Are deaf kids bullied/harrassed more frequently than hearing kids in mainstream?

Bottesini said:
You are lucky to grow up today. The public schools are actually far advanced in accommodating dhh students.

I was in the early days of the mainstreaming concept, and I did suffer. Grummer is younger than I am, but he is a product of his time.

He is absolutely right about the time he grew up in. A lot of us are very badly affected emotionally by what happened to us in our youth.
Click to expand...
I realize how lucky I am today. I have suffered too, although it must have been nothing compared to you. I am sorry about that. I did not realize it was worse in earlier years.
 
Oink said:
I know it doesn't seem like it, but I actually see both sides. I lost my head when Grummer kept insulting and pointing fingers when it was not needed.
I'm not sure if I'm pro-public school or con. I think both would be good.
Click to expand...

Oh I am too......I just think that inclusion needs to be VERY CAREFULLY done, instead of a kneejerk placement you know? And I feel that way about inclusion in general for other low incidence disabilties as well. I think regional and magnet programs can really rock. I do think that inclusion can work SOMETIMES, but there needs to be some sort of major failsafe to prevent kids from falling though the cracks.............And indeed, I'm not against inclusion per se...I'm against it as a KNEEJERK placement.
Maybe a law that says that dhh kids need to be evaluated by a TOD affilated with the state School/sizable program for the Dhh might help.
 
TXgolfer said:
Once again you are being very rude. This is unnecessary. Continuing to say these things does not make them fact. There are good and bad deaf schools, good and bad public schools and good and bad private schools. All of this is something parents must weigh and research when picking a school. If you read more carefully I have not claimed any *experience to be superior. Parents don't need to be subjected to biased opinions.....they need accurate information.
Click to expand...

Txgolfer, but it IS pretty much a fact that the overwhelming majority of special ed departments are experianced with LD. They do not have a lot of experiance with low incidence kids.........It's a fact that schools tend to educate the average learner best. What that means is that a dhh kid gets mainstreamed....they need help, but they get lumped in with the LD kids and the kids who are all " Ummm who's President Obama?"
Did you know GIFTED kids go through the same stuff in trying to get a good education?
 
deafdyke said:
Txgolfer, but it IS pretty much a fact that the overwhelming majority of special ed departments are experianced with LD. They do not have a lot of experiance with low incidence kids.........It's a fact that schools tend to educate the average learner best. What that means is that a dhh kid gets mainstreamed....they need help, but they get lumped in with the LD kids and the kids who are all " Ummm who's President Obama?"
Did you know GIFTED kids go through the same stuff in trying to get a good education?
Click to expand...

That is not always the case. When true, parents will learn that through research and information. Much more credible than biased opinion.
 
TXgolfer said:
That is not always the case. When true, parents will learn that through research and information. Much more credible than biased opinion.
Click to expand...

well no,
the conventional way of looking at Deafness is a medical view, That is dominant. it IS Biased. it is Never neutral. "crediable' as you say, is only because of the quantity amount of research, it's just numbers of it 'done' and reinforced upon, it doesnt mean its better or have more value.
Think of it this way, transport technology are dominant by petroluem, and indeed there are many alternative opinions out there says using petrol is not the way, as electricity, or hydrogen, or biodiesel are better options, there are even views saying burning up more oil from the ground in order to shoot them up for collection creates more booms, and oppoenents are saying there's a boom (north dakota) which can ensure US have potential to be self sufficiency for oil consumption rather than relying on Middle Easterns imports...other will say the 'cost' of this continuing oil consumption will mean more global warming and more wild weathers, like the Oklahoma's tornado last month, it was bizzare being its 5-6 houses wides wiping out towns...whereas 20 years ago, it was small like along one side of the street tearing the front walls of house only on one side of the street...

but the popularity of conventional science are 'given' more credits, not becuase its better its because more people are doing it blindly, simply because society as made 'us' carry out tasks , research, teaching and doing in society repeatingly as if we were robots. not listening to the real matters, the real dangers. Those real dangers are played down as 'problems' of 'interest' but not of 'need to reform' of all those petroluem giants they sure as hell arent happy about researches of alternative fuels, why? its convenient for them, same things with doctors and teachers, they like to be well paid and dont like the ideas of forgoing all their ambitions to 'change deaf to be hearing , or at least hearing-like'...and they get 'credits' for their work.
it doesnt mean shit to me. it just means power and control that they possess by means of 'self-crediting' do they really give a damn about if deaf children growing up confused, and be shafted to manual labour force? of course they dont. while on other side well to do deafs in affluent families, are going to replicate some fo the tasks So the deaf child as future adult 'can approximate function correctly to handle their family trust funds or do some 'jobs' as good cover for their failures...

