What do you suppose is main reason of problem with English..

[fw001]

Yes, I know people fall through the cracks, deafdyke. As I said before, part of the root of the problem is the fact that there's not ENOUGH deaf people in mainstream schools.. making it EASIER for them to ignore the problem. You're only supporting what I've already said

And, as I already mentioned in prevoius posts, they shouldnt remain in a deaf institution past 4th or 5th grade.. It's probably better for elementary schoolers to remain with like people, so that they can more effectively develop skills needed later in life - but past 4th or 5th grade, you start to see educational levels taper off in institutions, putting your child's education and future at risk.

Of course, alot of people will disagree. Nobody wants to admit to the problem, even though everyone knows deaf schools provide a crappy education.

BTW, my daughter's not deaf. So no need for me to worry about all this, really. But, I CARE.. and the only way to really change things is to force the issue public, smile. And, I didnt bring up this issue, anyway..

I cant fight everyone. If you dont want to agree with me, then we can agree to disagree.

Excuse me while I scream.....You OBVIOUSLY don't have deaf kids in the mainstream.....My parents tried to get the BEST education for me....but the school insisted it was doing enough with VERY minimal accomondations like auditory trainer, and preferential seating.
A mainstream school can offer minmal accomondatiosn and still be legally satisfiying legal requirments for an appropreate education.
I think it's more complicated.....like a lot of kids falling through the cracks edcuationally. A lot of kids may not have had appropreate teaching until they went off to school.....you just have NO idea....I'm not saying that the Deaf schools are heaven.....but neither are the hearing schools utopia!

 

[deafdyke]

cant really imagine one single reason why a deaf institution would be better than in a public school.. thats like saying we should put all wheelchair people into one school, and mute people into one school, and... hey while we're at it, why dont we just seperate by color too??

That's easy.....b/c the special education techiques that dhh kids need are not generally available from the teachers at a public school. Also, it's a lot easier to fit stuff into your schdule. Back in high school I never ever had speech therapy b/c it was so hard to fit into the schdule. Nobody is saying that ALL dhh kids should be segregated....we're just saying that res schools should be offered as an option.

 

[dkf747]

Wow, thats the best joke I've read all day! public schools arent better than deaf institutions in education levels? Have you even been mainstreamed before?

I fail to see the humor. The public schools do not show better results. That's the bottom line. Our public education not only has problems educating dhh folks, but has become a joke around the world for its results with hearing students.

I was hearing until age 11, and remained in regular classes up to the 11th grade. I joined a mainstream program then. It was like going back to 7th grade. I was still put in regular classes most of the day, but had support I didn't have previously. It was good for me, but dhh students who grew up in the program were 4 or 5 grades behind. The results are comparable to the results of an institute. Which, therefore shows, as one example, that it is not the institution that is the problem.

I cant really imagine one single reason why a deaf institution would be better than in a public school..

If YOU can't imagine it, or not, is irrelevant. The Institutes are not perfect, and may not even be ideal, but they are not the reason for problem with DHH students learning English. I did not claim that they were better. My claim is that mainstreaming is not better, at least not for most.

thats like saying we should put all wheelchair people into one school, and mute people into one school, and... hey while we're at it, why dont we just seperate by color too??

Non-sequitur.

 

[diehardbiker]

Exactly! The real problem, most people still deny and refused to recongize the problem. The real problem lies in deaf school and other school! They should have teach ASL when deafies are very young like 1st grade or something, THEN use that ASL teaching to transform into English. This way, deaf people will understand better! But YET, school board refused to accept and allow this concept because they were afraid that using this concept will worsen the problem. DUH???? HOW CAN THIS WORSEN the English skills? They are BAD for long long long time and NOT even single attempt to run trial and see the result. However, there are currently 5 deaf school that recongizes ASL as primary language for deaf kids and teaching them from ASL shows significant improvements! But the school board generally REFUSED to recongize the result from these 5 school, how SAD!!!

I know alot people will be against my concept, BUT I have SEEN the results, and I raised all my life in deaf school! I KNOW the difference!

