Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[shel90]

Where did anybody ever say that??


There is a huge difference between mis-information and accurate information coming from someone who has done research but not necessarily worked in the field.

You don't give yourself enough credit. I'm sure you can voice an educated opinion on rocket science if you did your homework and research the topic. Lets use your example. Lets say that in the field of rocket science there was not a consensus amongst the many people that work in the field. It's controversial. What would lead you to side with one view over another. Now lets complicate the matter a little. What you believe to be in the best interest of your child is at stake. Now how do you decide on which side of the controversy you want to be on? The good news is that rocket science is not controversial but how to raise and educate a deaf child is. It's not a simple as you make it sound. Why... Because it's controversial.

It is simple it my eyes...it is all about giving the deaf child equal access to language/communication just like hearing children are automatically granted in the educational setting. The problem becomes more complicated is when parents want their deaf children to be oral-only without any exposure to sign language hence all the different methodologies. Then, it even becomes more complicated when the oral-only setting isnt working out and people come up with different ideas of approaches that follows the oral-only philosophy as closely as possible by inventing all these MCE systems. That is my view based on my 12 years of experience in different deaf education settings. No, I am not pointing my finger at you..I am talking about here and IRL.


Well, some people were posting posts with inaccurate statements about the BiBi programs.

 

[shel90]

You see, that is where you are wrong. So are you saying then that parents should not have an opinion in their childs education because they don't have experiences as teachers?

That's not always true. There is research out there based on empirical studies. which is real life. So now we should just throw away the non-emperical research and listen to only what the people that work in the field say. Guess what. The people that work in the field can't even agree with each other. In real life raising and educating a deaf child is surrounded by controversy not to mention the political BS that plagues the educational system.

I never said parents shouldnt have an opinion. Where did I say that?

 

[rockdrummer]

I never said parents shouldnt have an opinion. Where did I say that?

You have been implying it all along.

Like I am not an expert in teaching blind kids and I wouldn't come on a forum making statements on how it should work for blind kids. I would take a teacher of the blind's experiences and feedback to learn about it instead of arguing with them about something I have no experience with.

..be a teacher ora teacher aide in the field of Deaf ed and then we can debate about it later on. So shoot me.

Right...like I cant form an opinion about education for hearing kids with special needs until I get actual experience in it.

 

[vallee]

In my experience, parents are the first teachers to their children. The are have a vast supply of information on their children. I learn much from the parents and encourage them to be a part of the classroom. When I taught regular education, my parents were always in the classroom. They tutored, made crafts, created newsletters, and most importantly were there. I always said never disregard the input of the parent. It might go against what you teach, and the only way to is to show it as a new way or a new strategy. It is important because education doesn't stop at the last bus.

In my two IEP meetings last week, both parents said around the same comments. They want their children to graduate high school, go to college or tech school, and get a job in the field they want. They want them to successful, independent, and happy. That is my goal for my child and I am sure it is the goal of a lot of parents.

The educational route is the confusing part. There are so many ways to educate a child - deaf, hearing, or hoh. That is why there are so many different programs. Schools are struggling to provide the type of education that parents would like for their children. There is a fine line between appropriate educational placment and inappropriate placement. Not all children will be successful in every program. There are times that educators know the program is just not working, and we bite our tongues. The children in the wrong type of placement happens all the time. That is a shame and should never happen, but it does. I understand the frustration, but just because there are some failures to strive in some programs does not mean there are not some successes. One of important keys to any program is parent involvement.

 

[rockdrummer]

In my experience, parents are the first teachers to their children. The are have a vast supply of information on their children. I learn much from the parents and encourage them to be a part of the classroom. When I taught regular education, my parents were always in the classroom. They tutored, made crafts, created newsletters, and most importantly were there. I always said never disregard the input of the parent. It might go against what you teach, and the only way to is to show it as a new way or a new strategy. It is important because education doesn't stop at the last bus.

In my two IEP meetings last week, both parents said around the same comments. They want their children to graduate high school, go to college or tech school, and get a job in the field they want. They want them to successful, independent, and happy. That is my goal for my child and I am sure it is the goal of a lot of parents.

The educational route is the confusing part. There are so many ways to educate a child - deaf, hearing, or hoh. That is why there are so many different programs. Schools are struggling to provide the type of education that parents would like for their children. There is a fine line between appropriate educational placment and inappropriate placement. Not all children will be successful in every program. There are times that educators know the program is just not working, and we bite our tongues. The children in the wrong type of placement happens all the time. That is a shame and should never happen, but it does. I understand the frustration, but just because there are some failures to strive in some programs does not mean there are not some successes. One of important keys to any program is parent involvement.

