The "Mainstreaming" Experience: "Isolated cases"?

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
How old is he? My son seemed to get it all backwards and inside out until the summer of this year. He started kindergarten and turned 6 in December. I was kind of concerned, but not at heightened concern. I talked to a friend of mine, who was speech path, and she pretty much agreed that he's in the range of normal. (ON A SCALE!)

If I had taken him to Child Find for a repeat testing, he may have qualified for free preschool or have been place in special ed kindergarten this year. I held off because I know my son's personality and yup, six years old and he won't shut up...

:)

But since he was speaking late and developed at a slower rate, he seems to have not picked up on reading until this school year. (Makes sense.) Now he's rapidly growing, but at the beginning of the school year he only had pre reading skills.

Teachers make the best helicopter parents IMO. :laugh2:

He is bilingual...fluent in ASL and English. However, he has delays in both languages. He has a hard time processing questions and cant answer open-ended questions. He must have 2 choices given to him for him to pick the correct answer. If you ask him to describe an event..he just cant do it...in either ASL or English.

He has been on an IEP for the last 3 years.

Oh, he is 5 now.
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
Is he still progressing at a steady rate? I am sure you will keep tabs on his education...(;

He didnt meet one of his IEP goals from last year so the team will use it with his new IEP. I am just a little worried that he may have processing problems. I am certified in special ed and deaf ed so I know how it goes with children who have language processing issues. They constantly struggle with literacy and get very frustrated with learning at an older age and give up. My 13 year old daughter is so advanced with reading and writing that she has been placed in AP English classes in the high school level even though she is only in the 8th grade. This is a different experience for me with my son.
 

TheOracle

New Member
I'm really sorry to hear that. I had some issues with my son because he wasn't reading at three like I was...and I wasn't mad at him. I just...I don't know.

I'm glad that you're on top of it. I've had illiterate sixteen year olds in my class. :(
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
the idea of how to mainstream a deaf child was really a legalized form of child abuse and neglect.
Hell yes. Especially with social emotional issues. ...seriously. If the social emotional issues that a typical dhh kid deals with were seen in the familiy, they would be taken away by CPS it would make your head spin! On the other hand, I do agree that can also be true for other disabilties too..........
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
I'm really sorry to hear that. I had some issues with my son because he wasn't reading at three like I was...and I wasn't mad at him. I just...I don't know.

I'm glad that you're on top of it. I've had illiterate sixteen year olds in my class. :(

Thanks..I just dont want to see my son struggle but what I dont WANT is him being placed in a mainstreamed environment full of 25 plus kids and have to keep his head above water just to keep up simply because the regular ed teachers do not have the training to meet his needs. The school professionals said that due to LRE, they cant place him in a full time self-contained classroom for his language disorders. However, if by first grade, if he is still struggling, I will raise hell.

This is why i dont believe that mainstreaming should be looked as the ultimate goal for all children. What is "normal" anyway?
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
It has always been my understanding that Special Ed classes were set up to 'fill the gaps' where mainstreaming was missing out not the other way around.

I personally do not agree with either.
 

TheOracle

New Member
A language disorder is different than being deaf. Do you think he'd have the same social problems?

I work with older students, so I don't know what it's like in the earlier years.
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
A language disorder is different than being deaf. Do you think he'd have the same social problems?

I work with older students, so I don't know what it's like in the earlier years.

You totally get it! So many people blame language disorders on deafness when it couldnt be further from the truth! Geez, I cant list all the numerous times I have to constantly explain to people that those two are not related at all.
 

posts from hell

New Member
I'm not going to be bullied by you. You need to take what I said in context. A disability is a legal term. If it wasn't, then dhh wouldn't be covered under a whole lot 'o law ! (The workplace, anyone?)

The purpose of mainstreaming in education has been to largely address 1) the shortcomings in special education 2) help ERADICATE the notion that people who have a disability are somehow less intelligent, second class, etc., and all those other things I put IN QUOTES. Separate is not always equal. Since dhh falls under IDEA, that means you have, by legal definition, a disability.

A norm is what is used to define abnormal. Norm simply means most people fall within that population. (Or sociologically speaking, what society largely considers acceptable is a "norm".)

"Standard deviation from the norm" is a statistical term. You know that. Don't twist my words. Having a disability and being disabled are two different things. The second is of the mind.

Finally, the real population is just what I said. The population of the US. If you exclude people with disabilities (of any kind...again...look @ the law) then your classrooms aren't really representative of the population, are they?

I seriously doubt he was attempting to bully you. He has too much of a heart, even he couldn't bully a fly.

