District files appeal against deaf student

Status
Not open for further replies.
rick48 said:
I know you need your sycophant to toss you softballs but HSQ, please show me one post wherein I said a child should not be introduced to sign language until they have not been able to develop oral skills, because the child will learn to rely on the easier (sign) language.

go ahead now run along and find me one post, is that too much for you to actually back up your statements?
Click to expand...

Do you see your name in that post? We were discussing JTC. Evidently, many posts are over your head.

Once again, stick to the topic, rick. If you don't have anything useful or relevent to add, you reallyshould just bow out gracefully because you are making yourself look like an idiot.
 
would think you would object to the very existence of a hackey sack simply because it has proven useful to deaf students, workers, and families in group therapy. What is your problem? Don't want anyone to use anything other than a strictly oral technique?
Click to expand...
But jillo...........that technique is low tech. Don't you know that the only thing that can help kids is the latest greatest most cutting edge technology?
jackie and rick, I'm with jillo here. It does seem that many parents of oral only kids seem to be almost enarmoured of new technology. (I believe Auditory-Verbal International even had [emphasis on had, since it's gone defunct as an organization] as one of its tenants that "AV kids should have the most up to date hearing technology.")
While new technology has its good points, I also think that too many parents think new technology automaticly translates into better things.
Old methods can and do work pretty well. Maybe even just having the students raise their hands (when speaking) would do the trick! Jackie and rick..............its a simple low tech solution that has worked VERY well for MANY dhh (and hearing) students. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
deafdyke said:
.............. Cloggy....Twenty four years ago my parents almost decided to pursue Sign and Deaf culture and all that for me. They listened to the experts who said I didn't need it. Yes, it may have been over twenty years ago............but the downsides still haven't changed. Sooner or later you'll start to realize that maybe you should have listened to us. We're not saying "Oh just do ASL only...........oral skills suck." ....We're just saying that being orally skilled does not mean total and complete access to the hearing world. Hey, even UNILATERALLY dhh folks don't always feel totally hearing, or experiance the downsides of oral only (eg localizing sound, conversations in noisy situtions etc)
Click to expand...
And I agree with you... but then again.... where have I mentionned "oral-only ? Should I force signlanguage on Lotte? Should I force cued speech ? Or should I look at the progress and decided form there....
 
shel90 said:
Didn't Jackie do the exact same thing about children who go to Riverside school for the deaf and the school itself? If it is wrong for Jillo to say these things about JTC then it is just as wrong for Jackie to do the same.

It goes both ways.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have attended several meetings with teachers from Riverside school for the Deaf. I have met many parents and students that have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have sat in IEPS where the students are going to to to Riverside school for the deaf.

That is the difference.
 
deafdyke said:
But jillo...........that technique is low tech. Don't you know that the only thing that can help kids is the latest greatest most cutting edge technology? jackie and rick, I'm with jillo here. It does seem that many parents of oral only kids seem to be almost enarmoured of new technology. (I believe Auditory-Verbal International even had [emphasis on had, since it's gone defunct as an organization] as one of its tenants that "AV kids should have the most up to date hearing technology.")
While new technology has its good points, I also think that too many parents think new technology automaticly translates into better things.
Old methods can and do work pretty well. Maybe even just having the students raise their hands (when speaking) would do the trick! Jackie and rick..............its a simple low tech solution that has worked VERY well for MANY dhh (and hearing) students. Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

LOL!

It not a matter of being able to understand, but of wanting to understand. It doesn't cost $35,000/year, so it can't possibly be useful.
 
Cloggy said:
And I agree with you... but then again.... where have I mentionned "oral-only ? Should I force signlanguage on Lotte? Should I force cued speech ? Or should I look at the progress and decided form there....
Click to expand...

There you go.....no one ever said "force". What we said was "make available" and "expose to".
 
jackiesolorzano said:
The difference is that I have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have attended several meetings with teachers from Riverside school for the Deaf. I have met many parents and students that have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have sat in IEPS where the students are going to to to Riverside school for the deaf.

That is the difference.
Click to expand...

You have attended Riverside on a very limited basis, by your own admission. Equally, you admitted that your exposure to any method other than oral was limited because it was not what you chose to focus on. I'm sure you have sat in on IEPs where kids are being sent to Riverside. Are these your "oral failures" or the "bad kids"?
 
jackiesolorzano said:
. . . Pete my research is current and I will continue to do more research when I have time and it does not take away from my children, my students, and my home life. . . .
Click to expand...

Jackie,

Listen to me . . . you're not even close to winning this discussion, as your method is antiquated and should be put out to pasture. You don't have the deaf/hoh experience as shel does, or even me. My public school system failed me and countless other deaf/hoh students and the only thing to show for it is that the staff received paychecks in this profession that shouldn't have been paid. A lot of the public and private schools still fail the kids. This is one of the reasons I'm going to law school so that I can advocate for these deaf/hoh kids who are victims of your systems way of teaching.

It's like that trip of ours, Jackie. You speak english, everyone else speaks Swedish. Who do you think is going to comply? On the same token, kids can't hear, how can you expect them to speak proper english and use a ruler on the back of their hands when they don't speak it correctly? And by prohibiting asl at the same time?

Just out of curiousity, are all your students white or do you have some of color?

Regarding the research, too, is something that you need to keep up with continuously. Do building contractors read the blueprints for a skyscraper once and then build it?
 
jackiesolorzano said:
The difference is that I have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have attended several meetings with teachers from Riverside school for the Deaf. I have met many parents and students that have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have sat in IEPS where the students are going to to to Riverside school for the deaf.

