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

faire_jour said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, but remember, she did develop speech from a pull out speech therapy before she had her implant. She had her implant late. And she sign at home
 
faire_jour said:
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.
Click to expand...

Skype me. You can listen to my speech then. You'll see what I accomplished with the very idea you are claiming to be ludricious. And others have done the same. Don't discount it for everyone. You are not the deaf one here who has to try to make this work, remember.
 
AlleyCat said:
Skype me. You can listen to my speech then. You'll see what I accomplished with the very idea you are claiming to be ludricious. And others have done the same. Don't discount it for everyone. You are not the deaf one here who has to try to make this work, remember.
Click to expand...

She was talking about schools that use Sign language all day, in total silent, and have pull out speech for one hour
 
A said:
She was talking about schools that use Sign language all day, in total silent, and have pull out speech for one hour
Click to expand...

Right. I read her post correctly. I had speech pullout for one hour too, and not even every day.
 
AlleyCat said:
Skype me. You can listen to my speech then. You'll see what I accomplished with the very idea you are claiming to be ludricious. And others have done the same. Don't discount it for everyone. You are not the deaf one here who has to try to make this work, remember.
Click to expand...

:gpost: Even in the oral program, I had speech 3x a week. When I was mainstreamed, I had speech on a weekly basis. Ditto for Deaf school. I have not taken speech class since 10th grade and most strangers can understand me just fine as long as I don't use words I don't know how to pronounce.
 
KristinaB said:
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.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
A said:
Right, but remember, she did develop speech from a pull out speech therapy before she had her implant. She had her implant late. And she sign at home
Click to expand...

And it is very very evident that sign language didnt harm the child at all.
 
GrendelQ said:
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 :shock: ) .

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.
Click to expand...

I know and understand that which is why I want to push for less oral-only programs and have more oral programs that offer ASL as well. I feel that most oral-only programs shun it and continue with the stereotyping that ASL is only used as a last resort. I still see it happening out there today.
 
AlleyCat said:
Right. I read her post correctly. I had speech pullout for one hour too, and not even every day.
Click to expand...

AlleyCat, you were in a bi-bi school for the deaf with only pull-out speech and developed your spoken English in that way? Did you have any other environmental input that may have helped (any speakers at home?)?

I'm not at all challenging you on this, btw, my daughter is at a bi-bi school and so I love seeing examples of where this approach (asl at school/spoken language at home) is successful.
 
shel90 said:
I knownd understand that which is why I want to push for less oral-only programs and have more oral programs that offer ASL as well. I feel that most oral-only programs shun it and continue with the stereotyping that ASL is only used as a last resort. I still see it happening out there today.
Click to expand...

Me too! Doesn't it seem like we're battling on two fronts, sometimes, by advocating for both :) ?
 
shel90 said:
And it is very very evident that sign language didnt harm the child at all.
Click to expand...

But Shel, didn't you know that ASL sucks the spoken English right out of a child's head?! :evil:
 
GrendelQ said:
Me too! Doesn't it seem like we're battling on two fronts, sometimes, by advocating for both :) ?
Click to expand...

I know that most deaf people dont mind having good oral skills but not at their expense. It is the only militant deaf people who are against anything remotely hearing-related and they are so few of them but the most vocal. I have yet meet one in person.
 
shel90 said:
Why do many deaf people who grew up oral express that they wish they had ASL and exposure to other deaf children or Deaf culture growing up?

So, the kids who have attended Deaf schools from the beginning who are not falling behind at all dont count?
Click to expand...

I'm a little behind but I wanted to address this.

I am not denying that oral deaf people wish they had ASL, but my point is that parents generally ARE AWARE OF THIS NOW. The problem is that some of you think that if the parents are aware of this, this would magically make them want ASL-based schools. It seems like everyone is talking about this magic school that has ASL+spoken language+English that IS NOT Total Communication. (Because they tried total communication and uhh seems like a failure.) I am willing to bet that most parents have visited ASL-based schools, giving it a chance and still went with oral schools. They simply do not have faith in the ASL-based schools to bring out the best in their child. I'm saying that parents can easily mitigate this common social problem by thinking "well I can introduce them to other deaf kids or something." And most likely, they won't because, let's be honest, the social issues don't occur until the teenage years, because they don't know better, and by that time, the "children" already know how to reach out for other people by themselves, especially via online.

