Don’t rule out mainstream schools for deaf children

[Secretblend]

What kind of records you got in the mail?? just report cards?? any other kind of documents?? The school depository don't have my elementary records. My High school do have my records but I was told that the records are just report cards. I have been told by other people that there should be more than just report cards but I don't know if the schools are withholding anything that aren't report cards.

Was just a thought. I always assumed they have a records cause I've heard of permanant records.

 

[vallee]

Here is a copy of the ABC's of IDEA

http://www.tennessee.gov/education/speced/doc/seabcprosafe.pdf

Every parents received a written copy of some form of guidelines of IDEA. It is so important to read and know the rights of the child. Many parents do not know they have many rights in the placement and education of their child. From what I know, if the school distict has an educational program that comparable with the private program, then they almost always place them in the local program. If the parents don't approve the program, they have to ask for due process and mediation. Do not sign the IEP or they can write on the IEP if there is a concern about program.

 

[rockdrummer]

U can joke about it all u want. It is a serious thing about deaf children becoming delayed in language due to the oral-only philosophy hence my feelings about it.

Shel, You have to undersand that if someone has chosen a CI then they plan on taking the oral approach. If they didn't then the CI would be of no use. I'm not saying don't expose the child to sign language and culture, I'm just saying that with a CI that works, oral would be a large part of the development approach.

 

[rockdrummer]

The problem is not our deafness but their refusal to learn sign language. The hearing people are really "deaf" to our pleas/suggestions.

It still astounds me that they aren't learning sign language eventhough it is a lot easier for them to learn sign language than for us to learn to speak. It makes them look really dumb to me. (more like retard)

Buffalo, with all due respect, think about what you are suggesting. Why would every hearing person need to learn sign language? Many will never encounter a deaf person in their entire life. Many will only encounter deaf folks on rare occasions. If they learn to sign and never use it then they wont remember how to sign and will have wasted their time learning it.

Also consider that not all deaf people know sign language either.

I do agree that those who have deaf people in their family and friend circle and those that work with deaf people should learn sign. It's the old "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Alot of schools teach spanish or french as forigen languages. It would be nice to see students taking sign language as a forigen language instead of French or Spanish. And I am not hating on the French or Spanish either so please don't bash me for saying that. It's just that I think it would be a good way to get sign language to more people.

 

[shel90]

Shel, You have to undersand that if someone has chosen a CI then they plan on taking the oral approach. If they didn't then the CI would be of no use. I'm not saying don't expose the child to sign language and culture, I'm just saying that with a CI that works, oral would be a large part of the development approach.

Right, that is why I advocate for both sign and oral development. I dont believe in taking the oral only approach due to the risk if the children dont pick up on oral language and end up being delayed later on.

 

[rockdrummer]

Right, that is why I advocate for both sign and oral development. I dont believe in taking the oral only approach due to the risk if the children dont pick up on oral language and end up being delayed later on.

Right, I get that but what about when the CI makes a dramatic difference in the persons ability to make use of sounds.

"Our grandson is nearly five years old and is profoundly deaf, but received a cochlear implant in March 2006, which has changed his life. With this, and specialist teaching, he hears, is learning to speak, can count and is starting to read"

That to me sounds like language aquisition is happening. Why would you not continue to pursue that (or any)approach if it's infact working? And again, I am not saying don't learn sign language.

 

[shel90]

Right, I get that but what about when the CI makes a dramatic difference in the persons ability to make use of sounds.
That to me sounds like language aquisition is happening. Why would you not continue to pursue that (or any)approach if it's infact working? And again, I am not saying don't learn sign language.

Didnt I say that I support the use of both? Where did I say that oral language shouldnt be used at all? I am with u...use both .

Just dont believe in using the oral-ONLY approach for a child 24/7.

Oh, I want to add...the kid didnt get a CI until he was 5 years old, right? If he was using ASL since birth, then ASL lead to the development of his language therefore enabling him to be ready to read at 5 which all deaf children need to be instead of relearning a new language at the age of 5.

 

[rockdrummer]

Didnt I say that I support the use of both? Where did I say that oral language shouldnt be used at all? I am with u...use both .

Where did I say that you said that?

:Just dont believe in using the oral-ONLY approach for a child 24/7.

Where did it say they were using oral-only 24/7??

:Oh, I want to add...the kid didnt get a CI until he was 5 years old, right? If he was using ASL since birth, then ASL lead to the development of his language therefore enabling him to be ready to read at 5 which all deaf children need to be instead of relearning a new language at the age of 5.

You are speculating. I didn't see anywhere where it said they were using ASL since birth. Maybe they tried that route and it was not working for them. Or maybe ASL is still part of the equation. I can't comment on that because it wasn't covered. Any comments outside the scope of the first post on what they are doing is pure speculation.

 

[jillio]

Only problem is or actually several problems:
1.) I have no time nor money to hire a lawyer to sue my alma mater. (I really didnt like my overall experience there)

2.) It has been more then 1 year since I have graduated and definitely a number of years since I was in 2nd grade. Theres very little sufficient evidence since now all of my school records have likely been destroyed at this point.

As much as Id love to - I cant for those reason. But even if I cant change anything about my own case I feel a yearning to go into the educational field and advocate for fair education for ALL students including deaf/hoh, migrant, minority, low income students, etc.

Oh, no. Your school records are still around. And the best possible outcome of your experience would not be a lawsuit, but to follow through on yearning so that you are in a position to prevent the same thing from happening to untold numbers of deaf children in the future. What I saw in the mainstream when my son was small is exactly what led me to return to school and focus on advocacy in education. Go for it, Dixie!

