Respect for all

vallee said:
Not every child can qualify for CI. It is not just not for everyone. It targets a small population. That is why I don't see deaf schools or bi bi programs going from schools. I hope not. Each targets only a part of the Deaf population. I see room for child's education needs being met.

Shel, does your school have any programs that include Oral Deaf? Could the two programs work together or are they so different that it would not work?
Click to expand...

If we start an oral only program, then that will create a division between our students..the signing students and the oral students.That wouldnt be good at all. We have speech classes for those who are able to develop oral language and they do fine. The academic areas are taught using ASL because it is the only language fully accessible to all children whether they have oral skills or not.
 
vallee said:
Does that change the make up of board goals? I thought you wanted a deaf board.
Click to expand...

What Buffalo wants is a board comprised of individuals that actually listen to wahtthe deaf have to say about theirown needs, rather than determining policy from what a hearing person thinks they need from a hearing perspective. Just because a hearing peson thinks something is valuable to the deaf does not necessarily mean that the deaf think it is valuable. Deaf individuals need the right of self determination that has been denied them by the ethnocentric hearing perspective for far too long.
 
jillio said:
What Buffalo wants is a board comprised of individuals that actually listen to wahtthe deaf have to say about theirown needs, rather than determining policy from what a hearing person thinks they need from a hearing perspective.
Click to expand...

Or better said, a board who views deafness from a cultural point rather than the medical/pathological view.
 
shel90 said:
If we start an oral only program, then that will create a division between our students..the signing students and the oral students.That wouldnt be good at all. We have speech classes for those who are able to develop oral language and they do fine. The academic areas are taught using ASL because it is the only language fully accessible to all children whether they have oral skills or not.
Click to expand...

People seem to have difficulty understanding that there are deaf whohave excellent oral skills but are not oral only.
 
jillio said:
People seem to have difficulty understanding that there are deaf whohave excellent oral skills but are not oral only.
Click to expand...

I know!!! Or having difficulty that the curriculm can be taught using ASL just as it is taught using spoken English. *sarcasm* My students learned multiplication facts last week thru ASL...OHHH is that possible??? LOL! *sarcasm*

The fact is that everything that hearing kids learn, deaf kids can learn if the program meets their deaf needs not the other way around.
 
shel90 said:
Or better said, a board who views deafness from a cultural point rather than the medical/pathological view.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Unfortunately, the majority of hearing who have no experience with deafness subscribe to the medical/pathological view because all they see is lack of auditory function. It is that limited definition that creates the problem in understanding.
 
shel90 said:
If we start an oral only program, then that will create a division between our students..the signing students and the oral students.That wouldnt be good at all. We have speech classes for those who are able to develop oral language and they do fine. The academic areas are taught using ASL because it is the only language fully accessible to all children whether they have oral skills or not.
Click to expand...

I agree you don't want a division between students. How is your program set up? Who decides the programs related to your school? Also do you have to have certification in Deaf Ed to teach at a School of the Deaf?
 
jillio said:
What Buffalo wants is a board comprised of individuals that actually listen to wahtthe deaf have to say about theirown needs, rather than determining policy from what a hearing person thinks they need from a hearing perspective. Just because a hearing peson thinks something is valuable to the deaf does not necessarily mean that the deaf think it is valuable. Deaf individuals need the right of self determination that has been denied them by the ethnocentric hearing perspective for far too long.
Click to expand...

I understand, what I am trying to get across is there is so much division within the Deaf Community. Who decides what is the necessary requirements for this board?
 
deafbajagal said:
As a matter of fact, I do. The information I present must be research-based. With CS, information is scarce compared to other methods of teaching literacy and modes of making English more visual.
Click to expand...

deafbajagal - Perhaps I can provide you with more information regarding Cued Speech. In some school districts in Canada the information must from the special ed department. Is this also the case for you?

Would you consider sharing a list of the info that you do have either here or in pm?

Thanks
 
deafbajagal said:
All options that I know of are discussed on the table. And everything I tell the parent is research-based...if I ever refer them to a journal article, I make sure it is peer-reviewed. After the options come the most important discussion - the child. What is best for this particular CHILD?

My personal opinion is never expressed. Ever. Only my professional opinion. It's hard to do it - but that's my job. Using my professional opinion - I help the parents through possibly one of the most difficult yet for sure one of the most important discussion they can ever have about their child...and what an awesome responsiblity I have to make sure that when they leave my classroom/office, they leave feeling that they have been fully informed by a professional who understood that only THEY can truly make the best decision...if we would only let them. And trust them. And be there for them - through the good and bad times. And that they know it is ok to change their minds...it is okay to feel all of these emotions they are feeling...and that it is okay to have a deaf child. And it is okay to be parents of a deaf child. Because they will have at least one person they can come and feel comfortable to talk with and ask questions. Because this professional leaves the nasty politics and personal opinions in the umbrella rack, outside. This post is about respect - you will find it inside. Come on in - I may be Deaf, but I can listen. I may not agree with your decision...in fact, I might even cry when you leave. But I will support you and your child...in whatever ways I can.
Click to expand...

deafbajgal - Your appraoch to your profession is honourable. I wish that the rehabilitation institutes that I am familiar with employed the same.
 
