Some thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buffalo said:
They are there to teach kids education not give speech therapies. Some kids would have no speech skills so those kids would feel bad if the emphasis is on speech.
Click to expand...

I understand, but for example, my daughter's school has a very unqualified SLP. She has never worked with a successful CI user, or a child who can speak. She doesn't understand aural rehab or anything like that. She simply teaches kids to say single sounds. It is an outdated method that doesn't work well. But it is the only thing they are willing to offer.
 
faire_jour said:
I understand, but for example, my daughter's school has a very unqualified SLP. She has never worked with a successful CI user, or a child who can speak. She doesn't understand aural rehab or anything like that. She simply teaches kids to say single sounds. It is an outdated method that doesn't work well. But it is the only thing they are willing to offer.
Click to expand...

then your issue is with the SLP...
 
shel90 said:
then your issue is with the SLP...
Click to expand...

No, my issue is with the school. They said that they will NOT do anything related to listening. They will so speech, but will not do listening. They said it is against the bi-bi philosophy.
 
faire_jour said:
No, my issue is with the school. They said that they will NOT do anything related to listening. They will so speech, but will not do listening. They said it is against the bi-bi philosophy.
Click to expand...

I dont understand...listening...the kids listen visually by ASL.

Unless u want AVT done in the classroom? What about those who cant understand spoken English? They miss out on their education?
 
faire_jour said:
I understand, but for example, my daughter's school has a very unqualified SLP. She has never worked with a successful CI user, or a child who can speak. She doesn't understand aural rehab or anything like that. She simply teaches kids to say single sounds. It is an outdated method that doesn't work well. But it is the only thing they are willing to offer.
Click to expand...


faire_jour - And she still has the job?? I know SLP are really hard to come by, for many different programs and many different reasons, but I was always under the impression that SLPs had a "duty" to stay current to the developments within their own profession.
 
shel90 said:
I dont understand...listening...the kids listen visually by ASL.

Unless u want AVT done in the classroom? What about those who cant understand spoken English? They miss out on their education?
Click to expand...

No, I want auditory training/rehab as a pull out. Instead of old fashioned speech (which doesn't work very well), I want them to teach her to listen with her CI. That is what works, and that is what we do in private therapy.
 
loml said:
faire_jour - And she still has the job?? I know SLP are really hard to come by, for many different programs and many different reasons, but I was always under the impression that SLPs had a "duty" to stay current to the developments within their own profession.
Click to expand...

You are right..in order to renew their certification, they must attend workshops or attend classes to update their training. :dunno:
 
faire_jour said:
No, I want auditory training/rehab as a pull out. Instead of old fashioned speech (which doesn't work very well), I want them to teach her to listen with her CI. That is what works, and that is what we do in private therapy.
Click to expand...

I see...loml asked a good question in regards to the SLP's qualification..will let u answer that one.
 
loml said:
faire_jour - And she still has the job?? I know SLP are really hard to come by, for many different programs and many different reasons, but I was always under the impression that SLPs had a "duty" to stay current to the developments within their own profession.
Click to expand...

Horrible isn't it. The oral program has appropriate services, bi-bi doesn't and won't. They don't want to change the services. They think AVT or aural rehab is against the bi-bi philosophy because it uses the weakest sense (hearing) instead of the strongest (vision). Or that is what the program director told me.
 
faire_jour said:
No, I want auditory training/rehab as a pull out. Instead of old fashioned speech (which doesn't work very well), I want them to teach her to listen with her CI. That is what works, and that is what we do in private therapy.
Click to expand...

faire_jour - Does your school system employ an AVT therapist?
 
faire_jour said:
Horrible isn't it. The oral program has appropriate services, bi-bi doesn't and won't.
Click to expand...

U are wrong about that. I work for a BiBi program and we offer spoken English classes, we have a CI coordinator and SLPs who do whole language using spoken English in the speech classes.

The issue is with the SLP, herself as it is her responsibility to provide the speech services...
 
faire_jour said:
No, my issue is with the school. They said that they will NOT do anything related to listening. They will so speech, but will not do listening. They said it is against the bi-bi philosophy.
Click to expand...

you should enroll your daughter to loml's school :wave:
 
Jiro said:
funny thing is.... my mom frequently had "debates" with her mom over how it should be for deafie because both of them have fundamentally different ideas. Apparently.... her mom's approach had a better success than mine. Jane (a made-up name for that girl) was treated as deaf and recognized as deaf but my mom wanted me to be "hearing" thus I was lead down to hearing path.

Not that my parents made a grave mistake but now I know better enough not to go down the same path as I did if I were to have a deaf kid.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

People think that the oral only approach will help a child. It may help them to develop speech skills. But they will lack in social skills with other hearing people. They will still be left out. They will still feel isolated.

A very lonely feeling. A lot of them don't even tell their parents., They do not want to disappoint them due to they are brainwashed into thinking they are not deaf.

Jiro I was raised orally as well.

I do not blame my parents as well. They did what they thought was best for me.
 
faire_jour said:
Horrible isn't it. The oral program has appropriate services, bi-bi doesn't and won't. They don't want to change the services. They think AVT or aural rehab is against the bi-bi philosophy because it uses the weakest sense (hearing) instead of the strongest (vision). Or that is what the program director told me.
Click to expand...

I know of a few oral programs in one state that dont employ SLPs...their philosophy is that the deaf kids get their speech training by associating with their hearing peers...


every program has their flaws and their flawed philosophies ...
 
shel90 said:
U are wrong about that. I work for a BiBi program and we offer spoken English classes, we have a CI coordinator and SLPs who do whole language using spoken English in the speech classes.

The issue is with the SLP, herself as it is her responsibility to provide the speech services...
Click to expand...

Our oral and bi-bi programs. Sorry.
 
faire_jour said:
The oral program does. All the teachers are cross certified.
Click to expand...

AVT should not happen in the classroom where education is at sake...I totally disagree with that. I feel AVT should be kept as a support service...
 
shel90 said:
AVT should not happen in the classroom where education is at sake...I totally disagree with that. I feel AVT should be kept as a support service...
Click to expand...

The whole point of AVT is that language is being constantly given. It is one of the tenents of the philosophy. It's not supposed to be about therapy but about language all day every day. You "do AVT" by speaking rich language with the child. How can that be seperated from the classroom?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top