Segregation Between Deaf Kids at Deaf and Public Schools

Again, I think it makes sense. Oral kids go to a school where they have manistreaming opportunities, ASL students go where they have a campus on which everyone is expected to use ASL. Those would be two different places.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. We need to stop concentrating on speaking, and concentrate on effective communication. It matters not how a child communicates. It matters only that they can do so effectively.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert but to me effective communication for a deaf person in a world where not everybody will use sign language would come in many forms . The ability to sign / read / write / speak / and speachread should all be part of the toolbox.
 
kashveera said:
...........Our little deaf unit, believed as Professor Carel du Toit did: Teach a deaf child to talk, and the child will talk back to you.

I believe in that system.
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
That system is flawed for a majority of deaf children because too often deaf children miss a lot of what is being said to them which results in misunderstanding and many deaf children were unable to develop speech skills no matter how many times they were "talked" to.
Click to expand...
Even if it's a minority of deaf kids that system works for, is it anybody's right to deny them access to a system that works for them and gives them the ability to communicate with the world around them? I am not saying you are denying anything but just posing the general question.
 
rockdrummer said:
Even if it's a minority of deaf kids that system works for, is it anybody's right to deny them access to a system that works for them and gives them the ability to communicate with the world around them? I am not saying you are denying anything but just posing the general question.
Click to expand...

I have always believed in a full toolbox. I dont believe in denying any deaf child of anything which is why I am against the oral-only philosophy cuz it doesnt include ASL in the toolbox.
 
rockdrummer said:
I am not an expert but to me effective communication for a deaf person in a world where not everybody will use sign language would come in many forms . The ability to sign / read / write / speak / and speachread should all be part of the toolbox.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with that. I have always advocated for a full toolbox approach.
 
rockdrummer said:
Even if it's a minority of deaf kids that system works for, is it anybody's right to deny them access to a system that works for them and gives them the ability to communicate with the world around them? I am not saying you are denying anything but just posing the general question.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Anyone has the freedom to choose whatever system they believe is working. Those who want to choose an oral approach have the opportunity. Those that want to choose a mainstreamed approach with a terp have that opportunity. Those that want to choose a Bi-Bi approach have that opportunity. Those that want a TC approach have that opportunity. I don't think that has really ever been an issue. I think the issue becomes just because it works for a minority, should it be the model for the majority?
 
jillio said:
Wow! This just leaves me shaking my head. This practice is so wrong on so many levels. It is frightening to me that those who are charged with the supervision of our children during the time that they spend at school would endorse such obviously bigoted and discriminatory practices. And it is even more frightening that there are parents of deaf children who actually demand and justify such a practice. :mad2:
Click to expand...

*nodding* My thought excatly.

It'd seen done and it is so slim benefit, I say!

=/
 
there is no right or wrong way. there is the deaf school; the mainstreamed school; and the local neighborhood school. The deaf school (MRE) have everything including the socializations. the mainstreamed school (MRE/LRE), ususally a school in the middle of the country for all deaf kids to be bused in; have everything including some socialization. The local school (LRE) , which most special education radicals and advocates prefers, but they don't understand deaf education, which is not taught in the 99% of all special education classes in our wonderful grad school of education.
 
LRE actually stand for "Least Restrictive Environment" and is part of IDEA. While that is often interpreted to mean the child's home school, it doesn't always mean the child's home school.
 
I was school grade 1 - 7.. I know public school is oral. I think so public intepreter is english. I was school high grade 9 to 12.. i learn lots of ASl I'm happy.
 
smithtr said:
I was school grade 1 - 7.. I know public school is oral. I think so public intepreter is english. I was school high grade 9 to 12.. i learn lots of ASl I'm happy.
Click to expand...

You didn't learn ASL until 9th grade?
 
I start grade 9 on ASL, I learn improve ASL wow.... it is very good enjoy ASL. I was graduation 12 last year I was happy learn more ASL is good.. I transfer another school... I search find intepreter is match my sign langauage.
 
jillio said:
Wow! This just leaves me shaking my head. This practice is so wrong on so many levels. It is frightening to me that those who are charged with the supervision of our children during the time that they spend at school would endorse such obviously bigoted and discriminatory practices. And it is even more frightening that there are parents of deaf children who actually demand and justify such a practice. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Yes!!

and yet another thread that gets my ire up!@!

Seems I remember a documentary (Through Deaf Eyes) where older people who were forced into Oral Only schools (Clarke School and so on) told their stories of mistreatment and how their only solace as children was in teaching/learning ASL with eachother and away from prying eyes of the staff so that they could feel 'normal' and communicate with eachother.

This forced discrimination will only backfire on that school.
 
I find this illegal. Children should be not be segregated based on language. I can see where the two groups would need to be in different classes based on the type of instruction they are receiving, but I think the children should be allowed to socialize with each other in any manner they choose during lunches, recess, and other common gathering times.

To outright forbid each other to communicate is wrong. But the two groups would need to be on the exact same curriculum, using the same books and materials. The only difference is the type of instruction.

However I really wish the two groups would come together and come up with a strong Bi-Bi program in which all students have access to all modes of communication at all times.
 
I still have a bit of a hard time buying into this story. Again... this supposed "deaf advocate" will not reveal the name of the alleged deaf school that is doing this and also if it is happening and it IS discrimination, why would a person proclaiming themselves as a deaf advocate not be doing anythig about it. I'm sorry but as I said before, there doesn't seem to be a ring of truth to this. I am a open minded guy. Give me the facts so I can make an informed decision. Hearsay and un-backed allegations don't add up to facts in my mind.
 
Back
Top