Outstanding points. One size does not fit all which has been echoed over and over and coming from an educator like yourself, it drives that point home even more. The ability for our children to succeed in life is what I would guess drives many of our educational decisions. Parents that choose a CI for their child want the child to have the best opportunities to succeed in a predominantly hearing society. Just go and read the threads and posts about the injustices that deaf people encounter in the job market and in other walks of life. This is not to suggest a deaf person can't be successful without a CI but just to say that if the CI is successful, the child may have more opportunities to succeed. It's not fair as much in life isn't. I get that but I don't want to try and change the world and end up limiting my child's opportunities. I don't believe that anyone can argue that if a CI is successful, it will open many doors for a deaf person. It's why, I believe, many have opted to go that route.

 

[jillio]

Oh I think you have made that inference very apparent throughout numerous posts, if not then please correct me that you indeed believe that parents such as myself, Cloggy and Drew's Dad were acting appropriately when we made the parental decision to implant our children at ages when they were too young to provide any meaningful input.

Then you need to reread my posts, as I am correcting you here. I have never used that phrase, nor have I inferred it. I have never stated that your decision to implant your child was the result of "bad parenting." I have said that your decision was different from my own, and many others, and I have substantiated the reasoning behind such. I have used not just personal philosophy to do so, but research as well. In addition, my opinions rely not so much on the decision to implant, but the decision to insist on an oral only environment for a deaf child, whether they are implanted or not. You have consistently interpreted the objections to an oral only philosophy into a generalized disagreement with implantation, and you have been corrected on this misinterpretation any number of times.

 

[jillio]

I never said parents shouldnt have an opinion. Where did I say that?

No, you didn't. What you have said, and what I have said, is that when parents form an opinion, it should be after they have gotten all the information from all sides of the issue, and not the one sided opinion of the CI industry, and the hearing professionals, alone. I find it odd that parents would accept the advise of the professionals they choose to listen to (eg implant specialists) and defend their position based on the fact that these people are professionals, while, at the same time, discounting the information available from those professionals that have the same degree of education, and much more experience in dealing with a deaf child on a day to day basis.

 

[rockdrummer]

No, you didn't. What you have said, and what I have said, is that when parents form an opinion, it should be after they have gotten all the information from all sides of the issue, and not the one sided opinion of the CI industry, and the hearing professionals, alone. I find it odd that parents would accept the advise of the professionals they choose to listen to (eg implant specialists) and defend their position based on the fact that these people are professionals, while, at the same time, discounting the information available from those professionals that have the same degree of education, and much more experience in dealing with a deaf child on a day to day basis.

Sorry but she has been implying it in my view. See post #667

 

[jillio]

Yes adequate accessibility is part of the controversy.

One could argue that same point against the bi-bi approach. It almost seems to me that SEE II is the meeting point. A single language model providing access to English visually. Might that be the best of both worlds?



Fair enough and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but that's the impression I got from reading your posts where you did suggest that we can't have an opinion or debate on the subject because we don't work in the field.

Re: your statement on SEEII: it has already been shown that the MCEs are much less than effective for language acquisition, and that they compromise a child's ability to achieve native usage of any language by providing a confusing linguistic atmosphere. TC using the MCEs has been the rule of thumb in the educational arena for the last 30 years, and during that time period, we have seen no significant increase in the literacy rates of deaf children being educated under this philosophy. How many more years of failure to we need? Is it productive to hang onto that which is detrimental to the education of deaf children simply because of an ethnoicentric bias toward all forms of English over a linguistic environment that truly meets the cognitive needs of a deaf child?

 

[jillio]

Not insulting your intelligence, especially not you.

I dont see how two teachers can disagree about deaf children having the same rights to full access to information.

However, some teachers think by putting a deaf child in the front row of a oral-only classroom would solve all the access issues and as a deaf person, myself growing up oral, I know that it is impossible for a deaf child to have equal access to everything as their hearing classmates do. Even some CI users rely on CART or thru a 3rd person to get the same access to language, information, communication, and education while hearing children do not need to go thru a 3rd person. As for TC...u already read many reports about it about how two languages are usually used stimulately in which one language usually ends up getting compromised so some children may not get a proper language model. Some people who do not understand language acquisition do not realize that.

There are so many issues and honestly, it really takes experience working in different deaf ed programs to see the big picture. If one only has seen one kind of approach and has never seen the others, they may not know what's out there. I have seen almost all of them except for CS so I see the big differences and so far the BiBi approach gives all deaf/hoh children full access to language and communication at all times.