Because English is not the main language for the deaf community. ASL and English are 2 completely different languages, with different syntaxes. Do a little research on ASL, and you will easily learn this. Between writing and signing, is it really fair to expect someone to switch syntaxes?

In the way English is spoken and written, the most widely used format is subject, verb, object. With ASL, the syntax is verb, object, subject, if I remember right. Someone please correct on this. I'm going on what I can remember from job training.

 

[fw001]

Well that's an interesting stance on your part. Theres some flaws in your reasoning though..

Public schools *DO* show better results - I'm not plucking an opinion out of thin air. The only variance is location of the school - poverty-striken areas tend to have a lower education standard than elsewhere - but this doesnt make any distinction between hearing and deaf people in the same classes.

You seem to have your years in reverse - you said you were hearing until 11, and remained in your regular classes up until 11th grade.. then joined mainstream classes - What were you in before 11th grade? Special classes?

"Mainstream" classes means you are part of the REGULAR student body - ie: NOT in any special classes, NOT in an all-day homeroom, etc.. but rather, part of the actual classes other hearing students attend, on an all-day basis.

Lastly, whether I can imagine or not being irrelevant is a pretty typical defense. This is a forum, quality of deaf education was brought to question, and all of our opinions were expressed. They are *ALL* relevant, smile. Otherwise this isnt really a forum but a one-sided opinion poll to see how popular it would be if they started a "i went to.." thread

I fail to see the humor. The public schools do not show better results. That's the bottom line. Our public education not only has problems educating dhh folks, but has become a joke around the world for its results with hearing students.

I was hearing until age 11, and remained in regular classes up to the 11th grade. I joined a mainstream program then. It was like going back to 7th grade. I was still put in regular classes most of the day, but had support I didn't have previously. It was good for me, but dhh students who grew up in the program were 4 or 5 grades behind. The results are comparable to the results of an institute. Which, therefore shows, as one example, that it is not the institution that is the problem.



If YOU can't imagine it, or not, is irrelevant. The Institutes are not perfect, and may not even be ideal, but they are not the reason for problem with DHH students learning English. I did not claim that they were better. My claim is that mainstreaming is not better, at least not for most.



Non-sequitur.

 

[deafdyke]

Public schools *DO* show better results - I'm not plucking an opinion out of thin air.

Cite? Yes, quite a bit of the research alleges better quality of education.....but a lot of the "studies" were on the high acheiver type of kid. Meaning the kids who would do well even with minimal or zero accomondations.
One of my friends says that UNBIASED research, indicates that kids who went to specialized schools do better then kid just thrown into the mainstream.
Fact of the matter is, MOST public schools do not have enough dhh specific resources. It's better to pool the resources at a specialized school, so that the resources aren't spread too thin.
As for your comment about wheelchair users....there are some kids who use wheelchairs who need specialized schools.....either b/c the schools don't have resources nessary or b/c of other problems. Hey......there are even plenty of kids with plain old learning disabilties who need better programs then those offered in public schools!

 

[fw001]

Well, my friend's friend's mother's second cousin's uncle's father is interested in seeing your friend's UNBIASED research that doesnt "focus on high achievers"..

If research focused on high achievers, then boy would our national SAT average soar! But as it currently stands, last year's national SAT average was only 519. This is only 5 points higher than the previous year. The department of education even has numbers crunched based on race, school district, so on. They certainly arent embellished. Check it out sometime.

I completely disagree with pooling resources for a specific disabled group - People cry foul when discriminated against, segregated, or otherwise seen as different. Yet, when we attempt to merge, those same people again cry foul, and boast of having their own little world within this world, and people like you come along and say its better to keep them seperate. How can anyone possibly win in this scennario? The only time resources should be pooled is in extreme cases - ie: people with an IQ of 80 or below, people who need serious physical assistance throughout the day (ie: cerebral palsy, total body paralysis), or problematic personalities (ie: excessively violent, abused, etc). Segregation at any level for any reason other than the above samples only encourages the world to further distance themselves from those types of people, which in turn only encourages discrimination or "different" views of them. This should never be allowed to occur.

