District files appeal against deaf student

[jillio]

Samantha has an adult notetaker. This notetaker really likes Samantha but she has missed many school days because of illness which is not her fault but still samantha misses out. The other thing even a good notetaker cannot write everything down everything that is being said. Samantha notetaker doesn't write everything down she feels that if a student says something mean Samantha shouldn't know about it. It is not fair that all the other students can hear these things but my daughter cannot. My daughter has the same rights as all the other students. She should be able to know why someone is laughing in class or why they are mad. She feels felt out. That is horrible to feel left out.

I agree. And that is one of the most valid reasons for supporting a BI-BI educaitonal atmosphere.

 

[jillio]

Where do you teach in what state. Your program sounds great. We live in southern California and I have not seen a program like that yet out here. I am a preschool d/hh teacher. The class next door is a total communication class room grade preschool through 5th grade with about 15 students in there. I don't care how good of teacher anyone is. One teacher cannot teach students from ages of 3 to 11. Whenever I would go in there none of the students were working close to grade level.

You are lucky and that is why I fought so much for my children to be mainstream so at least they have a fighting chance at making it a 4 year college.

I see mainstreamed deaf young adults every day that were kept mainstreamed for the very same reason. The sad fact of the matter is, they are less prepared for college than some of the students who have attended a deaf school.

 

[shel90]

Unfortunalely, 16 year old children do know what they want, but they base their wants and desires on the wrong criteria. It is necessary for the parents to step inat this point. As far as challenges go, having lower expectations should not have an effect on her education. She can always exceed the expectations and prove those who aren't giving her credit for her capabilites wrong.

Yea that's so true cuz I remember at that age, I refused to look at the terp cuz I was so embarrassed about it. I didnt want to be different so I told my mom that I didnt want a terp in the class even though it would have made a huge difference in my educational progress. All I cared about was being like my hearing counterparts than getting all the info from my classes. I didnt know any better and the parents know better.

 

[jillio]

There is a school for deaf out here Riverside but it does not have a very good rep. And schools only send kids there is they are failing at our local school special day classes.

And that is exactly why Riverside does not have a good reputation.

 

[shel90]

And that is exactly why Riverside does not have a good reputation.

BINGO!!! Whose fault is that? The deaf schools or the mainstreamed schools?

 

[jillio]

I am in no way discounting this parent's frustration and pain, nor am I pointing fingers or laying blame. But I would like to point out that this situation is no different from the situation that occurs on a daily basis within the educational system. Parnets agree to oral educational placement on the mistaken belief that it will provide their child with a better educaiton and more opportunity to integrate into the oral world. It has exactly the opposite effect, and in actuality, the child is deprived of a complete education an d is handicapped far more than deafness is responsible for. Opportunity is denied, not extended in these situations. And this is the main reason that shel, dd, and many other posters to this forum object so strongly to a strictly oral philosophy. It is truly a shame that our deaf students continue to go through these situations, and are continuing to be denied adequate education. What is even more of a shame is that we can hear these stories, and still be so ethnocentric and narrow minded that we do not learn from them and continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

 

[navyman]

I am in no way discounting this parent's frustration and pain, nor am I pointing fingers or laying blame. But I would like to point out that this situation is no different from the situation that occurs on a daily basis within the educational system. Parnets agree to oral educational placement on the mistaken belief that it will provide their child with a better educaiton and more opportunity to integrate into the oral world. It has exactly the opposite effect, and in actuality, the child is deprived of a complete education an d is handicapped far more than deafness is responsible for. Opportunity is denied, not extended in these situations. And this is the main reason that shel, dd, and many other posters to this forum object so strongly to a strictly oral philosophy. It is truly a shame that our deaf students continue to go through these situations, and are continuing to be denied adequate education. What is even more of a shame is that we can hear these stories, and still be so ethnocentric and narrow minded that we do not learn from them and continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

The whole situation laid out in this thread is full of dilemmas and difficulties. As an oral, mainstreamed student up through high school who learned ASL while on a church mission and as a student at Gallaudet, I've seen both sides of the fence. In addition, as a current Federal civilian employee in a professional position with high communication demands, I've been inmersed in struggles with my employer to provide effective VRS, full time sign language interpreter support, and notetaking support.

