Some thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
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?
Click to expand...

then u are proposing for an oral only environment, then?

If one is doing AVT in a BiBi program , what about those deaf kids who have no oral skills? What about them? It would be going against the philosophy of the BiBi program...which is providing full acess to language to ALL children regardless of their hearing loss. It is all about giving EQUAL access not giving those oral kids an advantage in the educational setting.
 
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...

Why on God's green earth would you not want to combine listening skills with speech skills especially when you have a child like Miss Kat who can hear so much with her ci?


Rick
 
shel90 said:
then u are proposing for an oral only environment, then?

If one is doing AVT in a BiBi program , what about those deaf kids who have no oral skills? What about them? It would be going against the philosophy of the BiBi program...which is providing full acess to language to ALL children regardless of their hearing loss. It is all about giving EQUAL access not giving those oral kids an advantage in the educational setting.
Click to expand...

I was confused about what you were talking about, sorry.

No, I am not advocating AVT in a bi-bi classroom, just as pull out, instead of speech, for those that would benefit from it.

I was speaking to how they do AVT in an oral classroom, sorry about the confusion.
 
faire_jour said:
As I have stated at least one hundred thosand times. my family is part of our local Deaf community. We went to an activity Friday night, and a Deaf church this morning

.
Click to expand...


Jiro said:
what Berry meant is that what do you hope to get from here since you feel you're not welcomed in here. Are you looking to get some information or are you advocating something?

.
Click to expand...

faire_jour,

Actually you should know the answers before you ask the questions. People here are pro Deaf pro ASL and want the culture to continue.

I would expect your local Deaf community to be the same.
 
faire_jour said:
I was confused about what you were talking about, sorry.

No, I am not advocating AVT in a bi-bi classroom, just as pull out, instead of speech, for those that would benefit from it.

I was speaking to how they do AVT in an oral classroom, sorry about the confusion.
Click to expand...


OOOOHHH ok gotcha!
 
rick48 said:
Why on God's green earth would you not want to combine listening skills with speech skills especially when you have a child like Miss Kat who can hear so much with her ci?


Rick
Click to expand...

It is unacceptable to me. First a child must learn to hear, then they can learn to talk....makes sense, doesn't it!
 
faire_jour said:
It is unacceptable to me. First a child must learn to hear, then they can learn to talk....makes sense, doesn't it!
Click to expand...

but how does a 100% stone deaf person talk without learning to hear? :scratch:
 
faire_jour said:
It is unacceptable to me. First a child must learn to hear, then they can learn to talk....makes sense, doesn't it!
Click to expand...

I cant hear but I can talk well enough for almost all hearing people to understand me without a problem. :dunno:
 
Jiro said:
but how does a 100% stone deaf person talk without learning to hear? :scratch:
Click to expand...

It is much much harder. That is why hearing kids do it easily and deaf kids don't. The better you hear, the easier it is to understand what someone is saying, and the easier it is to say it too.
 
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...

faire_jour - Where in all of this is the needs of the child? *shaking my head*
 
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...

Okay, I am in an area where I cannot claim any experience or study -- But on the surface that sounds insane to me.
 
faire_jour said:
It is much much harder. That is why hearing kids do it easily and deaf kids don't. The better you hear, the easier it is to understand what someone is saying, and the easier it is to say it too.
Click to expand...

Well, many of us here are stone deaf and yet, we have been told by several hearing people that our speech skills are so clear unless we have been lied to all this time?
 
Berry said:
Okay, I am in an area where I cannot claim any experience or study -- But on the surface that sounds insane to me.
Click to expand...

what she meant by not listening via auditorially...the kids listen via ASL.
 
shel90 said:
Well, many of us here are stone deaf and yet, we have been told by several hearing people that our speech skills are so clear unless we have been lied to all this time?
Click to expand...

I said it was hard, not impossible. Do you disagree that if you could hear better, you could self-correct, and learn pronunciation just from hearing a word spoken?
 
faire_jour said:
I said it was hard, not impossible. Do you disagree that if you could hear better, you could self-correct, and learn pronunciation just from hearing a word spoken?
Click to expand...

If I COULD hear better? why? we're happy being :deaf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top