Cite? Yes, quite a bit of the research alleges better quality of education.....but a lot of the "studies" were on the high acheiver type of kid. Meaning the kids who would do well even with minimal or zero accomondations.
One of my friends says that UNBIASED research, indicates that kids who went to specialized schools do better then kid just thrown into the mainstream.
Fact of the matter is, MOST public schools do not have enough dhh specific resources. It's better to pool the resources at a specialized school, so that the resources aren't spread too thin.
As for your comment about wheelchair users....there are some kids who use wheelchairs who need specialized schools.....either b/c the schools don't have resources nessary or b/c of other problems. Hey......there are even plenty of kids with plain old learning disabilties who need better programs then those offered in public schools!

 

[deafdyke]

If research focused on high achievers, then boy would our national SAT average soar! But as it currently stands, last year's national SAT average was only 519. This is only 5 points higher than the previous year. The department of education even has numbers crunched based on race, school district, so on. They certainly arent embellished. Check it out sometime.

In THIS case, yes the research was flawed and biased.... Check out the dates for most mainstream studies...they are from the '80's or on auditory-verbaled kids. Back in the '80's only about 200 profoundly deaf kids were orally educated...Back then orally educated kids were most likely to be mainstreamed, at least according to your definitation. As for auditory-verbaled kids, they also tend to be high acheivers, and also tended to be mostly mainstreamed.

I completely disagree with pooling resources for a specific disabled group - People cry foul when discriminated against, segregated, or otherwise seen as different. Yet, when we attempt to merge, those same people again cry foul, and boast of having their own little world within this world, and people like you come along and say its better to keep them seperate. How can anyone possibly win in this scennario? The only time resources should be pooled is in extreme cases - ie: people with an IQ of 80 or below, people who need serious physical assistance throughout the day (ie: cerebral palsy, total body paralysis), or problematic personalities (ie: excessively violent, abused, etc). Segregation at any level for any reason other than the above samples only encourages the world to further distance themselves from those types of people, which in turn only encourages discrimination or "different" views of them. This should never be allowed to occur.

Boy.....you are a little too idealistic..... *shakes head* You've obviously NEVER had to deal with getting substandard accomondations, from teachers who don't know how to teach and who scream and holler if you expect accomondations beyond an FM device and an auditory trainer.
I'm NOT suggesting complete and total segregation....I'm just suggesting it as an OPTION, alongside a continum of other options!

 

[dkf747]

Well that's an interesting stance on your part. Theres some flaws in your reasoning though..

Public schools *DO* show better results - I'm not plucking an opinion out of thin air.

Yes you are.

You seem to have your years in reverse - you said you were hearing until 11, and remained in your regular classes up until 11th grade.. then joined mainstream classes - What were you in before 11th grade? Special classes?

I said I was in the regular classes. No special classes until the 11th grade. Even then I was not in more than a couple of special classes.

"Mainstream" classes means you are part of the REGULAR student body - ie: NOT in any special classes, NOT in an all-day homeroom, etc.. but rather, part of the actual classes other hearing students attend, on an all-day basis.

That is the ideal, but the reality is diffferent.

Lastly, whether I can imagine or not being irrelevant is a pretty typical defense. This is a forum, quality of deaf education was brought to question, and all of our opinions were expressed. They are *ALL* relevant, smile. Otherwise this isnt really a forum but a one-sided opinion poll to see how popular it would be if they started a "i went to.." thread

No, I do not care what you can imagine. It is irrelevant to this discussion. You're free to say it, but it doesn't help your argument any.

 

[deafdyke]

but rather, part of the actual classes other hearing students attend, on an all-day basis.

I had sped study hall......Hearing students didn't have that, but I took ALL the classes the hearing kids did....Would you consider ME mainstreamed?

 

[deafdyke]

fw001,
I know you mean well.....but I remember vividly sitting in my mainstream class, being puzzled as fuck regarding concepts like syllabels, rhyming, and music class......It's sort of like.....how would a blind kid benifit from an art appreciation class or a reading (from print) class?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

being puzzled as fuck regarding concepts like syllabels, rhyming, and music class......

