Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[rockdrummer]

It sounds like a good idea but the problem is you run risk of language delays if those programs dont work for some. That is why we get so many kids referred to our program at an older age cuz their parents tried all these programs only to have their kids fall so far behind. For me, I would rather have the child to have 100% full access to language and communication at all times in the educational setting so that way they have a better chance of developing higher literacy skills. I guess that's just me...putting the child's education/language/literacy skills first and foremost.

At the rate we are going, probably all deaf kids will end up implanted in the future.

Right Shel you do run a risk. You run that risk no matter which program you choose including Bi-Bi. There are pro's and cons in each of the programs. There are also many variables that affect the programs themselves of which parents have little or no control of. Then there are the variables that parents do have control of. And then there is the individual child and the variables they have control of. It's all of those things combined that will determine the outcome. While there are things that a parent can do to mitigate some if the inherient problems, at the end of the day, it's still a crap shoot which to me is a sad state of affairs.

 

[shel90]

Right Shel you do run a risk. You run that risk no matter which program you choose including Bi-Bi. There are pro's and cons in each of the programs. There are also many variables that affect the programs themselves of which parents have little or no control of. Then there are the variables that parents do have control of. And then there is the individual child and the variables they have control of. It's all of those things combined that will determine the outcome. While there are things that a parent can do to mitigate some if the inherient problems, at the end of the day, it's still a crap shoot which to me is a sad state of affairs.

Up to you if u want to think that way. I dont think of it that way.

I see my students having equal and full access to language and able to participate in discussions, socialize with each other like hearing kids do with each other, have deaf role models, and exposure to both worlds. I dont see anything sad about it.

Due to my 10 plus years of experiences, I see that the BiBi approach as the most promising due to the fact that all children will have equal access to language in the classrooms. I am speaking of in the education setting. At the home enviornment, I have no control over that and I dont know what goes on at the home for each child at all times. I do have some background knowledge of their home lives but that is only based on what was given to me.

Maybe I see the BiBi approach as the most promising cuz of my priorities in the education of deaf children.

If for others if their priority is speech, then oral-only programs and TC programs would be better for them.

Yes, there are pros and cons to all programs but in my opinion, the BiBi approach has more pros than cons.

If u and others dont believe in BiBi programs, I am not gonna stop u. I am just sharing why I believe and it is the most promising, the most fair for ALL students despite the degree of their hearing loss which is why I chose it.

I was raised in the mainstreamed and oral-only approach. While I did get a good education out of it, I felt it was too restrictive for me and I definitely did not have equal access to the curriculm, discussions, and lectures in the classroom as my hearing peers did. I really think that was not fair for me to be put in that position of constantly working just to keep up in the classroom when I could be really enjoying learning. The was one of the biggest factor to why I chose the BiBi approach cuz no child is being put in that position. They always know what is being said in the classroom equally.

 

[shel90]

Right Shel you do run a risk. You run that risk no matter which program you choose including Bi-Bi. There are pro's and cons in each of the programs. There are also many variables that affect the programs themselves of which parents have little or no control of. Then there are the variables that parents do have control of. And then there is the individual child and the variables they have control of. It's all of those things combined that will determine the outcome. While there are things that a parent can do to mitigate some if the inherient problems, at the end of the day, it's still a crap shoot which to me is a sad state of affairs.

From my experience, those kids who start out in the BiBi programs have a stronger language foundation than those kids who got referred to our program at a later age. A stronger language foundation equals to higher literacy development for the child unless the child themselves have a learning disability.

I dont recall seeing any children becoming language deprived from the BiBi programs. That is based on my experience.

All of my students this year have shown progress with English literacy skills..some develop faster and some develop slower depending on their learning styles. So, I am seeing that as a success and I am confident it will continue as long as each of us teachers meet their learning styles/meeds.

 

[Cheri]

Agreed rockdrummer that every program has it's pros and cons.

 

[jillio]

Excellent post there Jillioie I like your point toward where I bold it, that was an great listing of examples of how things has improved dramatically in the past years, it the same way as what I see in these cochlear implants, not so long ago, I remember being so against cochlear implants in the past because I feel parents were trying to change us to be like them but I was so wrong and started learning so much more about them. Anyways, I'd be interested to see how many deaf children benefits from these bi bi programs just as much as TC did for me and the others inculde your son.

Before I submit my reply, I wanted to add what I love best about it is your passionate focus on deaf children's education and not often do I see hearing parents fighting to keep ASL alive. It good to have people like you on this forum Jillio, only to wish for more people like you, well done!