What he was trying to point out is that a lot of people put the deaf in an incorrect frame. We as a collective group should be changing that by questioning the others on what they mean when they say these things.

I have totally no doubt if you wanted - you could meet the Boulder boys and kick it back, talk about reframing.

We won't bite.

Using your logic, we could deduct that with the social norms that a deaf can't bully a hearing person because the hearing counterpart automatically has more power than the deaf, therefore the deaf can't really be a bully.

You can read this with the thought in the back of your head; it requires power to be a bully. If you have no power, you cannot be a bully.

Hearing over deaf.
Men over women.
Light skin over dark.

Just to start.
 

TheOracle

New Member
Didn't I say he couldn't bully me? :P

I think there was a little gun jumpin' there. No one else took my words as the total opposite of what I was saying.

Also, you said you don't hang out with hearies.
 

DURAY

New Member
mainstreamed worked when most of the deaf students in a county or city go to the same school, more social aspects along with the educational aspects.
 

Mister Potts

New Member
I'm not going to be bullied by you. You need to take what I said in context. A disability is a legal term. If it wasn't, then dhh wouldn't be covered under a whole lot 'o law ! (The workplace, anyone?)

The purpose of mainstreaming in education has been to largely address 1) the shortcomings in special education 2) help ERADICATE the notion that people who have a disability are somehow less intelligent, second class, etc., and all those other things I put IN QUOTES. Separate is not always equal. Since dhh falls under IDEA, that means you have, by legal definition, a disability.

A norm is what is used to define abnormal. Norm simply means most people fall within that population. (Or sociologically speaking, what society largely considers acceptable is a "norm".)

"Standard deviation from the norm" is a statistical term. You know that. Don't twist my words. Having a disability and being disabled are two different things. The second is of the mind.

Finally, the real population is just what I said. The population of the US. If you exclude people with disabilities (of any kind...again...look @ the law) then your classrooms aren't really representative of the population, are they?

Sigh. Maybe I did push you around a little bit when I added the comments, but all I saw was what you had posted. I can't twist your words around if I'm asking you questions and asking for clarification.

And by your definition, its OK to make the connection between the two terms, Deaf and disability just because its according to the law. Ya know, at one time, in the history of the US, when a black man voted, it was only counted as a quarter of a white man, according to the law during that time. The implications given by you, you'd say its okay because that was the law? And let's not even get started with women rights in the past.

With that said, I see you're giving the implication that its okay to continue making the connection as mentioned? You see, I'm one of those people who strives to change that view, that thinking, the framing of how people see the typical Deaf person. As long as you continue to think, hey that's the legal term, you ultimately are supporting the fact that Deafness is a disability.

And in my opinion? You either accept or deny this. Meaning you are either with the idea or against the idea that Deafness is a disability.

I'd continue and discuss your rebuttals, but you didn't answer most of the questions that I asked.

Shrug. Regarding your previous post, as opposite? I wrote accordingly as I read it. And most people didn't take it that way because they don't have the framing in their mind yet, or rather have yet to reset/redefine the framing in their mind. So yeah, of course I'm "jumping the gun" because of the negative associations :)
 

GrendelQ

41°17′00″N 70°04′58″W
Premium Member
Sigh. Maybe I did push you around a little bit when I added the comments, but all I saw was what you had posted. I can't twist your words around if I'm asking you questions and asking for clarification.

And by your definition, its OK to make the connection between the two terms, Deaf and disability just because its according to the law. Ya know, at one time, in the history of the US, when a black man voted, it was only counted as a quarter of a white man, according to the law during that time. The implications given by you, you'd say its okay because that was the law? And let's not even get started with women rights in the past.

With that said, I see you're giving the implication that its okay to continue making the connection as mentioned? You see, I'm one of those people who strives to change that view, that thinking, the framing of how people see the typical Deaf person. As long as you continue to think, hey that's the legal term, you ultimately are supporting the fact that Deafness is a disability.

And in my opinion? You either accept or deny this. Meaning you are either with the idea or against the idea that Deafness is a disability.

I'd continue and discuss your rebuttals, but you didn't answer most of the questions that I asked.

