Baby born deaf will get 'bionic ears' that could help him hear and talk

jillio said:
There are some very predictable patterns, all right. The least of which, in my opinion, is the fact that 52% of all deaf kids end up in an oral only environment educationally. And then the same people that are placing kids in oral only mainstream settings are complaining that the literacy rates are embarrassingly low. Self fulfilling prophecy, anyone?
Click to expand...

I was just thinknig that recently........

Like 90% of the deaf are in mainstream, and look at the results.

THEN YOU WANT put your kid in the mainstream.

it makes no sense.
 
kokonut said:
Not past issues but rather a continuing pattern. Let's not act so surprised here.
Click to expand...

Not surprised but don't care for hypocrisy with the false accusations. It was wrobg and it only serves to prolong the flame war that you all complain of. Either continue it and don't complain about it or refrain from falsely accusing people
 
posts from hell said:
I was just thinknig that recently........

Like 90% of the deaf are in mainstream, and look at the results.

THEN YOU WANT put your kid in the mainstream.

it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

PFH, is that a shot in the dark, or is that 90% a real estimate out there? I haven't digested all the #s yet, but just now reading that GAO report in another thread noting some 48% of deaf/HOH kids in sign-based or bi education vs. 52% in oral-only. Wondering if there's a lot more ASL-based deaf ed being conducted in the mainstream than I realized.
 
posts from hell said:
I was just thinknig that recently........

Like 90% of the deaf are in mainstream, and look at the results.

THEN YOU WANT put your kid in the mainstream.

it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But it would appear that people are more interested in playing grammar school games than in actually discussing the state of education, the psychosocial issues faced not just by deaf kids, but deaf adults as well, and doing so in a productive manner. This doesn't say much for the future deaf kids can expect to encounter, does it?
 
GrendelQ said:
PFH, is that a shot in the dark, or is that 90% a real estimate out there? I haven't digested all the #s yet, but just now reading that GAO report in another thread noting some 48% of deaf/HOH kids in sign-based or bi education vs. 52% in oral-only. Wondering if there's a lot more ASL-based deaf ed being conducted in the mainstream than I realized.
Click to expand...

i'm shooting off the waist with that 90%

Even if the above is true, asl based in the mainstream, oral education, bibi, etc... all that, what we have now is not working.

Now what?
 
GrendelQ said:
PFH, is that a shot in the dark, or is that 90% a real estimate out there? I haven't digested all the #s yet, but just now reading that GAO report in another thread noting some 48% of deaf/HOH kids in sign-based or bi education vs. 52% in oral-only. Wondering if there's a lot more ASL-based deaf ed being conducted in the mainstream than I realized.
Click to expand...

No. The sign based ed in the mainsteam is generally accomplished using one of the MCEs and speech together. So. Take the very small portion of those that are actually in a bi-bi environment and compare it to the vast majority that are in a TC or oral only environment. That is exactly why the low literacy rates are occurring.

Only 11% are in a bi-bi educational setting where ASL is the language of instruction. So PFH's estimate is pretty accurate.
 
I learned SEE before I learned ASL. I had a lot of unlearning to do.
 
jillio said:
No. The sign based ed in the mainsteam is generally accomplished using one of the MCEs and speech together.
Click to expand...

SEE, PSE, CS? What do you think the ratio of SEE/PSE to ASL within academic environments is currently? Would we be able to get at these #s by finding out what the academic interpreters are using?
 
posts from hell said:
i'm shooting off the waist with that 90%

Even if the above is true, asl based in the mainstream, oral education, bibi, etc... all that, what we have now is not working.

Now what?
Click to expand...

Actually, that was a pretty accurrate guess. If you run the numbers comes out to 89%.
 
GrendelQ said:
SEE, PSE, CS? What do you think the ratio of SEE/PSE to ASL within academic environments is currently? Would we be able to get at these #s by finding out what the academic interpreters are using?
Click to expand...

35% speech and sign together, (usually in practice turns out to be PSE), and 2% CS for a total of 37% compared to 11% where the language of instruction is ASL.
 
posts from hell said:
I was just thinknig that recently........

Like 90% of the deaf are in mainstream, and look at the results.

THEN YOU WANT put your kid in the mainstream.

it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Results? Test results? State standardization testing? There are pros and cons in everything.
 
kokonut said:
Results? Test results? State standardization testing? There are pros and cons in everything.
Click to expand...

The infamous 4th grade reading level, is all I have to tell you, Koko.

Let's say mainstreaming was the best thing next to sliced bread for your deaf child wouldn't the reading level among all deaf people be a bit elevated due to the simple fact a large percent of the deaf going to their local mainstream schools.

But we all know that is not the case.
 
kokonut said:
Results? Test results? State standardization testing? There are pros and cons in everything.
Click to expand...

What results are you looking for? You are going to have to be much more specific. The fact is, literacy rates are still estimated to be at a fourth grade level for graduating senior deaf students and that is based on standardized literacy testing.

90% of deaf students are coming from some sort of mainstreamed educational setting.

You do the math.
 
GrendelQ said:
SEE, PSE, CS? What do you think the ratio of SEE/PSE to ASL within academic environments is currently? Would we be able to get at these #s by finding out what the academic interpreters are using?
Click to expand...

I think that would be one fascinating study to try and find out and get the statistics down pat once for all on the number of SEE/PSE/SE/ASL users along with its educational level or literacy rates. All this is still largely a big unknown.
 
jillio said:
No. The sign based ed in the mainsteam is generally accomplished using one of the MCEs and speech together. So. Take the very small portion of those that are actually in a bi-bi environment and compare it to the vast majority that are in a TC or oral only environment. That is exactly why the low literacy rates are occurring.

Only 11% are in a bi-bi educational setting where ASL is the language of instruction. So PFH's estimate is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

Going by the breakdown in the GAO report, it looks like
52% = oral=only
35% = sign + speech
11% = sign-only
2% = CS and other methods
 
kokonut said:
I think that would be one fascinating study to try and find out and get the statistics down pat once for all on the number of SEE/PSE/SE/ASL users along with its educational level or literacy rates. All this is still largely a big unknown.
Click to expand...

We just provided you with numbers. What part of it are you not understanding?
 
GrendelQ said:
Going by the breakdown in the GAO report, it looks like
52% = oral=only
35% = sign + speech
11% = sign-only
2% = CS and other methods
Click to expand...

Right. We are assuming that 11% sign based instruction to be ASL. However, it is also possible that one of the MCEs or contact signs are being used, which even further exaccerbates the fact that kids are not getting access to what they need in mainstream deaf ed programs to become literate.
 
Back
Top