The Last Stand for the Deaf in California

Wirelessly posted

it is true that deaf schools have kids with other disabilities, but that is not the majority of students in california. Plus, those kid's don't test (they are exempted) so they aren't pulling the averages down.

Actually, it's when you have students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CST are exempted from that. Instead they get tested using the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA).
 
Wirelessly posted

kokonut said:
Wirelessly posted

it is true that deaf schools have kids with other disabilities, but that is not the majority of students in california. Plus, those kid's don't test (they are exempted) so they aren't pulling the averages down.

Actually, it's when you have students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CST are exempted from that. Instead they get tested using the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA).

right, so kids with multiple disabilities are NOT included in the 90% "far below" at california schools for the deaf.
 
Wirelessly posted

right, so kids with multiple disabilities are NOT included in the 90% "far below" at california schools for the deaf.

Kokonut mentioned cognitive disabilities, not multiple disabilities. Multiple disabilities could be referred to any students who are wheelchair-bound, CP, Ushers Syndrome, etc.
 
I think it is a systemic problem coupled with hearing people in power who haven't the slightest idea about deafness/culture or didn't/don't give a fig. This becomes much more visible in bad economic times. Take CA, for example: Students come from many home school districts, right? The school district must pay 10% of the cost of educating the students going to Riverside or Fremont, ok.....this began over 30 years ago and down thru time, these school districts slowly "wised up" and decided they could establish their own deaf program and not pay the State to allow the student to go to Riverside or Fremont. You can imagine the results.....anyway, it became increasingly obvious that whenever the school district determined a student wasn't educable, then and only then would they allow them to go to Riverside or Fremont. So slowly, over time, the students we were getting changed the face of what once was a great school in Riverside.
 
Wirelessly posted

are we really going to ignore the elephant in the room about bi-bi education? These kids are learning and using one language as their fluent, native, first, and primary language and being tested in a totally different language. No one thinks that could be contributing to the low scores?
 
Wirelessly posted

are we really going to ignore the elephant in the room about bi-bi education? These kids are learning and using one language as their fluent, native, first, and primary language and being tested in a totally different language. No one thinks that could be contributing to the low scores?

Actually, they should be learning at least one language at home to start with.
 
Wirelessly posted

are we really going to ignore the elephant in the room about bi-bi education? These kids are learning and using one language as their fluent, native, first, and primary language and being tested in a totally different language. No one thinks that could be contributing to the low scores?

Well, if you are talking about Riverside, let's get a real bi bi program in place first and then wait 20 years for replication, testing and all that to see how well it has worked. Theoretically, I think it is a great idea but if you have a general idea of the mechanics of this, it appears utopian but hey, don't let me stop ya, folks. :D
 
Wirelessly posted

Banjo said:
Wirelessly posted

are we really going to ignore the elephant in the room about bi-bi education? These kids are learning and using one language as their fluent, native, first, and primary language and being tested in a totally different language. No one thinks that could be contributing to the low scores?

Actually, they should be learning at least one language at home to start with.

yeah, and if you are headed to a deaf school, that language will be asl not english.
 
Wirelessly posted

yeah, and if you are headed to a deaf school, that language will be asl not english.

I didn't say English nor ASL, just at least one language. Do you really expect the school to teach your children language? It's their job to refine it. It's your job to ensure the child is acquiring at least one language, not theirs.

Don't send your child to a school if it's not fluent in the main language at the school. It's irresponsible.
 
Wirelessly posted

so you don't think that the fact that the kids are being tested in their second language is a factor? I disagree completely.
 
Wirelessly posted

oh and all kids continue to learn language at school, everyday, not just deaf kids.
 
Wirelessly posted

oh and all kids continue to learn language at school, everyday, not just deaf kids.

while they continue to learn it outside the school on a daily basis. Stop relying on the schools to do everything for your children. The parents need to start working with their children too.
 
If you want to talk about long term cost, well There are plenty of public school who neglect to teach deaf people because they were meant to use oral only approach. In the long term, Some of them end up in SSI because lack of education. And there's plenty who were success and still costing the govt money for captioning and even interpreting (they learned ASL late in life) . Once you hit adult world, The parents or the gov't isn't going to pay for the service deaf need concerning hearing aids/CI . Deaf people get discriminated base on how well they can hear and some of them get stuck on low paying jobs... hearing devices is costly. not everyone have $8,000-$10,000 hanging around when their warranty run out and they need a replacement. They have their own children to worry about. The sad thing is, if they go on like this, they may lose their speech ability because they can't hear themselves. You may say they can get medicaid to pay for it when they are older, but doesn't that just prove that CI is just as costly as ASL deaf?

I wouldn't be surprised if deaf oral-only use captionist for everything. they definitely will use it in college and courts. I don't think most want to take that risk especially in court.. and I think it is the same cost as ASL deaf (oral only deaf also use captel and tty/ip-relay service)

So to me, they both as just as costly.

But I do want the gov't to show respect for deaf parents (and hearing) if they want to raise their children as deaf and ASL, instead of looking at them from a medical perspective and feel that something need to be done.
 
Wirelessly posted

Banjo said:
Wirelessly posted

oh and all kids continue to learn language at school, everyday, not just deaf kids.

while they continue to learn it outside the school on a daily basis. Stop relying on the schools to do everything for your children. The parents need to start working with their children too.

if this was directed at me it is laughable.
 
if this was directed at me it is laughable.

*shrugs*

What's so laughable about it? You're the one putting so much emphasis on the schools. Parents' roles in their children's lives are far, far more significant than the schools ever will be.
 
Back
Top