Shrug. Regarding your previous post, as opposite? I wrote accordingly as I read it. And most people didn't take it that way because they don't have the framing in their mind yet, or rather have yet to reset/redefine the framing in their mind. So yeah, of course I'm "jumping the gun" because of the negative associations :)

Hey Mister Potts, wishing you'd start a thread and kick it off with a new framing, a new worldview on deafness and disability. Disability is a concept I struggle with: I certainly don't see my amazing, powerful little one as disabled in the slightest. I see an environment that's not equipped for what makes her different from most kids around her. But I do want all of the protections afforded to her by the ADA, I want 504 plans and IEPs and laws we can wield like hammers to smash bias. If we were to struggle with family income, I wouldn't want my child to lose opportunities. Are we talking ideal world where all is fair and equal? Or real world, where you have to find all you can to leverage against Big Money, the Status Quo, the Norm? What trade-offs are there? What's the upside vs. risks in tossing aside "disability" for a deaf child, a young deaf person, a deaf person 'of a certain age', a deaf family, a deaf senior?

I don't know if this is something embryonic in your head or something you are working on implementing right now. Is there a clear end goal and what are the steps towards getting there?
 

Mister Potts

New Member
Hey Mister Potts, wishing you'd start a thread and kick it off with a new framing, a new worldview on deafness and disability. Disability is a concept I struggle with: I certainly don't see my amazing, powerful little one as disabled in the slightest. I see an environment that's not equipped for what makes her different from most kids around her. But I do want all of the protections afforded to her by the ADA, I want 504 plans and IEPs and laws we can wield like hammers to smash bias. If we were to struggle with family income, I wouldn't want my child to lose opportunities. Are we talking ideal world where all is fair and equal? Or real world, where you have to find all you can to leverage against Big Money, the Status Quo, the Norm? What trade-offs are there? What's the upside vs. risks in tossing aside "disability" for a deaf child, a young deaf person, a deaf person 'of a certain age', a deaf family, a deaf senior?

I don't know if this is something embryonic in your head or something you are working on implementing right now. Is there a clear end goal and what are the steps towards getting there?

I'm just one of few that's learning to do that. I will be participating in a workshop related to this subject with PFH and a group of people. I'll gladly start this thread up after the workshop - Meaning sometimes after the first weekend of April.

Meanwhile, hold those questions in mind.
 

GrendelQ

41°17′00″N 70°04′58″W
Premium Member
I'm just one of few that's learning to do that. I will be participating in a workshop related to this subject with PFH and a group of people. I'll gladly start this thread up after the workshop - Meaning sometimes after the first weekend of April.

Meanwhile, hold those questions in mind.

Very cool. I love the idea of this, and want to take part in some way.
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
j
ust dont want to see my son struggle but what I dont WANT is him being placed in a mainstreamed environment full of 25 plus kids and have to keep his head above water just to keep up simply because the regular ed teachers do not have the training to meet his needs. The school professionals said that due to LRE, they cant place him in a full time self-contained classroom for his language disorders. However, if by first grade, if he is still struggling, I will raise hell.

This is why i dont believe that mainstreaming should be looked as the ultimate goal for all children. What is "normal" anyway?
Ditto! The trouble is that the mainstream is too too one size fits all! Not to mention have the stigma of being one of those "Resource Room" /sped kids. Shel, are you hooked up with UCP or an oganization like that yet? They can be good sources of support and therapy. And I know that MD doesn't offer a lot of self contained classrooms or anything like that...
 

TheOracle

New Member
Grendel said what I said! :razz: Look, do I think of you as disabled? Uh, no. But I don't think of my former students with autism as disabled either. In that framing, disabled can suggest someone is less than human, less than perfect, or there's something "wrong" with them. Or as my former boss liked to think, "This (disabled) kid is SO lucky to have me around." :rolleyes:

But when I talked about disability in terms of the law, that's exactly what I did. If you want to change the law, that's your campaign. It ain't mine.

The very fact that a hearing impairment is a "disability" under the law also offers the same kinds of protections that Grendel was talking about. Those protections were in the context of what I said. If you want to change the framing, then you need to address educational settings. You need to point out what I just did - that the dhh population is the only population that has a legal disability (which as educators, we must ADDRESS APPROPRIATELY) and a separate language. There's nothing in there about cognitive deficits. Hearing is defined as a major life task that the average (yes I said average! think of math!) person can perform easily, and HI obviously falls in that category.

I think the current bi - bi movement is looking to address that.

If I thought something was okay, standard, or true just because it was a law, then I'd have a hard time reconciling my liberal weenie views with the country I live in. But I used it in a legal manner that was totally appropriate and you know it.
 

TheOracle

New Member
Hey, I'm curious. If the law were amended to read "Deaf" instead of defining hearing impairments as disabling, would that really piss you off?

Because if you want to frame it, then you need to differentiate between D and d. I think most of us here do that. You, ironically, seem to be hung up on how it sounds to those who hear.
 
Top