Although the thread speaks to an educational setting, for the sake of principle, I think it's important to point out what laws say about reasonable accommodations in the employment setting. In my specific case as a Federal employee, reasonable accommodation requirements under Section 501 of the Rehab Act is pretty clear about what a Federal agency's responsiblity is: That is, to provide an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to do the following:

1. Apply for jobs
2. Ability to perform essential functions of the job, and;
3. Enjoy the "benefits & privileges" that my coworkers enjoy

In addition, EEOC policy makes it very clear that reasonable accommodations are to be effective in such a way that it allows employees with a disability to be able to "...compete on a fair and level playing field and have the opportunity to achieve their fullest potential." (italicized for emphasis) (EEOC MD-715 section 1.)

Unfortunately, disability law for education purposes (in this case, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehab Act), is not as unambiguous. I sadly recall a specific case where an obviously ignorant court judge denied a deaf student a sign language interpreter based on the false premise that the involved school's responsiblity only extended to the point of allowing a student to receive a basic education, not to achieve their fullest potential. The deaf student had been getting pretty good grades, so it was assumed that she did not need an interpreter. This kind of reasoning is scary, especially when it comes from a judge, who is often the final arbiter of things that tremendously impact a person's development and life.

Alot of the problems that result from poor court rulings stems from the ambiguous language that Congress puts in their statutes...as such, they become too susceptible to the daily biases of normal Americans like our court judges. In addition, Congress has this bad habit of statutorily requiring a lot of "unfunded mandates," as the saying goes. This leaves many school systems already struggling with tight budgets to feel compelled to fight requests for IEPs to include costly reasonable accommodations. I can somewhat sympathize (but not agree with) the perspective of an employer and a school administrator with regards to their efforts to minimalize reasonable accommodations, especially those for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (D&HH) students, where the services are recurring, ongoing, and significantly higher in cost than for most other types of disABILITIES.

This mixture of statutory ambiguity, thin fiscal resources, societal ignorance on the impact of restricted communication opportunities experienced by D&HH folks, and the inherently difficult due process requirements to secure statutory rights for persons with disABILITIES, all combine to create such situations experienced by myself, Samantha, and countless others.

Although many of us former "oralists" can testify from experience that it was a painful upbringing, full of social and communicative limitations, and how being at Gallaudet/Deaf School/Learing Sign Language was a liberating watershed in our lives, the sad reality is that far into the future, many parents, both current, future, and yet-born, will be faced with the terrible dilemma of having a Deaf child...it being terrible for them because they do not have the knowlege/experience/resources to address it to the Deaf child's optimal benefit.

No amount of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" by former "oralists"/"mainstreamers" will solve this problem, except only on a 1-on-1 basis where we can make an impact on parents of a Deaf child/children that we cross paths with. It's almost the luck of the draw, and probably depends on the parents and often where the Deaf child is born, whether in a progressive school district/state/local community with above average awareness of Deafness and associated issues, or, as frequently is the case, a total "backwater" on the same, frequently in rural areas of the country.

I am rooting for Samantha and hope the appeal is overturned. We need to make sure our district courts don't continue to be filled with judges with Republican leanings. They tend to be a disaster for persons with disabilities. Let's vote accordingly!!!

 

[jillio]

Agreed. The key word here is advocate, advocate, advocate. Those of us that have had negative experiences and see the problems are obligated to educate those who don't know.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Unless the school is using a professionally trained notetaker, this is probably not the case. And the child is still missing out on periphereal information available to hearing students.

The notetaker is not professionally trained, she is a sub aide

 

[jackiesolorzano]

What about going out of district? And if your daughter has adequate social signing skills, how is it that using those skills in an educational environment would be a detriment? Isn't getting the information across the first priorty of education?

I don't think that signing would be detriment to her education, what I do think is that if the school district provides an interpreter and since my daughter just learn to sign in middle school, an interpeter is not going give her full access to the curriulum which is her right

 

[jillio]

I don't think that signing would be detriment to her education, what I do think is that if the school district provides an interpreter and since my daughter just learn to sign in middle school, an interpeter is not going give her full access to the curriulum which is her right

And why is it that she just learned to sign in middle school? Obviously, missing out on classroom material has been an issue since she started school, not something that is just now occurring.