It is the truth. I dont know how else I can put it in. My husband thinks ASL is not really a language but a extension of English since he signs SEE. Until he becomes fluent in ASL, he probably would never understand. Just like I dont understand what it is like to be a Marine even though I know a lot about it. My husband knows more about it because of his personal experience as a Marine. I dont know why anyone would be offended if one doesnt know as much as someone who has personal experience in a field of work just because they dont work in it. Am I an idiot cuz I dont know much about being an airline pilot as much as a pilot him/herself who has years and years of experience on the job? No!

I would never ever call someone an idiot just because they didnt have hands on experience with one particular field of work. As for me being misunderstood, I think that is a valid question. I was just wondering and if I am wrong about that, then just simply correct me.

Never, did I say you were all idiots..it is all about experiencing it first-hand..nothing personal.


Never did I say it was the parents that didnt have any knowledge..

Exactly. TODs by and large, are on board with the bi-bi philosophy. Those professionals who work with large populations of the deaf, and specifically with young deaf children, are on board regarding the bi-bi philosophy. They have seen the failures of TC, they have conducted research into the reasons behind the failures of TC, and have reached very logical and very practical conclusions. Likewise, they have seen the successes of an educational environment that subscribes to a bilingual-bicultural environment.

The ones that are the most vocal are those that are employed in the mainstream, are guided by adminsitrative policies that do not account for the needs of the deaf student, and instead, attempt to apply general special education methods intended for a variety of learning difficulties to the deaf student. The majority of deaf students do not have learning disorders, nor are they cognitively impaired. The function, intellectually, on par with their hearing peers when they are provided the linguistic environment that addresses their linguistic needs. Methods intended to address the needs of students with cognitive impairments are not effective because the deaf student is not congitively impaired. It is the environment that creates their liguistic delays, not the functioning of their brains.

 

[Cheri]

Jillio--Total Communication did not fail the majority of deaf people, it had failed some.

Some people feel that the problem with the total communication method of communication is that the effort to sign and speak at the same time results in a poorer quality of sign language. Not only that, some people believe that total communication results in deaf children failing to develop fluency in either English or ASL because of the imperfect use of both. Others favor total communication as a catch-all that ensures that a child has access to some means of communication. For example, a child who can not communicate well orally gets the additional support of sign language, and vice versa.

Total Communication - Using Sign Language and Voice for Total Communication

 

[jillio]

Sorry but she has been implying it in my view. See post #667

Perhaps the discussion would be more productive if you would stop looking for implication and simply read what is stated. Shel did not make that implication, nor did she make a statement of such.

 

[jillio]

Jillio--Total Communication did not fail the majority of deaf people, it had failed some.




Total Communication - Using Sign Language and Voice for Total Communication

Then please explain why it is, after 30 years of TC, deaf students are still performing on an academic level less than their hearing peers. Why haven't literacy rates increased? Why are we still seeing people educated under the auspices of TC with a less than functional grasp of English or ASL, and those that bring those difficulties into their adulthood? I would suggest that you delve into some of the actual research on the topic rather than relying on websites.

 

[jillio]

In my experience, parents are the first teachers to their children. The are have a vast supply of information on their children. I learn much from the parents and encourage them to be a part of the classroom. When I taught regular education, my parents were always in the classroom. They tutored, made crafts, created newsletters, and most importantly were there. I always said never disregard the input of the parent. It might go against what you teach, and the only way to is to show it as a new way or a new strategy. It is important because education doesn't stop at the last bus.

In my two IEP meetings last week, both parents said around the same comments. They want their children to graduate high school, go to college or tech school, and get a job in the field they want. They want them to successful, independent, and happy. That is my goal for my child and I am sure it is the goal of a lot of parents.

The educational route is the confusing part. There are so many ways to educate a child - deaf, hearing, or hoh. That is why there are so many different programs. Schools are struggling to provide the type of education that parents would like for their children. There is a fine line between appropriate educational placment and inappropriate placement. Not all children will be successful in every program. There are times that educators know the program is just not working, and we bite our tongues. The children in the wrong type of placement happens all the time. That is a shame and should never happen, but it does. I understand the frustration, but just because there are some failures to strive in some programs does not mean there are not some successes. One of important keys to any program is parent involvement.

Yes, parents are first teachers to their chidlren. Which is exactly why parents need to be informed regarding all options, and why they need accurate and substantiated information regarding exactly what it is to be a deaf child and the problems inherent in a system that ignores the reality of deafness.

