What is the quality of Gallaudet nowadays?

[jillio]

Not many answers but interesting information about deaf education in Norway.

From the European Educational Research Association, Crete, 2004 - Education of the deaf in Australia and Norway: A comparative study of the Interpretations and applications of inclusion

Norway
Norway’s current ideology of inclusive education can be traced back to the 1960s and best understood in the context of broader historical and social changes to its welfare state (Flem & Keller, 2000; Vislie, 1995). The reorganisation of special education began late in the 1960s and equality, integration, normalisation, participation and decentralisation were important principles of this reorganisation. New laws established the ideology of
“integration” and what was called “adjusted” education. In 1975 the Integration Act incorporated the Act of 1951 relating to provision of special schools and specific regulations for the administration of special education were eliminated (Flem & Keller, 2000). In 1992, the former state schools for special education were developed into a system of 20 regional Resource Centres. These centres arrange courses for parents and teachers and provide guidance and counselling, as well as being involved in the assessment of students with special needs. The main objective of the Centres is to support local services in municipalities and schools.

Since 1975, the 435 municipalities have been responsible for the education of all students, who have the right to be educated in their local schools (Dalen, 1994). The Act of Education of 1998, §1-2 emphasises “adjusted” education as a legal right for all students (Act of Education, KUF, 1998). In the national curricula for compulsory education this is explained in the following way: “The compulsory school is based on the principle of one school for all. The compulsory school shall provide equitable and suitably adjusted education for everyone in a coordinated system of schooling based on the same curriculum.”
(KUF, 1996, p. 56). Adjusted education is presented as, “All pupils, including those with special difficulties or special abilities in certain areas, must be given challenges corresponding to their abilities. If all pupils are to receive schooling of equal value, individual adaptation is essential” (KUF, 1996, p. 58). The 1998 Act of Education introduced 10 years compulsory education. Primary and secondary schools cover 10 years (from six-15 years of age) and students who have completed compulsory education have the
right to three years’ full-time upper secondary education. Postsecondary (vocational and higher education) includes four universities and a range of colleges.

-Between 1992 and 1997 several national initiatives were taken that had a significant impact on education of deaf students within a “school for all” concept. Students who had acquired NSL as their first language, were given the right to education through the medium of the sign language (§2-6 Act of Education, KUF, 1998). Further, the National Curriculum for the 10-year compulsory education (KUF, 1996), introduced four new syllabi for students educated according to §2-6: Norwegian Sign Language, Norwegian for deaf pupils, English for deaf pupils, and Drama and Rhythmics for deaf pupils. The important difference between the three latter syllabi and the regular syllabi in Norwegian, English and Music being that the oral aspects, involving sound and speech, are replaced with suitably adapted signed forms (KUF, 1998, p. 11).

With the introduction of these policies, other initiatives were taken to enhance the status and the competence of NSL use in schools and in families with deaf children. To meet regular teachers’ needs for competence a program in NSL was developed at some universities and university colleges. Teachers who are educating deaf students according to §2-6, must have competence in NSL at the level equivalent to one half year of full time study. A similar program in sign language was established for hearing parents with deaf children. The parents are entitled to 40 weeks training in NSL through the first 16 years of the child’s life.

While the legislation gives all students in Norway the right to attend a school in their neighbourhood (Skarbrevik, 2001), it also gives deaf students right to education through the medium of NSL. The student’s level of hearing impairment, whether moderate, severe, or profound hearing loss does not have any impact on the legal right to education under §2-6 in the Act of Education. However, deaf students do not have a legal right to education within a school for the deaf. When the former state schools for special education in 1992 were developed into regional resource centres they were given three primary roles: (i) offering long term and short term education for groups of deaf children, based on a bilingual approach, (ii) offering on-campus and off-campus consultative services for local educational institutions with deaf- and hard-of-hearing students, and (iii) offering programs in NSL for
hearing parents with deaf children.

Thank you, Kaitlin. I have a copy of this article, as well. What I was requesting from cloggy, however, was information regarding the educational achievement of deaf students under this system, and whether or not the system is being applied as outlined, and the effectiveness of policy.

 

[shel90]

I think folks have mentioned in other threads that they feel there should be a different set of standards for measuring deaf students. I am curious if you agree with a different set of standards.................thanks

No, I dont cuz with lowered standards, deaf people will be less likely to gain the skills necessary to be able to compete with their hearing counterparts for good paying jobs. It is bad enough that there is discrimination against our inablity to hear by the general public. My school uses the public school's curriculm and my students this year are able to learn from it as long as they have a strong L1 language foundation in the first place.

 

[jillio]

No, I dont cuz with lowered standards, deaf people will be less likely to gain the skills necessary to be able to compete with their hearing counterparts for good paying jobs. It is bad enough that there is discrimination against our inablity to hear by the general public. My school uses the public school's curriculm and my students this year are able to learn from it as long as they have a strong L1 language foundation in the first place.