Now I am suprised - maybe not to the degree you were then, but why would you think you didn't benefited from learning what is syllable and rhyming?

Syllables and rhyming is also part of a written world, and apart from being a part of writting skils it is a part of language education.
Consider yourself that much more educated now that you know what syllable and rhyming is

Dearest Deafdyke, what are you like ?
do you ride a mountain bike?
I had a bike as a lil' tyke
it had many colorful spikes

lolol


as for music- why not KNOW about music. Even if you can't hear it, it's still an education. I was required to know words of a song but not expect to sing it.
besides, have you never heard of deaf-blind artist. To me it means you can enjoy art as blind person.
I don't have an answer about benefits from reading print by blind person, but... maybe we should ask blind person that?

Fuzzy

 

[fw001]

FYI, Beethoven was deaf.

Also, if you haven't noticed I havent bothered to post any further in this thread Basically deaf people dont like to be told they've had a crappy education. Thats fine with me, I could care less at this point. So I'm simply going to let this thread die out. It's not worth my energy. People want to be stupid, thats their choice.

fw001,
I know you mean well.....but I remember vividly sitting in my mainstream class, being puzzled as fuck regarding concepts like syllabels, rhyming, and music class......It's sort of like.....how would a blind kid benifit from an art appreciation class or a reading (from print) class?

 

[dkf747]

People want to be stupid, thats their choice.

Yes, that is your choice.

 

[deafdyke]

FYI, Beethoven was deaf.

And? He was late deafened....and he was more severely hoh (someone told me that he used a bone conduction hearing aid to help hear)

Also, if you haven't noticed I havent bothered to post any further in this thread Basically deaf people dont like to be told they've had a crappy education

WRONG!!!!! We just don't like people coming in and utopiaizing the mainstream....You really honestly don't get it....It's not as simple as "put a dhh kid in a hearing school, totally mainstreamed and they will get a WONDERFUL PERFECT education!"
Yes, deaf schools are crappy, but they aren't any more crappy then for example an inner city public school. Rates of acheivement are probaly the same....You just don't want to admit that it's a lot more complciated.

 

[deafdyke]

No, audiofuzzy,
I remember learning about syllabels and rhymes, but I totally couldn't understand the concept....I still don't understand the concept of syllabells...I can rhyme to an extent....but it's very sound based...and words that look like they rhyme on paper, don't always rhyme in sound.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

Might as well as take a stab at this topic.

Core language competency is acquired during the critical ages between 2-5 years old, generally speaking. The school system, both private and public, then fills in the rest with more advanced constructs and syntaxes of their language, in this case, English. Generally, the educational system as used in the U.S. for the past 50 years or so has worked adequately, producing generations of literate people for the workforce.

It isn't perfect, as I've met hearing people whose English competency has been compromised. I've met hearing people whose English was on the superior range. But, by large, most fall in areas that are more than adequate for the workforce.

When it comes to Deaf people, especially pre-lingually deafened ones born to hearing families, they may have missed out on this critical language development period in various ways. By the time they're 5 and entering the school system, their core language foundation may not be equal to the language-building tasks now confronting them. They may not fully asborb the monumental task of acquiring English in its advanced modes, constructs and syntaxes which will be taught throughout their school lives.

I'm well aware of external factors that weigh heavily in the language acquisition spectrum, namely parental expectations & involvement, qualified teaching and high educational expectations, and general environment surrounding a child's upbringing. But, it all starts with this critical language development period of 2-5 years of age for the child in having his/her core language base, before all other factors kick into the final formula of determining whether this child will have competent English well into adulthood.

 

[Vance]

Also, if you haven't noticed I havent bothered to post any further in this thread Basically deaf people dont like to be told they've had a crappy education. Thats fine with me, I could care less at this point. So I'm simply going to let this thread die out. It's not worth my energy. People want to be stupid, thats their choice.

I decided to show Nas all of your posts in this topic and she has one or two things to say to your posts.