 

[vallee]

Exactly. TODs by and large, are on board with the bi-bi philosophy. Those professionals who work with large populations of the deaf, and specifically with young deaf children, are on board regarding the bi-bi philosophy. They have seen the failures of TC, they have conducted research into the reasons behind the failures of TC, and have reached very logical and very practical conclusions. Likewise, they have seen the successes of an educational environment that subscribes to a bilingual-bicultural environment.

The ones that are the most vocal are those that are employed in the mainstream, are guided by adminsitrative policies that do not account for the needs of the deaf student, and instead, attempt to apply general special education methods intended for a variety of learning difficulties to the deaf student. The majority of deaf students do not have learning disorders, nor are they cognitively impaired. The function, intellectually, on par with their hearing peers when they are provided the linguistic environment that addresses their linguistic needs. Methods intended to address the needs of students with cognitive impairments are not effective because the deaf student is not congitively impaired. It is the environment that creates their liguistic delays, not the functioning of their brains.

Where is the data and research on this statement? We can all make generalizations about programs. The point is it is damaging to post these generalizations as research based and not show the research.

Also I never said that special education applies to deaf education. More and more deaf students are being mainstreamed with support services. The special educator is the person in the schools who unless there is a full time tod then the sped assist in program teaching. I have a child with a BAHA on a 504 that I work with this year.

 

[vallee]

Yes, parents are first teachers to their chidlren. Which is exactly why parents need to be informed regarding all options, and why they need accurate and substantiated information regarding exactly what it is to be a deaf child and the problems inherent in a system that ignores the reality of deafness.

Do you feel that even if a parent makes an educated choice. They researched and still chose the educational environment as oral, then they are wrong? If they chose differently then what you feel is the only way, are they wrong? Are parents wrong even if they know the options, discuss the options, develop an educational placement with other educators, doctors, audies, and student then they are wrong if they chose oral or CIs?

 

[vallee]

Outstanding points. One size does not fit all which has been echoed over and over and coming from an educator like yourself, it drives that point home even more. The ability for our children to succeed in life is what I would guess drives many of our educational decisions. Parents that choose a CI for their child want the child to have the best opportunities to succeed in a predominantly hearing society. Just go and read the threads and posts about the injustices that deaf people encounter in the job market and in other walks of life. This is not to suggest a deaf person can't be successful without a CI but just to say that if the CI is successful, the child may have more opportunities to succeed. It's not fair as much in life isn't. I get that but I don't want to try and change the world and end up limiting my child's opportunities. I don't believe that anyone can argue that if a CI is successful, it will open many doors for a deaf person. It's why, I believe, many have opted to go that route.

So let me see if I get your point, you researched, you educated yourself, you made an informed decision about your child, and you want your child to be successful. Sounds like a parent who is the type of parent with one view, you want want is best for your child. That is me as well.

 

[shel90]

Yes adequate accessibility is part of the controversy.

One could argue that same point against the bi-bi approach. It almost seems to me that SEE II is the meeting point. A single language model providing access to English visually. Might that be the best of both worlds?



Fair enough and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but that's the impression I got from reading your posts where you did suggest that we can't have an opinion or debate on the subject because we don't work in the field.

The problem with SEEII is that it is not a true language and so many concepts especially abstract/critical thinking skills are missed with young children unless they have the capability to overcome it. We just got one boy from a public school who has been using SEE and he is 12 years old and has no abstract thoughts. He can only answer concrete questions but struggles with abstract questions. He needs to go back to first grade concepts to start from there due to not having a strong first language.

 

[shel90]

You have been implying it all along.

I am talking about people who try to form an opinion on how education and teachers should teach a group of children. U can have an opinion on a program but to say how it should be run, in my opinion, I think someone needs actual experience in it. That was what I was referring to.

 

[shel90]

Re: your statement on SEEII: it has already been shown that the MCEs are much less than effective for language acquisition, and that they compromise a child's ability to achieve native usage of any language by providing a confusing linguistic atmosphere. TC using the MCEs has been the rule of thumb in the educational arena for the last 30 years, and during that time period, we have seen no significant increase in the literacy rates of deaf children being educated under this philosophy. How many more years of failure to we need? Is it productive to hang onto that which is detrimental to the education of deaf children simply because of an ethnoicentric bias toward all forms of English over a linguistic environment that truly meets the cognitive needs of a deaf child?

That's all I want..just tired of seeing so many older deaf children come to our program with thinking skills of a 5 year old because they didnt have full access to an appropriate model of language. To me, it couldnt be more simplier but if others disagree, I have no problem with it. I am still sticking by my beliefs and opinions. Oh well.