 

[shel90]

I don't think that signing would be detriment to her education, what I do think is that if the school district provides an interpreter and since my daughter just learn to sign in middle school, an interpeter is not going give her full access to the curriulum which is her right

Well, I will tell u about myself..it may or may not apply to your daughter too but just a FYI...when I started out in college, I got an oral terp cuz I didnt know sign language ..that was in '90 to 97 (I quit college for 3 years during that span)..I started taking ASL classes at ASU in Fall of '95 and while I was learning ASL, I was switching from oral terps to CART cuz both werent really working out for me..the lipreading of the oral terps mouth movements for a long period of time was too exhausting and I missed out so much cuz so many of the words looked alike and reading the CART so fast (they typed fast) burnt me out quickly. By the beginning of 98 (Spring of 98) I requested an ASL terp..I was nervous cuz I didnt feel that my receptive skills werent good enough but I wanted to try it...let me tell u, I got more info from the ASL terp than I did from an oral terp and the CART..(I think I kept the CART for notetaking purposes) cuz my eyes didnt have to work so hard catching all the info. It was nice.

I am not saying that u should do the same but just giving u a FYI of how easy it was for me to pick up on the signs in such a short time.

In 2000, I went to Gallaudet in which signing was everywhere and I had full access to everything for the first time in my life.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

I am in no way discounting this parent's frustration and pain, nor am I pointing fingers or laying blame. But I would like to point out that this situation is no different from the situation that occurs on a daily basis within the educational system. Parnets agree to oral educational placement on the mistaken belief that it will provide their child with a better educaiton and more opportunity to integrate into the oral world. It has exactly the opposite effect, and in actuality, the child is deprived of a complete education an d is handicapped far more than deafness is responsible for. Opportunity is denied, not extended in these situations. And this is the main reason that shel, dd, and many other posters to this forum object so strongly to a strictly oral philosophy. It is truly a shame that our deaf students continue to go through these situations, and are continuing to be denied adequate education. What is even more of a shame is that we can hear these stories, and still be so ethnocentric and narrow minded that we do not learn from them and continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you think it was wrong of me to raise my children orally.

 

[jillio]

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you think it was wrong of me to raise my children orally.

I didn't say that. I'm only saying that deaf/hh children educated in an oral environment in a mainstream setting are quite often thought to be doing well because they have adequate oral skills in a one on one situation. Not until it is too late to the educators, and sometimes the parents, realize that not providing visual cues all along has had a cumalive effect that just begins to show up once the student reaches jr. high or high school level. It's a problem with oral education in general, not a reflection on your parenting practices.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

What I do not seem to understand is just because I have raised my deaf children orally I have done something wrong. Why does it have to be an oral vs. signing issue. While I do consider myself more of an oralist, I am not anti signing or anti Deaf culture. I was given these 2 deaf kids for some reason. All the decisions I have made for my children, I have done through research, talking to other parents, and educators. I can only talk about the educational system in southern California. If your deaf child is in a d/hh special day class, they are there because they function at least 2 grade levels below their heering peers but generally these d/hh students both in oral and signing classes are functioning 3 to 5 grade levels below their hearing peers especially at the high school level. As you probable know the typical deaf kid usually doesn't read above a 4th grade level. I did not want this for my children. I want my children to have better opportunities.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

And why is it that she just learned to sign in middle school? Obviously, missing out on classroom material has been an issue since she started school, not something that is just now occurring.

She just learned sign language in middle school because she went to a middle school that had deaf kids. She did learn language for academic content she learned so she can communicate with her deaf peers.

 

[shel90]

What I do not seem to understand is just because I have raised my deaf children orally I have done something wrong. Why does it have to be an oral vs. signing issue. While I do consider myself more of an oralist, I am not anti signing or anti Deaf culture. I was given these 2 deaf kids for some reason. All the decisions I have made for my children, I have done through research, talking to other parents, and educators. I can only talk about the educational system in southern California. If your deaf child is in a d/hh special day class, they are there because they function at least 2 grade levels below their heering peers but generally these d/hh students both in oral and signing classes are functioning 3 to 5 grade levels below their hearing peers especially at the high school level. As you probable know the typical deaf kid usually doesn't read above a 4th grade level. I did not want this for my children. I want my children to have better opportunities.