Buffalo said:
They do have the right to free education but if all deaf schools are going oral because of CIs. Where do the CI failures goes to??? Where do the kids whose parents can't afford CI or has no insurance, can go to??? Isn't there a school that is like public and the deaf board could use it???
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, and there should be an alternative like that available for students.
 
flip said:
It doesn't have to be. I was recentlytold that in sweden, the holy land of bi-bi education, they had a situation some years ago where the numbers of students in bi-bi schools became so small they almost shut down schools, and perhaps did shut down a few. But it's now on the rise as never before.

I also heard from more than one source through years, that in Japan, they ditched CI as the new hope a decade ago. Those countries have historically proved to be 5-20 years ahead of other countries in several areas.

Don't want to give false hopes, but somehow I am not that worried.
Click to expand...

It is on the rise in Sweden because they now have some longitudinal data to work with regarding CI implanted students. The CI was not the panacea that it was believed it was going to be. They have discovered, through logitudinal data on these students, that oral only, despite the miracle claims of CI, was not accomplishing educational goals. The U.S. has the same data available, the the hard core oralists are refusing to see it, and when it is pointed out, those bringing it to their attention are called anti-CI.
 
vallee said:
I agree you don't want a division between students. How is your program set up? Who decides the programs related to your school? Also do you have to have certification in Deaf Ed to teach at a School of the Deaf?
Click to expand...


Our program is BiBi..we teach using the public school curriculm and all the classes are set up using the public school model with the exception of speech classes for those who benefit from spoken language in the afternoons. We teach all content areas using ASL and written English. A few months ago, I was on a theme that covered different culture and languages and I taught my students few words in Spanish, French and Italian. Our students arent being denied anything...they have access to language at all times, during social, academic, and after school programs.

In the state of MD, one needs a certification in Deaf Ed meaning one needs a degree in Deaf Ed. That was why I got my master's cuz I didnt know that special ed didnt qualify me to teach Deaf ed.
 
jillio said:
It is on the rise in Sweden because they now have some longitudinal data to work with regarding CI implanted students. The CI was not the panacea that it was believed it was going to be. They have discovered, through logitudinal data on these students, that oral only, despite the miracle claims of CI, was not accomplishing educational goals. The U.S. has the same data available, the the hard core oralists are refusing to see it, and when it is pointed out, those bringing it to their attention are called anti-CI.
Click to expand...

I want to move to Sweden! :giggle:
 
flip said:
It doesn't have to be. I was recentlytold that in sweden, the holy land of bi-bi education, they had a situation some years ago where the numbers of students in bi-bi schools became so small they almost shut down schools, and perhaps did shut down a few. But it's now on the rise as never before.

I also heard from more than one source through years, that in Japan, they ditched CI as the new hope a decade ago. Those countries have historically proved to be 5-20 years ahead of other countries in several areas.

Don't want to give false hopes, but somehow I am not that worried.
Click to expand...

What do u mean in Japan, they ditched the CI? U mean they ditched the oral-only programs?
 
shel90 said:
What do u mean in Japan, they ditched the CI? U mean they ditched the oral-only programs?
Click to expand...

No, the interest and awe around the CI itself have faded, and implants are on the decrease, peaking a decade ago. I was told some japaneses shake their head when told about the hot debates on CI in europe and the states, like "wow, they STILL talking about CI?". I don't know about the education system in Japan, but the deaf japaneses and terps I have met had strong sign language skills, so guess there are TC/bi-bi programs in Japan.
 
flip said:
No, the interest and awe around the CI itself have faded, and implants are on the decrease, peaking a decade ago. I was told some japaneses shake their head when told about the hot debateis on CI in europe and the states, like "wow, they STILL talking about CI?". I don't know about the education system in Japan, but the deaf japaneses and terps I have met had strong sign language skills, so guess there are TC/bi-bi programs in Japan.
Click to expand...

I wonder, if because all the hype started to fade regarding CI after awhile is the reason that the U.S. medical establishement has put such effort into advertsing and promotion recently. Anecdotal evidence didn't support the original claims, uncsuccessful cases started speaking out, parents had to back up and rethink their decisions to keep their children in oral only programs because the results were not panning out as predicted. Interest started to fade....so the medical community has renewed their efforts at promotion and started focusing on yoiunger and younger recipients to increase their patient base.
 
deafdyke said:
Rick, can't you understand that almost NO ONE here is anti-CI? Most of us realize that it's a helpful thing for those kids who get very little to no benifit from HAs. I just don't understand why when those of us who aren't totally gung-ho for CI, express concerns about them, we're attacked and called "anti-CI"
Click to expand...

RR had opened this thread wanting us to debate reasonably... Now you started all bullshit.. pinpointed to Rick.... YOU STOP IT.. NO MORE BASHING ON CERTAIN PERSONS..... DEBATE REASONABLE... NO MORE BIG WORDS YOU KNOW NOTHING... continue debating without bashing.. we want to debate in peace.. so shut up...
 
jillio said:
I wonder, if because all the hype started to fade regarding CI after awhile is the reason that the U.S. medical establishement has put such effort into advertsing and promotion recently. Anecdotal evidence didn't support the original claims, uncsuccessful cases started speaking out, parents had to back up and rethink their decisions to keep their children in oral only programs because the results were not panning out as predicted. Interest started to fade....so the medical community has renewed their efforts at promotion and started focusing on yoiunger and younger recipients to increase their patient base.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. Early implants seems to be the last selling point they have, if their marketing department not at the moment is figuring out new ways to continue the cash flow. Wonder what the next selling point then will be..
 
Back
Top