That is the difference.
Click to expand...

Ohh now u say that u have sat thru the IEPs of those kids who were going to attend Riverside. According to your previous post, u said u heard what was being said about those kids from the special ed director and others without having contact with the students themselves. Well, if u did sit thru those kids' ieps, it is really sad that u labeled them as "bad". Doesn't matter if it wasnt your word..the fact is u did use it in that one post. Those kids don't deserve that label.

Those kids could probably teach u a lot about empathy. I worked with children who had behavior disorders or issues and I did learn a lot from them especially empathy and more understanding of children who have emotional/behavior disorders. Now that u added u have sat through their IEPS, it seems like by calling them "bad", u were washing your hands of them cuz they couldn't succeed in meeting your expectations and send them off to Riverside, which according to u has a bad rep? That is the impression I got from reading your posts about them.

Pek is right..many deaf/hoh children have suffered from your kind of philisophy and it is apparent the suffering continued with that "bad" label which they did not deserve no matter what they did or couldn't do.

One of my coworkers is an alumni from Riverside school for the deaf. She has her master's in deaf education and has been teaching for about 20 years. Riverside must have done something right.

I have never stepped in Riverside nor JTC but if I had to choose, I would go with Riverside because of its philosophy of meeting the deaf children's communiation needs rather than meeting the parents' communication needs. I am a teacher who serves the children so it makes sense that my priorities are to meet the childrens' learning/communication needs not the parents'. I thought education was for the children not for us adults?
 
jillio said:
You have attended Riverside on a very limited basis, by your own admission. Equally, you admitted that your exposure to any method other than oral was limited because it was not what you chose to focus on. I'm sure you have sat in on IEPs where kids are being sent to Riverside. Are these your "oral failures" or the "bad kids"?
Click to expand...

The difference is Jackie made based in part upon personal experiences with the institution, you however made you statements without any personal experience as to the institution you trashed.
 
rick48 said:
The difference is Jackie made based in part upon personal experiences with the institution, you however made you statements without any personal experience as to the institution you trashed.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read my post? I received the same information as you did regarding their "correspondance course" on how to raise an oral deaf child. I simply saw it for what it was. A damaging approach. And,there are a few deaf posters on here who have had personal expierience with JTC and describe it as damaging, as well.
 
rick48 said:
The difference is Jackie made based in part upon personal experiences with the institution, you however made you statements without any personal experience as to the institution you trashed.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Jillo trashed the institution but not the kids who were taught by the teachers from that program.

Trashing an institution is one thing but to trash children..whoa that is too cruel. Guess u support that as well?
 
rick48 said:
The difference is Jackie made based in part upon personal experiences with the institution, you however made you statements without any personal experience as to the institution you trashed.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Jillo trashed the institution but not the kids who were taught by the teachers from that program.

Trashing an institution is one thing but to trash children..whoa that is too cruel. Guess u support that as well?

Ohh I forgot..I bore u to tears and go ahead and enjoy another yawn.
 
rick48 said:
The difference is Jackie made based in . . .
Click to expand...

Busted! :rl: Dude, if I were you, I'd bow out gracefully. Her "knowledge" is book knowledge, not real life. Are you and Jackie in these homes hearing these kids cry themselves to sleep at night because they don't understand and don't catch on to what is happening in the classroom? Night after night? Week in and week out? Come conferences time, you take pleasure at telling the kids' parents how lazy and stupid they are. I am ashamed of both of you! Wake up to the real world and look with your eyes . . . you too, Jackie, and put away those books! Send me those books, pm me and I'll give you my address, as I'm sure I can find some birds that need paper to line their cages, because that's all it's good for.

As I said to you, Jackie, you will need to look at your curriculum that you learned from and see that it's not reality based. I put no trust in your books and would yank my children out in a second if I found out they were being treated like I was in your school. I am not impressed with either of you, as both jillio and shel have repeatedly asked you to back up your statements with proof and documentation. :deal: To date, both of you have produced nothing. Nothing. Zilch.
 
shel90 said:
The difference is that Jillo trashed the institution but not the kids who were taught by the teachers from that program.

Trashing an institution is one thing but to trash children..whoa that is too cruel. Guess u support that as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, they both do! Admission from their own words!

shel90 said:
Ohh I forgot..I bore u to tears and go ahead and enjoy another yawn.
Click to expand...


:gpost::gpost::gpost::gpost:
 
jillio said:
You have attended Riverside on a very limited basis, by your own admission. Equally, you admitted that your exposure to any method other than oral was limited because it was not what you chose to focus on. I'm sure you have sat in on IEPs where kids are being sent to Riverside. Are these your "oral failures" or the "bad kids"?
Click to expand...

No actually neither applies to the reason that I sat in on these IEPs. I was there to translate for Spanish speaking parents.


Hey Jillo can you please respond to the responds that I gave Shel between the differences of the comments you made of JTC and the comments that I made of Riverside. I actually have gone to Riverside and spoken to their teachers, have you done the same of JTC. Yes, my contact with Riverside has been limited but I have had personal contact with Riverside, do you have personal contact with JTC,

Read the post that I made to Shel here it is in case you forgot.

The difference is that I have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have attended several meetings with teachers from Riverside school for the Deaf. I have met many parents and students that have gone to Riverside school for the deaf. I have sat in IEPS where the students are going to to to Riverside school for the deaf.

That is the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top