Awwww.....

 

[jillio]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)


Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

I see what you are saying, but Bi-Bi accomplishes that. It permits access to academic information in a format that allows for easy access for the majority of deaf children. We can't base policy on a few outliers. We have to base policy on what has been proven to be beneficial for the majority. We have researh in place that indicates that a Bi-Bi approach to language and to education is the most beneficial for the majority. Then we can make modifications to that curriculum for the outliers. What we do now is set policy based on the outliers, and try to make modifications for the majority. It just isn't working.

 

[jillio]

It's difficult to get some real results out of many types of educational programs for the deaf and hard of hearing. One of the reasons is the lack of language development during the first five years of a child's life. It is absolutely crucial that language development is made a top priority, if not then you are likely to be in for a very rough ride. Educators and the educational programs will not work if the parents don't work with their children in acquiring a language or more.

It's a continuing trend and not much is being done about it. It's the same old story all of the times.

**nodding agreement** That is why adopting a Bi-Bi approach in early intervention has the possibility of producing some amazing increases in academic acheivement.

 

[shel90]

BiBi programs not working for some children?

Hey Jillo...I was thinking of the title of this thread on how one size does not fit all.

We know that the oral-only, TC, and CS doesnt fit all. These approaches work for some while they dont work for others. Many people keep saying that the parents have to be diligent about watching signs for a particular programs success or failure for the child. Ok, that is a great idea but unfortunately it is not a reality for all parents because many parents dont understand the educational system itself let alone deafness.

What about the BiBi approach? Has there ever been cases where a child became language deprived and delayed from the BiBi approach? AS far as my experiences with the BiBi approach, that didnt happen. What about in your experience?

If it shouldnt work for a child, why would that be since language is already fully accessible to the child, speech programs are available, direct communication with peers and teachers, and a curriculm modified to meet their visual needs? Since some of you are saying that the BiBi approach is not for everyone...can u care to elaborate on how is that?

I am just pondering of what would cause the BiBi approach be a failure for children. I am just having a hard time seeing it because all the resources are available.

 

[jillio]

All very impressive but at the end of the day you still can't ignore the success stories out of various programs. You also cant ignore the fact that there are many experts in the area of deaf eduation and amongst them there is no consensus. You also can't ignore the inconsistancies within the various programs.

The fact that many so called Bi-Bi programs are not really Bi-Bi. I have heard from deaf adults on this board that have said the Bi-Bi program they went through was a joke. And I am reasonably sure those inconsistancies apply within TC and other programs as well.

So assuming all of the programs are in fact what they say they are, there is still division amongst those that cliam to be experts. How does one reconcile that. For me it suggests that one size doesn't fit all. It tells me there is no silver bullet. My own research and personal experience indicate success and failures out of all camps.

To me, that clearly indicates differences in learning styles and learning needs. It also suggests that some programs within a given model are better than others. I'm quite sure there are great Bi-Bi programs out there and that those programs are in fact Bi-Bi as defined. I'm also quite sure there are many that fall woefully short at the expense the childs education. And that applies to all programs. Not just Bi-Bi. Much of that also has to do with politics within the educational system and some has to do with the individual teachers themselves. Assuming each program is well defined and equally implemented, I'm sure you will still see varying results out of each program.

Each parent has to make many choices regarding their deaf child and they make those choices based on many variables. While it would be nice to limit those variables, the reality is when it comes to education, at this particular point in time, it can't be done.

As I just explained in my reply to Cheri...we cannot base policy based on the outliers.


Variations in a program can be said for any program. The reason that there are so many variables is because we are not setting policy based ont he majority and making accommodations for the outliers. We are setting policy based on the outliers, and then trying to make accommodations for the majority. We need to have a methodology in place that addresses all the needs of the majority, and then make variations and accommodations for the outlierrs based on a solid foundation of methodology and theory. We are not doing that, and that is why there are so many variations and problems. As well, we have educational policy being set by administrators who have no education or experience with deaf education, and as a result, don't understand the methodologies they claim to be implementing.

 

[shel90]

True Jillio that technolgical has been change over the years.

But you got to understand that its not the methodologies that shows no improvement for the deaf world wide. You and She'l kept saying Bi Bi works better for deaf people which is not true, it might work for some and it also might not work for others. Every hearing loss is different and every child learns differently. There is no single approah for all just like rockdrummer stated and he's right.

