Charter school vs. state deaf school

faire_jour said:
My daughter's bi-bi school started as a charter school but then merged with the state school for the Deaf. Nearly all the kids there have been there since they were three years old.....There are very mixed results. They all sign ASL very well, but very few are able to write English on grade level. Last year was the first year that any class was able to have 100% of the kids on grade level. It was the 1st grade class. The teacher worked her a$$ off and got all the kids age appropriate. It was a very big deal.
Click to expand...

age level Deaf kids are rare without cued speech. and the teacher NEEDS A MEADAL
 
Do you understand that Deaf Charter Schools are deaf schools that are publicly funded?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. They're like the old city/day schools for the deaf. What I meant is that the Deaf Charter Schools should develop connections to the State Deaf School, so that they could share resources and do stuff.....like retreats at the state Deaf School.
 
deafdyke said:
Yes I do. They're like the old city/day schools for the deaf. What I meant is that the Deaf Charter Schools should develop connections to the State Deaf School, so that they could share resources and do stuff.....like retreats at the state Deaf School.
Click to expand...

Why would they want to when they already have a whole nice school full of deaf students?

Like Girl Scout Camp??:hmm:
 
I think the problem is that hearing parents of children with a hearing losss, in general, do not want what a bi-bi school is offereing. In order to have enough students to make a school work, you need to convince parents that their children should go there. Bi-bi schools aren't doing that.
 
think the problem is that hearing parents of children with a hearing losss, in general, do not want what a bi-bi school is offereing. In order to have enough students to make a school work, you need to convince parents that their children should go there. Bi-bi schools aren't doing that.
Click to expand...
Actually faire_jour I think that a lot of hearing parents are misinformed about specialized schools. They think that a kid can do fab in the mainstream with just a "terp and minimal supports. They don't see a special school as a place where a kid can really acheive......they really are pressured into the mainstream b/c after all the mainstream is SO wonderful!
 
deafdyke said:
Actually faire_jour I think that a lot of hearing parents are misinformed about specialized schools. They think that a kid can do fab in the mainstream with just a "terp and minimal supports. They don't see a special school as a place where a kid can really acheive......they really are pressured into the mainstream b/c after all the mainstream is SO wonderful!
Click to expand...

I think they viewe Deaf schools as a place where standards are lower, and kids are behind. Why?? Because, as so many have stated here, the kids ARE behind! Why would you want to send your child who is age appropriate to a school where all the other kids are not? It doesn't seem to be in their best interest.

Also, many bi-bi schools are completly voice-off and many hearing parents want their children to learn to use spoken language, and that is not valued at many bi-bi schools.
 
As usual, spoken language and speech skills are more valued than langiage acquisition.
 
As usual, spoken language and speech skills are more valued than langiage acquisition.
Deafdyke is right..many parents aren't well aware of the great support system the KIDS will get at deaf schools as opposed to mainstreaming. This is about the KIDS, not the parents.
 
shel90 said:
As usual, spoken language and speech skills are more valued than langiage acquisition.
Click to expand...

Number one, spoken English IS a language. By fostering it, you ARE worried about language acquisition.

Number two, I didn't say it was MORE important than anything. I said it is not valued. Spoken language is not seen as something of value in many bi-bi schools. They take the position that some kids will learn, some won't, but that they are not going to spend time wotking toward the goal of fluent spoken language use.
 
shel90 said:
As usual, spoken language and speech skills are more valued than langiage acquisition.
Deafdyke is right..many parents aren't well aware of the great support system the KIDS will get at deaf schools as opposed to mainstreaming. This is about the KIDS, not the parents.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Their first point of contact is a hearing physician and a hearing audiologist. Both tend to view things from the pathological perspective. By the time the deaf school has any input, these parents have already been convinced that they must do everything to make their child a reasonable facsimile of a hearing kid, and that to work with the deafness instead of against it will do untold harm to their child.
 
faire_jour said:
Number one, spoken English IS a language. By fostering it, you ARE worried about language acquisition.

Number two, I didn't say it was MORE important than anything. I said it is not valued. Spoken language is not seen as something of value in many bi-bi schools. They take the position that some kids will learn, some won't, but that they are not going to spend time wotking toward the goal of fluent spoken language use.
Click to expand...

Some kids will develop speech and some won't. That is a fact of childhood deafness. Some will, some won't. Some will with very little assistance, and some won't despite the newest technology and 24/7 therapy. That is why it is so important not to sacrifice language acquisition, cognitive development and academic performance to something as much of a crap shoot as speech.
 
jillio said:
Some kids will develop speech and some won't. That is a fact of childhood deafness. Some will, some won't. Some will with very little assistance, and some won't despite the newest technology and 24/7 therapy. That is why it is so important not to sacrifice language acquisition, cognitive development and academic performance to something as much of a crap shoot as speech.
Click to expand...

And some will if given proper support and therapy, but won't if not, so they need it. They deserve to get what they need to succeed as much as the kids who pick it up easily.

I am simply saying that many schools view spoken language as a waste of time. Parents don't. If the philosophies don't line up, parents won't enroll their kids.
 
Um... I was never expected to speak until I told my mom I wanted to learn how to at age 8 since she was starting to get joint problems at the time, and I didn't want to be ignored by my family since most of them didn't learn ASL. I learned how to speak through 2 hours of AFTER-SCHOOL therapies once a week.

Why does it have to be IN the school? If you really value it, then there is such thing as "after-school programs."
 
souggy said:
Um... I was never expected to speak until I told my mom I wanted to learn how to at age 8 since she was starting to get joint problems at the time, and I didn't want to be ignored by my family since most of them didn't learn ASL. I learned how to speak through 2 hours of AFTER-SCHOOL therapies once a week.

Why does it have to be IN the school? If you really value it, then there is such thing as "after-school programs."
Click to expand...

Research shows that in order for someone to learn a language they must be exposed to it 35 hours a week. They need fluent interaction, from language models 35 hours a week. That can't happen through 2 hour therapy sessions alone.
 
faire_jour said:
And some will if given proper support and therapy, but won't if not, so they need it. They deserve to get what they need to succeed as much as the kids who pick it up easily.

I am simply saying that many schools view spoken language as a waste of time. Parents don't. If the philosophies don't line up, parents won't enroll their kids.
Click to expand...

I have been involved in deaf ed for over 20 years, and have yet to encounter a deaf school, charter or otherwise, that views speech as "a waste of time.":shrug:
 
The whole point of schools is EDUCATION not speech therapy.

To guarantee that all deaf/hoh children are getting equal access, ASL is the language to use. To use spoken language u run the risk of children not having full access. They ARE deaf, not hearing.
 
faire_jour said:
Research shows that in order for someone to learn a language they must be exposed to it 35 hours a week. They need fluent interaction, from language models 35 hours a week. That can't happen through 2 hour therapy sessions alone.
Click to expand...

Could you refer me to that research? I would be very interested in seeing what methodology was used to reach this conclusion, and what population was studied.
 
jillio said:
Could you refer me to that research? I would be very interested in seeing what methodology was used to reach this conclusion, and what population was studied.
Click to expand...

Sure. I'll find it. It was a study about bilingualism in general. It was not about Deaf children. They found that 35 hours was the key, if they were exposed to less, they never became fully fluent in the "weaker" language.
 
Back
Top