California - education options for UHL?

shel90 said:
CSign...there you go. Pls do not make statements about Deaf schools to new parents if you have no direct experience with them. That's how misinformation gets out about Deaf schools. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I do have direct experience with them.

If I wasn't sure about something, I'd say it.

I will try to post the relevant Ed code later today.

Thank you.
 
I'm not encouraging the op to not look into CSD, I'm simply clarifying the fact that her child likely will not qualify to attend there. That doesn't mean he won't have appropriate supports and services in another placement.
 
naisho said:
I wasn't implying successful projections, I never said if they will be successful. I was referring to the actual outcome of the data sample as to whether they do well or are seen to have developmental delays in contrast to the subjects they're being compared with.

It's definitely going to be hard to see a reasonable outcome, hands down no question...
Click to expand...

That would depend on the operational definition of the outcomes.
 
CSign said:
I do have direct experience with them.

If I wasn't sure about something, I'd say it.

I will try to post the relevant Ed code later today.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the Ed code is worth no more than the paper it is written on when it comes to actual practice? You are talking theoretical. We are talking actuality.
 
CSign said:
I'm not encouraging the op to not look into CSD, I'm simply clarifying the fact that her child likely will not qualify to attend there. That doesn't mean he won't have appropriate supports and services in another placement.
Click to expand...

And you are basing this solely on the Ed code?
 
jillio said:
And you are basing this solely on the Ed code?
Click to expand...

I'm basing my statement on the eligibility requirements as a whole. Of course there are always extenuating circumstances; which is why I said, "likely will not be eligible."
 
jillio said:
Do you understand that the Ed code is worth no more than the paper it is written on when it comes to actual practice? You are talking theoretical. We are talking actuality.
Click to expand...

Do you; in actuality, have direct experience with the California Schools for the Deaf?
 
http://www.uad.org/DeafEd/utah_code/Calif admission.pdf

"The deaf applicant demonstrates the ability to learn/ and or use American Sign Language as the primary mode of communication to access instruction, including as follows..."

The OP stated that they use some signs, "but by no means he knows ASL". If he is going to utilize ASL as his primary mode of communication then he would have a better chance. It sounds like ASL is not his primary mode of communication, which is why I've posted what I have.
 
CSign said:
Do you; in actuality, have direct experience with the California Schools for the Deaf?
Click to expand...

I have experience with numerous schools for the deaf, as well as numerous public institutions of learning as related to accommodations not only for the deaf/hoh, but those with learning disabilities and mental disorders, as well. The scope of this experience extends further than the experience with one school, whether it be for the deaf or a public institution. And, in that wide scope, what is written on paper, and what is actually practiced, are two very different things.:cool2:
 
CSign said:
I'm basing my statement on the eligibility requirements as a whole. Of course there are always extenuating circumstances; which is why I said, "likely will not be eligible."
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should base your statement on what actually occurs, then. Again, theoretical is not much use when advising regarding what can and cannot be accomplished.
 
CSign said:
http://www.uad.org/DeafEd/utah_code/Calif admission.pdf

"The deaf applicant demonstrates the ability to learn/ and or use American Sign Language as the primary mode of communication to access instruction, including as follows..."

The OP stated that they use some signs, "but by no means he knows ASL". If he is going to utilize ASL as his primary mode of communication then he would have a better chance. It sounds like ASL is not his primary mode of communication, which is why I've posted what I have.
Click to expand...

From your own quote "demonstrates the abilility to learn and/or use". No where does it say that it is recommended that it be the primary form of communication or that proficiency is necessary for admission.
 
CSign said:
Do you; in actuality, have direct experience with the California Schools for the Deaf?
Click to expand...

I do.

Didn't we have a discussion about this.... The way you present information is very misleading.

Remember that discussion? This is a even more clearer example. Have you visited Sears lately? Because you shouldnt have.
 
jillio said:
From your own quote "demonstrates the abilility to learn and/or use". No where does it say that it is recommended that it be the primary form of communication or that proficiency is necessary for admission.
Click to expand...

Do you read 4 words of a post and then respond?

It clearly states that ASL would need to be the primary mode of communication to access instruction. It does not say they must be proficient- it states that they must demonstrate the ability to learn/ and or use ASL as the primary mode of instruction.
 
CSign said:
Do you read 4 words of a post and then respond?

It clearly states that ASL would need to be the primary mode of communication to access instruction. It does not say they must be proficient- it states that they must demonstrate the ability to learn/ and or use ASL as the primary mode of instruction.
Click to expand...

Did you intentionally take your quote out of context in an attempt to support the incorrect assumption you are making? Do you understand the use of "and/or" in the portion of the statement you used? Do you grasp the intent of the wording "ability to learn" in said statement? You are being far too dichotomous in your interpretations. Actual practical interpretation and application occurs on a continuum, not dichotomously.
 
I never said proficiency was a requirement for admission.
 
CSign said:
I never said proficiency was a requirement for admission.
Click to expand...

Then why are you stating, over and over, that the child likely will not qualify for admission based on linguistic concerns?
 
jillio said:
I have experience with numerous schools for the deaf, as well as numerous public institutions of learning as related to accommodations not only for the deaf/hoh, but those with learning disabilities and mental disorders, as well. The scope of this experience extends further than the experience with one school, whether it be for the deaf or a public institution. And, in that wide scope, what is written on paper, and what is actually practiced, are two very different things.:cool2:
Click to expand...


LOL. So the answer to my question would be, "no".
 
CSign said:
LOL. So the answer to my question would be, "no".
Click to expand...

No, the answer to your question is in the entirety of my response. You can't just pick and choose what you want to read. You have to read it all.
 
Back
Top