For hearing aids, it may works for some and it also may won't work for others it is the same goes for cochlear implants. It does not mean the device itself fails deaf children or deaf adults world wide.

It all depends on the individual. (The person's hearing loss, the person's progress)
Its important to give those deaf children a fair chance to try each programs to see how the child will progress even if it is Oral, TC, Bi Bi or Cued Speech.

If you expected them all to be in a bi bi program then every deaf child should get a cochlear implant because its better than hearing aids, You see what I'm trying to say here?

I thought u were against the idea of oral-only programs since deaf children in those programs are not exposed to sign language?

 

[jillio]

It sounds like a good idea but the problem is you run risk of language delays if those programs dont work for some. That is why we get so many kids referred to our program at an older age cuz their parents tried all these programs only to have their kids fall so far behind. For me, I would rather have the child to have 100% full access to language and communication at all times in the educational setting so that way they have a better chance of developing higher literacy skills. I guess that's just me...putting the child's education/language/literacy skills first and foremost.

At the rate we are going, probably all deaf kids will end up implanted in the future.

That is exactly what I mean by setting policy based on outliers. If we start all children out in a program that gives them everything, and then remove services they don't need, we haven't taken the risks we are taking now. The way it works now is that we offer the bare minimum, and add services as they appear to be needed. It makes much more sense to offer more, and move to less if indicated.

 

[jillio]

Outstanding points especially about how much hearing loss a person has. I'm quite sure that also influences the individuals learning style and needs. While I am no expert I would imagine that the teaching techniques would be a bit different towards a profoundly deaf child than they would towards a child that is HOH.

Actually, level of hearing has much less to do with inherent learning preferences and styles than you might think. And, a profoundly deaf and HOH child have more in common with the way they access information in a classroom than does an HOH child and a hearing child.

 

[jillio]

Right Shel you do run a risk. You run that risk no matter which program you choose including Bi-Bi. There are pro's and cons in each of the programs. There are also many variables that affect the programs themselves of which parents have little or no control of. Then there are the variables that parents do have control of. And then there is the individual child and the variables they have control of. It's all of those things combined that will determine the outcome. While there are things that a parent can do to mitigate some if the inherient problems, at the end of the day, it's still a crap shoot which to me is a sad state of affairs.

Of course you run a risk with anything you choose. Nothing in this life is a 100% guarantee. If that is what you are looking for, then you are in for a long and difficult search that will prove impossible. There is always a risk...but the question is what reduces the risk that is inherent? What has less chance of risking complications? The risk is greater for academic failure when programs are restricted. Bi-Bi inherently has less risk of failure for the majority of deaf children because it offers more. The child is given everything, and makes use of those features that prove to be most beneficial, rather than having to take what they can from a less comprehensive program and experience gaps that are not addressed through bare minimum services.

 

[shel90]

That is exactly what I mean by setting policy based on outliers. If we start all children out in a program that gives them everything, and then remove services they don't need, we haven't taken the risks we are taking now. The way it works now is that we offer the bare minimum, and add services as they appear to be needed. It makes much more sense to offer more, and move to less if indicated.

Right and it bazzles me to do it in that order. It just does not make sense.

Why not start with all and if later, the kid wants to go oral only, SEE, Sim-Com, and CS later on, then at least the kid will have a strong language foundation to begin with. I just dont understand the willingness to put these children at risk for language deprivation. Hearing children are not placed in educational settings where they are deprived of full access to language so why should deaf children? Is it cuz the parents's needs come first?

It is making me angry thinking of this.

 

[jillio]

Hey Jillo...I was thinking of the title of this thread on how one size does not fit all.

We know that the oral-only, TC, and CS doesnt fit all. These approaches work for some while they dont work for others. Many people keep saying that the parents have to be diligent about watching signs for a particular programs success or failure for the child. Ok, that is a great idea but unfortunately it is not a reality for all parents because many parents dont understand the educational system itself let alone deafness.

What about the BiBi approach? Has there ever been cases where a child became language deprived and delayed from the BiBi approach? AS far as my experiences with the BiBi approach, that didnt happen. What about in your experience?

If it shouldnt work for a child, why would that be since language is already fully accessible to the child, speech programs are available, direct communication with peers and teachers, and a curriculm modified to meet their visual needs? Since some of you are saying that the BiBi approach is not for everyone...can u care to elaborate on how is that?

I am just pondering of what would cause the BiBi approach be a failure for children. I am just having a hard time seeing it because all the resources are available.