And I wanted to add... why would they have a deaf teacher at an oral only school? It wouldn't make sense.....

Honestly, I think ASL-based schools have some good things while the oral schools have some good things. Where they lack, the other can make up for it. Hence, they need to work together.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'm a little behind but I wanted to address this.

I am not denying that oral deaf people wish they had ASL, but my point is that parents generally ARE AWARE OF THIS NOW. The problem is that some of you think that if the parents are aware of this, this would magically make them want ASL-based schools. It seems like everyone is talking about this magic school that has ASL+spoken language+English that IS NOT Total Communication. (Because they tried total communication and uhh seems like a failure.) I am willing to bet that most parents have visited ASL-based schools, giving it a chance and still went with oral schools. They simply do not have faith in the ASL-based schools to bring out the best in their child. I'm saying that parents can easily mitigate this common social problem by thinking "well I can introduce them to other deaf kids or something." And most likely, they won't because, let's be honest, the social issues don't occur until the teenage years, because they don't know better, and by that time, the "children" already know how to reach out for other people by themselves, especially via online.

And I wanted to add... why would they have a deaf teacher at an oral only school? It wouldn't make sense.....

Honestly, I think ASL-based schools have some good things while the oral schools have some good things. Where they lack, the other can make up for it. Hence, they need to work together.
Click to expand...

Deaf adults can teach orally. Why wouldn't they be able to? At CID the deaf employee is not in the classroom, but at USD she was.
 
faire_jour said:
Deaf adults can teach orally. Why wouldn't they be able to? At CID the deaf employee is not in the classroom, but at USD she was.
Click to expand...

I would have thought one of the requirements as a teacher in an oral school is to correct the speech of the students in a classroom. But I suppose that would be for speech therapy only?

What exactly goes on in an oral school that is different from mainstream?

I've only been in hearing schools, no deaf programs, so I'm inexperienced with the EXACT inner workings of deaf schools.
 
GrendelQ said:
AlleyCat, you were in a bi-bi school for the deaf with only pull-out speech and developed your spoken English in that way? Did you have any other environmental input that may have helped (any speakers at home?)?

I'm not at all challenging you on this, btw, my daughter is at a bi-bi school and so I love seeing examples of where this approach (asl at school/spoken language at home) is successful.
Click to expand...

Good questions. I don't know actually what type of program it was called back then - I'm 39 now so I'm many years ahead of your kids :) I don't think it was called bi-bi then. It was a school I started at about 1.5-2 years old and continued until 3rd grade. It was all sign. So it was a program for the deaf; we were not mainstreamed. I was moved to a new school for 3rd grade, so I was about 8 then. Home life consisted of both sign and speaking.
 
Silentwolfdog said:
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.

~
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'm a little behind but I wanted to address this.

I am not denying that oral deaf people wish they had ASL, but my point is that parents generally ARE AWARE OF THIS NOW. The problem is that some of you think that if the parents are aware of this, this would magically make them want ASL-based schools. It seems like everyone is talking about this magic school that has ASL+spoken language+English that IS NOT Total Communication. (Because they tried total communication and uhh seems like a failure.) I am willing to bet that most parents have visited ASL-based schools, giving it a chance and still went with oral schools. They simply do not have faith in the ASL-based schools to bring out the best in their child. I'm saying that parents can easily mitigate this common social problem by thinking "well I can introduce them to other deaf kids or something." And most likely, they won't because, let's be honest, the social issues don't occur until the teenage years, because they don't know better, and by that time, the "children" already know how to reach out for other people by themselves, especially via online.

And I wanted to add... why would they have a deaf teacher at an oral only school? It wouldn't make sense.....

Honestly, I think ASL-based schools have some good things while the oral schools have some good things. Where they lack, the other can make up for it. Hence, they need to work together.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, I think it is fear. If it wasnt, why do the parents say stuff like "If my child learns ASL, will he/she be able to talk?"..."My child wont be able to communicate with the hearing world"...and other comments..

There are some who are brave enough to expose their children to both but a majority of them seem to show fear of ASL.
 
Back
Top