Does CI person need interpreter?

shel90 said:
U said you learned some sign language so I dont doubt that u could do it but I know that u dont believe in using ASL in the educational setting.

I gotta admit, I did use some of my oral skills for one of my students who is still learning ASL cuz I wont let him miss out on anything. When I do that, my other students ask me what did I say so I have to sign what I said to him out of respect for them.
Click to expand...


Shel, I have never said that ASL should not be used in all educational settings. It is not I believe that all deaf children should be raised in oral only education. I said that it is a parents decision to make with all the information. Yes, I believed that oral only can work but I also agree that a child can be very successful with ASL. It is a personal choice.
 
doubletrouble said:
I've got to tellyou, although I agree with you Jackie 90% of the time, this time I would have to disagree with you. To be quite honest, I would LOVE to have a teacher like Shel working with my son. Oral or not, because she (correct me if I'm wrong Shel and making an assumption) she is there for the kids- to help them succeed- no matter what the mode of communicaiton is. I would LOVE for my son to see a Deaf teacher in that role. I wouldn't object to it at all. After all, my opinion is that my son is in school to learn- albeit hie is mainstreamed and communicates orally, I don't think it's a terrible thing to have Shel teaching him. To me, it's just opening up another door for him and I think the rewards are BIG for my son and for Shel (hypothecially speaking of course). I don't get the sense that even though Shel maybe against CI's, she would ever hurt the success of a student by "holding a gruge". I am only saying this in my own personal experience, because my son's TOD is not there all day (he has another classroom teacher) and depending on the cirriculum, she either pulls in or pulls out. I think it could work, actually, and be a great experience for all.
Click to expand...

Double tree I agree with you completely. I think Shel is a great role. I do not think that Shel should an oral teacher of the deaf because she does not believe in oral only education not because she is deaf just because she doesn't believe in it.
 
rick48 said:
So by your "logic" all those who were born hearing and lose thier hearing from let's say meninngitis should be implanted.

BTW we parents of ci kids see the glass as neither half empty or half full but now not only full but overflowing.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better, :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
 
rick48 said:
I have never read, heard or seen any reference to hearing in any of my children's social studies courses. Also, the majority culture is also a walking one but again never seen such a reference. "White world", sorry not going down that road.

The job of our Guidance department is not to instill values and behaviour deemed appropriate by the majority, maybe that is how it works in your hs but they are more concerned with making sure our kids graduate and getting them into the best colleges possible and they do a great job of that.

In our school district, we believe values are best taught at home.
Click to expand...

I agree it is my job as a parent to still values in my children, I do not want the school instilling their values on my children.
 
rick48 said:
God help the late bloomers in your program!
Click to expand...

Rick, this is why some of us oral teachers of deaf refer our students kind of late to other programs because we know that if they go to a state school for the deaf, they will not work at all on developing oral skills. So unless we find a balance the oral side is always going to be on one side and deaf schools on another side.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Rick, this is why some of us oral teachers of deaf refer our students kind of late to other programs because we know that if they go to a state school for the deaf, they will not work at all on developing oral skills. So unless we find a balance the oral side is always going to be on one side and deaf schools on another side.
Click to expand...

That is a complete and total innaccuracy. And not only that, if a child is experiencing difficulites in an oral only environment, the longer you wait to put them in an environment that allows the access the curriculum and to communicate, the greater harm you do. But I guess that doesn't matter, as long as they have oral skills and no sign.

I agree a balance needs to be struck. That balance is found in bilingual/bicultural programs. Oral only is what sends at the far end of the spectrum and refuses to budge.
 
because we know that if they go to a state school for the deaf, they will not work at all on developing oral skills. So unless we find a balance the oral side is always going to be on one side and deaf schools on another side.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jackie that is VERY inaccurate. Virtually ALL schools for the Deaf, offer speech therapy. As a matter of fact, believe it or not there are Schools for the Deaf that offer an oral track! (Horace Mann in Boston, and the NYSD) And they have been offering those for YEARS! (its not something new that arose with CIs)
It's a myth that TC programs or school for the deaf programs ignore speech in favor of Sign.
 
lilitalia89 said:
You shudder when you hear (no pun intended) that a baby is being implanted, let's say your baby was born with something that would hinder their life in the long term scheme of things...like missing an organ or partially blind would you not fix it to not have your child go thru hard times learning a bit different from everyone else.
Click to expand...