No, I have never seen it fail a child. If we are looking for longitudinal data, all we have to do is look at the education achievement of DOD kids. They learn ASL as their L1 language and English as their L2 language. They achieve at the same rates as hearing peers matched for age and grade level. It is assumed that linguistic competence based on early language acquisition is responsible for their higher academic acheivement. So it makes sense that, if we use early intervention strategies and academic placement to provide the same atmosphere for all deaf children, they will match the achievement and competencies shown by DOD students. The point being, give them everything, and if they fall into the oiutlier category, services that are not necessary can be removed without risking the development of the child.

 

[shel90]

Of course you run a risk with anything you choose. Nothing in this life is a 100% guarantee. If that is what you are looking for, then you are in for a long and difficult search that will prove impossible. There is always a risk...but the question is what reduces the risk that is inherent? What has less chance of risking complications? The risk is greater for academic failure when programs are restricted. Bi-Bi inherently has less risk of failure for the majority of deaf children because it offers more. The child is given everything, and makes use of those features that prove to be most beneficial, rather than having to take what they can from a less comprehensive program and experience gaps that are not addressed through bare minimum services.

That was what I saw when I first worked in a BiBi program after working in the other deaf educational programs. When I saw how linguistically-rich the environement was made for these children, I became sooo excited about teaching deaf children. Before that, I wasnt sure about becoming a teacher cuz what I saw where just constant miscommunications between the kids and the teachers, the frustrations, and the language delays especially with literacy. It was kinda depressing to see until I worked at TLC...wow! Now, I am working full time in a BiBi program and I dont really experience any of these frustrations except for seeing an influx of older kids coming into our program with language delays. That is the only frustrating thing about my job cuz I know that it shouldnt have happened to them in the first place.

 

[shel90]

No, I have never seen it fail a child. If we are looking for longitudinal data, all we have to do is look at the education achievement of DOD kids. They learn ASL as their L1 language and English as their L2 language. They achieve at the same rates as hearing peers matched for age and grade level. It is assumed that linguistic competence based on early language acquisition is responsible for their higher academic acheivement. So it makes sense that, if we use early intervention strategies and academic placement to provide the same atmosphere for all deaf children, they will match the achievement and competencies shown by DOD students. The point being, give them everything, and if they fall into the oiutlier category, services that are not necessary can be removed without risking the development of the child.

Ok, cuz I am racking my brains of any reasons why the BiBi programs should fail the kids. I couldnt think of one unless the teachers themselves dont do their jobs or lower their expectations hence dumbing down the curriculm. If they do that, then they shoudlnt be teachers in the first place but that is another category of discussion as we are discussing educational philosophies not who makes a good teacher or not.

 

[Cheri]

I thought u were against the idea of oral-only programs since deaf children in those programs are not exposed to sign language?

Where did it says that I support oral?


Omg I almost die laughing bi bi is less the risk failure? How would you know because you say so or because Shel says so, I'm sorry but I would rather to see the studies that would show me this program will beat the odds.

And bi bi has everything?? Gives a child everything??

jillio don't say never either, when this program is only 20 years old, you cannot say you never saw bi bi had fail a child.

 

[jillio]

Ok, cuz I am racking my brains of any reasons why the BiBi programs should fail the kids. I couldnt think of one unless the teachers themselves dont do their jobs or lower their expectations hence dumbing down the curriculm. If they do that, then they shoudlnt be teachers in the first place but that is another category of discussion as we are discussing educational philosophies not who makes a good teacher or not.

Exactly.

 

[jillio]

Where did it says that I support oral?


Omg I almost die laughing bi bi is less the risk failure? How would you know because you say so or because Shel says so, I'm sorry but I would rather to see the studies that would show me this program will beat the odds.

And bi bi has everything?? Gives a child everything??

jillio don't say never either, when this program is only 20 years old, you cannot say you never saw bi bi had fail a child.

Because I have witnessed first hand chidlren who have been placed in a Bi-Bi environment, and because of the research that supports this approach. I already explained that.

If TC, oral, sim-com, and mainstream placement were such successes, we would not be seeing the problems today that we see with deaf education, because, those are the programs being implemented, and therefore, the programs that are causing the lowered achievement levels in an academic setting.

And yes, Bi-Bi gives a child everything. How can you possibly say it doesn't? And yes, there is less risk of failure when you provide more opportunity for communcation than when you provide less. It doesn't matter if the program is only 20 days old, I have still never seen a child that has not had better communication and literacy skills from being provided a more enriched environment.