I will be honest..I wish I wasnt raised orally in the educational system. I am sure my parents thought best for me and no, I dont blame them. I put the blame on the oral specialists who pushed my parents into thinking that was the best for me. I hated middle and high school. High school was better but I felt something was missing and I was engaging in self destructive behaviors to fill that void. That void I felt was from constantly missing out on everything which lead the anger to grow and fester in me. There are other deaf people who have been happy being raised orally so everyone is different.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Well, I will tell u about myself..it may or may not apply to your daughter too but just a FYI...when I started out in college, I got an oral terp cuz I didnt know sign language ..that was in '90 to 97 (I quit college for 3 years during that span)..I started taking ASL classes at ASU in Fall of '95 and while I was learning ASL, I was switching from oral terps to CART cuz both werent really working out for me..the lipreading of the oral terps mouth movements for a long period of time was too exhausting and I missed out so much cuz so many of the words looked alike and reading the CART so fast (they typed fast) burnt me out quickly. By the beginning of 98 (Spring of 98) I requested an ASL terp..I was nervous cuz I didnt feel that my receptive skills werent good enough but I wanted to try it...let me tell u, I got more info from the ASL terp than I did from an oral terp and the CART..(I think I kept the CART for notetaking purposes) cuz my eyes didnt have to work so hard catching all the info. It was nice.

I am not saying that u should do the same but just giving u a FYI of how easy it was for me to pick up on the signs in such a short time.

In 2000, I went to Gallaudet in which signing was everywhere and I had full access to everything for the first time in my life.

I am open to whatever will help my children receive the academic information they need.
She has had an interpeter before, she did not like it. The one she had this past school year, she hated it, she said she couldn't understand her and she was mean. I know that the CART providers go really fast but what I think is great about it is the fact that we will have a transcript at the end of night wherever she needs help I can help her.
My son signing is not good at all. He has several frineds that just sign, he likes learnings signs from them. But he refuses to be in a class with an interpeter because he says he gets confused.
Now the way it is with her notes, I trying to guess what I think she does not understand.
In an ideal world, I would want my daughter to have an interpeter and CART but we do not live in an ideal world

 

[jillio]

What I do not seem to understand is just because I have raised my deaf children orally I have done something wrong. Why does it have to be an oral vs. signing issue. While I do consider myself more of an oralist, I am not anti signing or anti Deaf culture. I was given these 2 deaf kids for some reason. All the decisions I have made for my children, I have done through research, talking to other parents, and educators. I can only talk about the educational system in southern California. If your deaf child is in a d/hh special day class, they are there because they function at least 2 grade levels below their heering peers but generally these d/hh students both in oral and signing classes are functioning 3 to 5 grade levels below their hearing peers especially at the high school level. As you probable know the typical deaf kid usually doesn't read above a 4th grade level. I did not want this for my children. I want my children to have better opportunities.

It is not really an oral vs. signing issue for me. It should be the use of both. Oral skills are very useful, and I believe that they should be a part of the deaf child's education. However, I also believe that no matter how proficent the oral child is in spoken English, to deny them sign is to deny them the opportunity to receive all of the same information from their environment, be it educational or social, that hearing children receive. To keep a child in a strictly oral environment limits their opportunites rather than increasing them.

D/d/hh students should be in educational placements for deaf students because that is where they will receive the education best suited to their needs, as not as a last ditch effort to bring them up to grade level. That is one on my main complaints with the oral placement. And that philosophy is one of the reasons that deaf students fall behind hearing students in achievement.

You say that you are not anti-signing or anti-Deaf Culture--but have you exposed your children to sign and Deaf Culture in the home environment? Have you learned sign in order to communicate with your deaf children? Perhaps you don't have anything against other deaf who sign, but if you have chosen not to use it with your own deaf children, then that is the message that is communicated.

 

[jillio]

She just learned sign language in middle school because she went to a middle school that had deaf kids. She did learn language for academic content she learned so she can communicate with her deaf peers.

And communication with peers is very important. But so is her family's ability to communicate with her. But most important, it the ability to gain the benefit from educational materials that will allow her to be successful.

I can only assume from your post that she began learning sign language from deaf peers. My question to this would be, "Why wasn't she exposed from the beginning?" If you want her teachers to understand that even though she has good oral skills and CI, she is still deaf, then you must understand that first.