"To think that public or private school's education is better than Deaf Schools or Institutes is clearly delusional. Look at Japanese, Indian, Chinese and Swedish schools, their students' grades are much higher than Americans (public & private scools). Even deaf students of Deaf schools in these countries can grade as high as hearing students can. I know many hearing Americans in public schools who were unable to score at least 'B' grade on 'To kill a mockingbird' book in essay and quiz. Or failed in simple english lessons."

Nas is a hearie and she is a law student (one year to go before graduation). She graduated at a public school in the East area of America. She also visited several schools in Japan, China, India and Sweden. Meaning: she knows what she is talking about.

People want to be stupid, thats their choice.

Well, takes one to know one, is it? I can understand your views of education in Deaf schools. I don't have any problem with your biased perspectives but blame on Deaf Schools solely for poor education (especially english & grammar) is just the stupidest thing ever we've heard of. Some people forget several fundamental important factors in our education in America: parents' love & attention, motivation, etc which do affect our education regardless of whether you acknowledge them or not.

Unlike someone who refused to cite the fact or proof to back up his/her comment, I'm going to cite one or two things to support Nas' comments:

In general, literacy levels of Deaf children in North America are significantly lower than literacy levels of hearing children. Deaf children with Deaf parents have outperformed Deaf children with hearing parents in academic achievement, literacy and social development (Israelite and Ewoldt, 1992).

We already know about that as some of you guys discussed in this topic but one sentence spat out of this:

Yet, 90% of Deaf children have hearing parents.

Curious... is it hearing parents' fault for causing the low grades in deaf education? (btw, I'm joking. Don't take it too serious)

However... here's beautiful fact/proof which supports Nas' comment:

It is reassuring that in contrast to the findings in North America, literacy and overall academic levels of Deaf high school students in Sweden and Denmark, where sign language is mandated from early childhood, are on par with the literacy and academic levels of their hearing peers (Deaf Education Policies in Denmark, 1996, Svartholm, 1996)

fw001, see? Even in deaf school, Deaf Swedes & Danishs can grade as high as hearing students can. But wait, there is one more! Here it is:

In North America this has not been so. Parents and siblings of Deaf children in North America have not had the sign language support they receive in Sweden and Denmark to be able to share literature with each other in sign language. Family literacy in American Sign Language (ASL) and English in North America is far below the family literacy in Swedish Sign Language and Danish Sign Language in Sweden and Denmark respectively where Deaf children's literacy is on par with their hearing peers. The results from the Deaf children raised in the Scandinavian countries provide much insight and hope for children and parents in North America (Mclarey, 1995).

No further comment. Source: http://www.deafkidslink.ca/qa4.html (A tip of the hat to Nas for this link). [Yes, these deaf Swedes & Danishs in deaf schools who are able to grade as high as hearing students can. We have a book which written by Danish author about deaf education in different countries but we left it at our new place in Sweden. One of us will post more whenever we're in Sweden if this topic is still alive. The book that we found is the latest (2004)]

Okay, I'm done for now since this post alone debunk everything what anti-Deaf school folk(s) ranted in this topic. Have fun with this topic

P.S. I changed fw001's comment a bit: "Basically hearing people of America dont like to be told they've had a crappy education."

Indeedy. Arrivederci.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I still don't understand the concept of syllabells...

I get you, girl

But that may be not neccessarily due to your hearing loss. it may be that you-
~ might be more math, physic, chemistry and stuff like that oriented
~ the teacher wasn't good enough
~the teacher wasn't too bad but the methods he used to explain weren't particularly best suited for yor way of understanding things


If my memory is not rusted each syllable should contain a vowel. For example- me-mo- ry. Rus-ted. Badger: bad-ger.
Syl-lab-le. (I hope I am not wrong)
Some words can not be make into mutliple syllables- work, dog, deaf...these are just one- syllable words.

and words that look like they rhyme on paper, don't always rhyme in sound.

That is very true, that's why I am never without good ol' rhyme generator

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=spin&typeofrhyme=perfect&org1=syl&org2=l

let's play:

These syllables are abominable
they make my head spin.
So complicated and despicable
they cause me bumpy skin..

lolol..

care to try, Deafdyke? don't worry about perfect match..

Fuzzy

 

[Vance]

fw001, my apology for dumping on you like that and my attitude.