 

[shel90]

Where did I say that you said that?

Where did it say they were using oral-only 24/7??

You are speculating. I didn't see anywhere where it said they were using ASL since birth. Maybe they tried that route and it was not working for them. Or maybe ASL is still part of the equation. I can't comment on that because it wasn't covered. Any comments outside the scope of the first post on what they are doing is pure speculation.

No, you didnt say that they were using oral-only 24/7. I was adding that hoping to clear up any misunderstandings on where I stand. Sometimes people think that I am against teaching oral-language fully whenever I say I am for both signing and speech or that I am against using the oral-only approach. That's was all.

Yea, I was speculating about the post made about the 5 year old because that post rings a bell. I beleive that was a post made by Gemma? If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

 

[jillio]

Shel, You have to undersand that if someone has chosen a CI then they plan on taking the oral approach. If they didn't then the CI would be of no use. I'm not saying don't expose the child to sign language and culture, I'm just saying that with a CI that works, oral would be a large part of the development approach.

How is a CI no use without the oral approach? I know of many CI implanted students that still rely on sign. And oral can ber a part of the developmental approach without CI. Just not the whole approach in either case, it the intention is to provide complete access to communication and education.

 

[jillio]

Right, I get that but what about when the CI makes a dramatic difference in the persons ability to make use of sounds.
That to me sounds like language aquisition is happening. Why would you not continue to pursue that (or any)approach if it's infact working? And again, I am not saying don't learn sign language.

How does a grandparent's claim that the CI has "changed his life" equate to language acquisition? It could just as easliy be a case of wishful thinking.

 

[jillio]

Where did I say that you said that?

Where did it say they were using oral-only 24/7??

You are speculating. I didn't see anywhere where it said they were using ASL since birth. Maybe they tried that route and it was not working for them. Or maybe ASL is still part of the equation. I can't comment on that because it wasn't covered. Any comments outside the scope of the first post on what they are doing is pure speculation.

The placement they are trying to gain is in an oral school. An oral school does not use ASL. Their objection to the mainstream placement is that it does incorporate sign. And at 5, he is "learning to speak and hear." Sounds like delays are in there, to me.

 

[deafskeptic]

The sad facts of the oral education.

Indeed. I keep thinking that if I had tried harder or something, I would have been able to stay in mainstream. However, I doubt mainstream would have worked for me without terps. Oralists are not very responsive toward our needs. Nor are they tolerant toward those of us they deem failures.

 

[deafdyke]

but what about when the CI makes a dramatic difference in the persons ability to make use of sounds.
That to me sounds like language aquisition is happening.

Umm not quite. A person could have access to sounds, but still not have enough exposure to the language. The language that the CI allows access to, varies hugely from single words to "functionally hoh" to "almost hearing."

ndeed. I keep thinking that if I had tried harder or something, I would have been able to stay in mainstream. However, I doubt mainstream would have worked for me without terps. Oralists are not very responsive toward our needs. Nor are they tolerant toward those of us they deem failure

RIGHT ON!!!! They also seem to portray mainstreaming and oralism as the perfect choice.....and if anything goes wrong, it's simply b/c you haven't worked hard enough.

 

[jillio]

Indeed. I keep thinking that if I had tried harder or something, I would have been able to stay in mainstream. However, I doubt mainstream would have worked for me without terps. Oralists are not very responsive toward our needs. Nor are they tolerant toward those of us they deem failures.

And it is very sad that you, or any deaf person, would be made to feel that innability to do well in the mainstream is the fault of your lack of effort. But numerous deaf students feel that way everyday, because they are given the message that tells them it is so. In fact, the fault is not the deaf student's but the hearing educators.

When I transferred my son to a deaf school, one of the first realizations he had about the mainstream was, "Hey, it isn't me! It's them. I can understand, they just don't know how to teach me!"

I hate to think what would have happened to his self esteem had I left him to flounder around in the mainstream being given the message that he was just below average intelligence.

 

[rockdrummer]

How is a CI no use without the oral approach? I know of many CI implanted students that still rely on sign. And oral can ber a part of the developmental approach without CI. Just not the whole approach in either case, it the intention is to provide complete access to communication and education.

It just seems to me that if you opt for a CI then you are opting to gain some use of sounds. Otherwise why bother. If the students you know still rely on sign then perhaps the CI is not working as well for them as it may for others. If you are only using sign then there is no need to hear. Am I missing something?

 

[rockdrummer]

How does a grandparent's claim that the CI has "changed his life" equate to language acquisition? It could just as easliy be a case of wishful thinking.

That was only part of the quote. The other part (I believe I posted it) was

With this (the CI), and specialist teaching, he hears, is learning to speak, can count and is starting to read

 

[deafskeptic]

That was only part of the quote. The other part (I believe I posted it) was

And how does he compare to his hearing peers?

 

[deafskeptic]

It just seems to me that if you opt for a CI then you are opting to gain some use of sounds. Otherwise why bother. If the students you know still rely on sign then perhaps the CI is not working as well for them as it may for others. If you are only using sign then there is no need to hear. Am I missing something?

I still rely on sign in some situations especially when I'm in a classroom full of hearing people discussing topics. The CI is very helpful in many situations but this is not one of them. CI isn't the same as having normal hearing otherwise many late deafened adults with CIs wouldn't be dependent on captioned shows even if they don't sign.