pulled out speech therapy before she was implanted.. She is talking and hearing now with her implant.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

It was a study of kids in av therapy (the kind of therapy that most kids get after an implant).

and if you are saying that kids in other situations don't acheive the same resultsm wouldn't that be evidence to parents that the other choices don't work as well, and they should choose av because it would be the path that puts them on par with hearing kids?

 

[KristinaB]

Wirelessly posted

It was a study of kids in av therapy (the kind of therapy that most kids get after an implant).

and if you are saying that kids in other situations don't acheive the same resultsm wouldn't that be evidence to parents that the other choices don't work as well, and they should choose av because it would be the path that puts them on par with hearing kids?

That's not what I was saying. I am saying that they did not follow a diverse number of kids from all types of situations. I did not think I was being obtuse or ignorant or stupid. Please stop making me feel that way!!

 

[A]

The first 5 years doesn't really count if they are starting from infant to 5 years old. I mean it is great and all that they can keep up with hearing.. but only time can tell they will have issues along the way.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

A, i did see sound and fury. and after she got her implant the family pulled her out of the deaf school and mainstreamed her.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

The first 5 years doesn't really count if they are starting from infant to 5 years old. I mean it is great and all that they can keep up with hearing.. but only time can tell they will have issues along the way.

The study definatly didn't start at birth, it was after they were older, i'm not sure how old, i'll have to check on that.