Agreed. I think testing methods should be modified for use with deaf populations to remove bias, but I do not believe that standards for acheivement should be lowered. Given proper accommodations, the deaf students are capable of achieving at the same levels as their hearing peers. The problem seems to be in the provision of proper accommodations.

 

[rockdrummer]

No, I dont cuz with lowered standards, deaf people will be less likely to gain the skills necessary to be able to compete with their hearing counterparts for good paying jobs. It is bad enough that there is discrimination against our inablity to hear by the general public. My school uses the public school's curriculm and my students this year are able to learn from it as long as they have a strong L1 language foundation in the first place.

Shel. I didn't say lowered standards. I said different standards. Does that change your answer?

 

[jillio]

Shel. I didn't say lowered standards. I said different standards. Does that change your answer?

How would they differ? Different standards implies either lower than the norm or higher than the norm.

 

[oakbluffs]

Oh geez, splitting hairs again?

 

[Yiffzer]

How would they differ? Different standards implies either lower than the norm or higher than the norm.

no, it does not.

it is simply a different approach to testing deaf students.

don't imply anymore please. you're working with your own perception.

 

[jillio]

no, it does not.

it is simply a different approach to testing deaf students.

don't imply anymore please. you're working with your own perception.

Now, you see, you are the one making incorrect assumption. Standards are those levels which must be met in order to pass from grade to grade and to graduate. Different approaches to testing are called "modifications." Standards and modifications are two separate issues. And that is not just my perception, but the use of the terms as applied within the educational domain.

 

[rockdrummer]

How would they differ? Different standards implies either lower than the norm or higher than the norm.

I asked this exact question to you in another thread.

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/38393-learning-pace-deaf-vs-hearing-kids-2.html#post727531

Originally Posted by rockdrummer
I can agree with what you are saying. Since deafness is nothing new, why is this still a problem in this day and age? How do you go about fixing it? Also one of the questions I asked earlier was about the testing standards. Should they be the same for deaf and hearing kids?

This was your response

I definately think that there should be different testing procedures for deaf kids. Any test designed for hearing participants will be negatively biased against deaf individuals because the tests designed for hearing are very verbally based.

It is still a problem, in my opinion, because the policy makers are hearing. When the Deaf population is consulted, the methods they suggest are extremely effective. Unfortunately, our educational system consists of hearing educators who want to tell the Deaf what they need, rather than listening to what they say they need. The perspective is skewed from a hearing point of view. Research has already shown that when ASL is used to teach English skill, literacy rates improve. Deaf of Deaf (native signers) have the highest literacy rates overall because of consistent early language input, and the use of ASL to teach English as a second language. Despite all of the research that points to the most viable solutions, hearing policy makers continue to insist that hearing educators know more about what deaf students need than the Deaf themselvves do.

The discussion continued

Originally Posted by rockdrummer
The question is about the speed at which they learn. OK, assuming we are talking about an all deaf school. Are the testing standards the same. As I understand it they are. If that is part of the problem, what needs to be done to fix it?

Generally, they are the same if you are talking about proficiency tests, and the reason is that they are state mandated and controlled. Most educators at deaf schools don't put a whole lot of faith in the stats produced by these tests because they are so aware of the bias (both cultural and linguistic) and realize fully that they do not reflect the true performance of these students.

Aren't you suggesting in your responses a different approach and standard for deaf students? If the current state mandated testing standards don't reflect the true performance of deaf students, then wouldn't that suggest a different set of standards are required? Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[jillio]

If it happend at one school, no doubt that it can happen at other private schools.

Yes, it can. But does it. Your knowledge of one instance hardly generalizes to all public schools.

Just like the discussion of public school inflating students grades.

Ah, yes, but I have seen hard cold evidence of that in my students. And that doesn't mean all public schools do so, just the ones I have dealt with and the ones my students have provided IEPs for.

 

[jillio]

I asked this exact question to you in another thread.

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/38393-learning-pace-deaf-vs-hearing-kids-2.html#post727531



This was your response



The discussion continued






Aren't you suggesting in your responses a different approach and standard for deaf students? If the current state mandated testing standards don't reflect the true performance of deaf students, then wouldn't that suggest a different set of standards are required? Please correct me if I am wrong.

No I am not. Different standards and different testiing procedures are two different things. Different testing procedures means accommodations provided in testing situations. In classroom situations this would apply to such things such as providing signed instruction, terp available during testing so that students can ask questions of the instructor, and extended time for testing.
In profiency testing, achievement testing, and I.Q. testing, the verbal componet needs to be modified to prevent bias in testing and result in more accurate scoring.