(going off topic a bit, but I did address the topic at hand)

I think I might have, to some extent, resented my parents if they had attempted to correct my vision, had that been a possibility- and I know that now, looking back, that I don't all that much mind being blind, and that to a great extent, I have experienced things I couldn't have had I been sighted. My family made the right choice to hand me a longer cane, not stronger glasses. :)
 
Aleser said:
(going off topic a bit, but I did address the topic at hand)

I think I might have, to some extent, resented my parents if they had attempted to correct my vision, had that been a possibility- and I know that now, looking back, that I don't all that much mind being blind, and that to a great extent, I have experienced things I couldn't have had I been sighted. My family made the right choice to hand me a longer cane, not stronger glasses. :)
Click to expand...

Eloquently stated!
 
jillio said:
rick48 said:
So students in New York State, in all public schools, are taught Black History, Deaf History, Hebrew History, and the history of all of the other contributions made by ethnic and cultural minorities in this country? Are they taught accurate Native American history? Accurately, and with equal value? Are NYstate public school systems teaching about, for instance, Dummy Hoy? since you are a baseball fan? Do they teach that it was actually the Gaulladet football team that invented that well used tool in football known as the huddle? These, to be sure are minor accomplisments compared to some that have been made by ethnic and cultural minorities. But I thought I would appeal to your fondness to reducing things to sports analogies.
Click to expand...

Our social studies curricula does not include the teaching of interesting but minor and insignificant sports trivia. Hey, maybe they should all learn that it was a Catholic priest at Manhattan College, Brother Jasper, who invented the 7th inning stretch in baseball. Now that is one of the most profound and important events in our history, we'll just cut back on some unimportant stuff, like the Industrial Revolution.

Sorry, but you stated that no "contributions' by any minority group were taught in any school. Now when you are proven wrong, you now change the focus to "history" of all ethnic and cultural minorities, another one of you tactics: never admit you were mistaken, just keep changing your argument, hopefully you will find one that sticks.

As ususal, with most of your arguments, for you its three strikes and you are out.
Click to expand...
 
deafdyke said:
Yes, Jackie that is VERY inaccurate. Virtually ALL schools for the Deaf, offer speech therapy. As a matter of fact, believe it or not there are Schools for the Deaf that offer an oral track! (Horace Mann in Boston, and the NYSD) And they have been offering those for YEARS! (its not something new that arose with CIs)
It's a myth that TC programs or school for the deaf programs ignore speech in favor of Sign.
Click to expand...


Myth? Have you read Shel's posts wherein the instruction in a so-called bi-bi program is only in ASL and where kids are written off as having any chance of deloping oral skills by their alleged speech and language therapists as young as 5 years old!
 
jillio said:
That is a complete and total innaccuracy. And not only that, if a child is experiencing difficulites in an oral only environment, the longer you wait to put them in an environment that allows the access the curriculum and to communicate, the greater harm you do. But I guess that doesn't matter, as long as they have oral skills and no sign.

I agree a balance needs to be struck. That balance is found in bilingual/bicultural programs. Oral only is what sends at the far end of the spectrum and refuses to budge.
Click to expand...

I agree...geez!

I cant believe how much emphasis is spent on oral skills. What about education? Wow!
 
deafdyke said:
Yes, Jackie that is VERY inaccurate. Virtually ALL schools for the Deaf, offer speech therapy. As a matter of fact, believe it or not there are Schools for the Deaf that offer an oral track! (Horace Mann in Boston, and the NYSD) And they have been offering those for YEARS! (its not something new that arose with CIs)
It's a myth that TC programs or school for the deaf programs ignore speech in favor of Sign.
Click to expand...

Right and we also recognize if kids have temper tantrums or showing resistance towards learning speech skills, we dont continue to pressure them. My brother suffered 5 years in an oral only environment and speech therapy and for what? He ended up with language delays. Luckily he overcame them when he was introduced sign at 5 years old. He was very lucky that he didnt have to suffer for the rest of his life.
 
rick48 said:
Myth? Have you read Shel's posts wherein the instruction in a so-called bi-bi program is only in ASL and where kids are written off as having any chance of deloping oral skills by their alleged speech and language therapists as young as 5 years old!
Click to expand...

My program is not a representative of ALL BiBi programs.
 
rick48 said:
Myth? Have you read Shel's posts wherein the instruction in a so-called bi-bi program is only in ASL and where kids are written off as having any chance of deloping oral skills by their alleged speech and language therapists as young as 5 years old!
Click to expand...

They should be written off when it's clear that the oral approach isn't working. It's a damn sight better to go to "plan B" and introduce signs, as opposed to remaining adamant about the child developing oral skills at the price of time that could be spent learning, interacting with peers, and just... being young.
 
Aleser said:
They should be written off when it's clear that the oral approach isn't working. It's a damn sight better to go to "plan B" and introduce signs, as opposed to remaining adamant about the child developing oral skills at the price of time that could be spent learning, interacting with peers, and just... being young.
Click to expand...

:ty:
 
Back
Top