Credits is not the same as trust. or creditbility as trustworthy, its jus tmeans they followed throught processes in order to gain a position as materials of references. nothing more.
 
TXgolfer said:
That is not always the case. When true, parents will learn that through research and information. Much more credible than biased opinion.
Click to expand...

Doctors will always tell parents about the oral-only route and not give much credit to ASL. Parents usually listen to doctors and then make the decision before meeting any ASL advocates.
 
shel90 said:
Doctors will always tell parents about the oral-only route and not give much credit to ASL. Parents usually listen to doctors and then make the decision before meeting any ASL advocates.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't listen to "advocates" either. That is where bias comes from.
 
shel90 said:
Doctors will always tell parents about the oral-only route and not give much credit to ASL. Parents usually listen to doctors and then make the decision before meeting any ASL advocates.
Click to expand...

yeah thats what they told my parents about it. My mom didnt take doctors advice though.
 
TXgolfer said:
I wouldn't listen to "advocates" either. That is where bias comes from.
Click to expand...

What do you think "advocate" means? Doctors are often advocating for CI and oral education.

If you ignore people advocating for anything, you better just go hide in your cave and stay out of everything.
 
I read this thread early this morning before work. I had the chance to think about it, and a sentence or two comes to mind -- I cannot recall where/what thread it came from, but a parent wrote in that she wanted to give her child ASL, but was "talked out of it". That child is now (if I remember right) close to 5 and FINALLY getting caught up. (If anybody knows where I'm talking about, put the link here.) When parents research info and are given research, there's a definite bias as to where/whom it came from, and parents later say "I wish I hadn't done that ..." so really, I stand by what I've written - parents make a choice for their child (based on what they find out) and when it's stuff "they were talked out of", it's the child that pays the price.
 
To further elaborate, generic comments like "parents will learn that through research and information" is nothing but garbage and increasing post count. We want to hope all parents are going to be invested in their child's well-being and education. Most parents don't want to make bad choices on purpose. We all get that. But "research and information" can be worthless if it's not the right kind.
 
Bottesini said:
What do you think "advocate" means? Doctors are often advocating for CI and oral education.

If you ignore people advocating for anything, you better just go hide in your cave and stay out of everything.
Click to expand...

I am very clear on the definition and uses "advocate". With "advocates" my policy is to consider the source. :)
 
AlleyCat said:
To further elaborate, generic comments like "parents will learn that through research and information" is nothing but garbage and increasing post count. We want to hope all parents are going to be invested in their child's well-being and education. Most parents don't want to make bad choices on purpose. We all get that. But "research and information" can be worthless if it's not the right kind.
Click to expand...

No, like I said in post 652, parents also have to weigh the source of the information as well as establish goals for their child. There is plenty of information out there that can be helpful when put in context with goals. Information without bias. I have seen people post it here and elsewhere many times. Graduation rates, test scores, college acceptance rates and such are just a few examples of this. Things like these are much more valuable than a biased opinion.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, like I said in post 652, parents also have to weigh the source of the information as well as establish goals for their child. There is plenty of information out there that can be helpful when put in context with goals. Information without bias. I have seen people post it here and elsewhere many times. Graduation rates, test scores, college acceptance rates and such are just a few examples of this. Things like these are much more valuable than a biased opinion.
Click to expand...
Test scores can be biased too and also not tell the whole story. Especially when a lot of the kids at a particular school are transfers from the mainstream. Also just b/c a school has high test scores, it doesn't mean that special ed/ special needs kids are included in those scores.
 
deafdyke said:
Test scores can be biased too and also not tell the whole story. Especially when a lot of the kids at a particular school are transfers from the mainstream. Also just b/c a school has high test scores, it doesn't mean that special ed/ special needs kids are included in those scores.
Click to expand...

Right, parents will need to look into that and ask those questions.
 
TXgolfer said:
I wouldn't listen to "advocates" either. That is where bias comes from.
Click to expand...

I wish my mom listened to them. My life would have been so MUCH better than the oral-only philosophy that was forced on me. The same goes for several of my deaf friends who learned ASL later on.
 
AlleyCat said:
To further elaborate, generic comments like "parents will learn that through research and information" is nothing but garbage and increasing post count. We want to hope all parents are going to be invested in their child's well-being and education. Most parents don't want to make bad choices on purpose. We all get that. But "research and information" can be worthless if it's not the right kind.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
shel90 said:
U are soooooo LUCKY! Oh...life as a "broken" hearing person was definitely HELL!
Click to expand...

B-B-b-b-u-t, I do feel for many Deaf/deaf/Hoh oral approach that is still part of me because they are my friends like im in their shoes such as witnessing their parents and siblinsg. Im glad that you and others who learn ASL and embrace the diversity of the Deaf community so i got chance to meet them the more the merrier.
 
Back
Top