Different standards is changing the actual grading criteria to reflect lowered standards for deaf students. This would include excusing grammar errors that would result in deducted points for a hearing student, but forgiven for the deaf student. It would also include passing a deaf student with an average grade that would prevent the hearing student from passing. Along with this however, means that classroom teacher expectations would be that, given accommodations, the deaf student will be able to perform at the same standards as are held for the hearing stiudents.

My students all receive accommodations. However, they are held to the same standards of work as are all of the other students on campus. As well they should be. They are just as capable of performing to those standards as long as acoommodations are provided. Providing accommodations in classroom or providing testing procedures that remove inherhent bias is not holding a deaf student to a different standard of performance.
Different standards apply to performance expectations. Accommodations for testing don't. You are confusing standards for performance with testing accommodations.

Regarding my post on deaf schools and lack of faith in state mandated testing......the testing procedures do not include accommodation and therefore, show relected lowered scores in performance. Because the accomodations have not been provided, the scores are invalid when looking toward true ability. I am not suggesting at all that standards for performance be lowered, but that accommodations for testing be used, and then hold the student to the same standard as that in place for hearing students.

For instance, if your son was given a verbally based I.Q. test, chances are he would score much lower than he would given the same test with modifications for the verbal component. The test with the modifications is a much truer measure of his I.Q. than the one without modifications. However, the standards for scoring are the same. Mean of 95 +/-15sd.

 

[shel90]

Shel. I didn't say lowered standards. I said different standards. Does that change your answer?

Different standards? Like how? I know that the public school curriculm is modified to be more visual for our deaf students but other than that, the expectations are the same.


However, I would change the bias in the standardizing assessments used to measure the success of schools and the student populations.

 

[deafskeptic]

Different standards? Like how? I know that the public school curriculm is modified to be more visual for our deaf students but other than that, the expectations are the same.


However, I would change the bias in the standardizing assessments used to measure the success of schools and the student populations.

Quite true. I remember getting 99% in the SAT-HI level 6 during my junior and senior years at MSSD. I also remember taking the SAT or some other test (I don't remember which test to be honest) and bombing the phonics section so badly that I ended up with a ten grade level in English on that test.

 

[shel90]

Quite true. I remember getting 99% in the SAT-HI level 6 during my junior and senior years at MSSD. I also remember taking the SAT or some other test (I don't remember which test to be honest) and bombing the phonics section so badly that I ended up with a ten grade level in English on that test.

I know! It is ridiculous! I remember, as a kid, a part of the annual assessment had a section on counting the syllables of several vocabulary words and marking the correct number. Man, that one really made me sweat!

Also, our students have to take the phonics section of the test and all I can think is...why? It is just ruins the validity of these tests.

 

[jillio]

Quite true. I remember getting 99% in the SAT-HI level 6 during my junior and senior years at MSSD. I also remember taking the SAT or some other test (I don't remember which test to be honest) and bombing the phonics section so badly that I ended up with a ten grade level in English on that test.

This is exactly the situations I was talking about when I was mistakenly thought to be speaking of lowering standards for deaf students. These tests need to be given an a revised format to maintain validity across the deaf population. That has nothing to do with lowering expected standards of achievement, nor of lowered grading criteria. It simply removes bias that creates the situation whereby the deaf population scores consistently below that which is a truer measure of ability. The problem lies not with the poorer performance of the test taker, but with the test itself.

 

[jillio]

I know! It is ridiculous! I remember, as a kid, a part of the annual assessment had a section on counting the syllables of several vocabulary words and marking the correct number. Man, that one really made me sweat!

Also, our students have to take the phonics section of the test and all I can think is...why? It is just ruins the validity of these tests.

And this is where that old "reading at a 4th grade level" comes from. It is based on biased testing procedures and invalid results.

 

[VamPyroX]

I agree that Gallaudet should not lower their standards.

Not only the mainstream schools but residential schools as well.

No one should lower their standards unless they are MENTALLY UNABLE to meet the average standards.

By lowering their standards, they are saying that deaf people are mentally unable to be like hearing people.

All schools should not lower their standards simply because one student didn't do well. Blame it on the No Child Left Behind Act. :roll:

 

[rockdrummer]

I think what Shel and Jillio mean is to change the test design and administration standards to accomidate deaf needs. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[jillio]

I think what Shel and Jillio mean is to change the test design and administration standards to accomidate deaf needs. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's it!

 

[Dixie]

Which is EXACTLY what needs to happen - dont lower the standards but rather provide adequate accomodations. Such as for the oral literacy portion of the test they should at least have the students in a small group where they can either lip read as well as a terp who is available. The whole point of this test is testing ones ability to recall information given to them via spoken/signed instruction. I usually did fairly well on the test but I remember once that my teacher made a special accomodation for me by allowing me to come in at recess and she would give me that portion of the test one on one so that there was little visual distraction and she stood directly in front of me so that I could speech read. I scored very well on that portion of the test because she made an appropriate accomodation, not lowering the standard of the test.