Sorry, I should of said through elementary school and since the deaf school was on the same grounds as a hearing school, they were all mainstreamed with interpreters for part of the day. Once they reached high school they had TOD for some classes and were then mainstreamed in others with interpreters if they needed them.Then you don't understand how an IEP works. We had a traveling TOD going from school to school throughout the day. Not all children go to the deaf school. Do your research! Omg.
It would be inappropriate for someone to call and ask a teacher about the students on their caseload. I would never answer questions about my students like that.Call any school district. I had an IEP during my years. I'm certain one phone call could have identified the teachers.
(I edited this post a bit. To take me out of being assigned to me.)
Parents would absolutely have the opportunity to visit a school and program. They would make arrangements with the administration and get a tour. A stranger on the phone would get no such thing. I would never attempt to call a school and ask a teacher of the deaf that I do not know about his/her caseload. That is unprofessional and completely inappropriate. I am a member of a few groups for teachers of the deaf including one for my alumni group.I don't think she meant that to call and ask specifically who your students are. I would think one could call and find out the type of teachers that work at the school and perhaps the GENERAL population they teach- not who each kid is specifically! How else can parents do research on schools they'd like to send their kids to? Knowing what the teachers teach (if they teach more than one subject), what any self contained classroom is like, the general make-up of the class (say...if there is an even mix of CI users and ASL users or something).
Round and round we go. I'll just wait for the "YOU'RE WRONG!" comment.
Here is another study that says that a child benefiting from signing (called sign enhancement) was negatively correlated with higher levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy in high school (meaning they were less likely to be in the normal range).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156988/
Then why, in the original study, did none of the children who did not sign start signing? None of the spoken language only students needed to add sign.Same deal. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Of course kids who have lower levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy are more likely to use sign language. This does not mean sign language CAUSED the delays.
In fact it's just as likely to be the opposite and makes more logical sense that it would be the opposite. The language delays caused the use of sign languge.
Then why, in the original study, did none of the children who did not sign start signing? None of the spoken language only students needed to add sign.
Maybe because their audiologists or teacher's of the deaf strongly discouraged it.
Maybe because our hearing society devalues signed language over spoken language.
Or maybe, like the study suggests: "presumably because their child’s listening and spoken language skills continued to develop."
My husband is profoundly Deaf from birth. He very literally cannot speak more than a few intelligible words, cannot listen and cannot read lips. ASL is his L1 and written English is his L2.
His mother barely signs and his dad knows no sign. Many of his friends grew up in situations where their parents never learned any sign at all. Those kids cannot understand spoken English, do not have the capacity to learn spoken English, and their parents don't sign. This happend because audiologists, people working with Deaf children, and TOD told them that if they signed their children would never learn how to speak.
This is horrific.
This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.
*facepalm*This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.
The sign languages used were: "ASL, Total/Simultaneous Communication, baby sign, Signing Exact English, Signed English, sign language, sign support, or Pidgin sign." "A child was classified as positive for sign language exposure at that rating period if one of the following systems was reported by a parent as used at least 10% of the time at home and/or in the child’s intervention program."
This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.
You asked the question: " how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only?" and I gave you word for word what the study said to answer your question. How would I know how many used ASL when the study said what I quoted?No, you misunderstood. I asked a question- how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only? My original question is not about how much they use one of those "systems" at home and/or in the child's intervention program.
"ASL, Total/Simultaneous Communication, baby sign, Signing Exact English, Signed English, sign language, sign support, or Pidgin sign."
"A child was classified as positive for sign language exposure at that rating period if one of the following systems was reported by a parent as used at least 10% of the time at home and/or in the child’s intervention program."
First and second quotes from the study remain unclear. It says "or" and "one of the following systems". Ann Geers should have rewritten that line- and/or instead of or. Supposedly, does it mean one of those subjects in the study used ONE system of SEE or ASL? That is the problem. I assume you have no experience in any sign language. In the general D/HH program schools throughout the US, those subjects are taught with SEE, PSE or TC in the classes, but on the recess and lunch breaks, children become careless and free and can make the transition easily from SEE to PSE or ASL in one second. It's very common. I am one of them. They still do it today. I've seen them myself. I was invited a few times to talk about my job at charter school and public schools and interacted with deaf/HH kids via "sign language." Let me get more specific about what "sign language" is. I communicated with them via ASL during the breaks. Teachers in the controlled environment usually use SEE and PSE to teach their students.
If I were Ann Geers, I would record videos of subjects interacting with their parents and teachers at home and/or in the child's intervention program and breaks. Questionnaires from parents are insufficient to make it case.
You accused her of making up the story about her own mother-in-law barely signs? Her father-in-law doesn't know sign? Just like you accused me of making up stories and you're evading my questions. I don't see any point in discussing it with you, because you chose to not answer my question. Your previous posts with others lead me to believe your posts are unreliable. And you're losing credibility. I am done.
Saludos.
Well then, what your saying is that if the data shows that using sign language is good than the results are accurate and okay, but if a study comes along saying the opposite is true than the results can't be right or they made a mistake along the way. I get it now.Yes it was conjecture. It was actually intentionally conjecture.
The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.
Well then, what your saying is that if the data shows that using sign language is good than the results are accurate and okay, but if a study comes along saying the opposite is true than the results can't be right or they made a mistake along the way. I get it now.
You asked the question: " how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only?" and I gave you word for word what the study said to answer your question. How would I know how many used ASL when the study said what I quoted?
As to Ann Geers video taping her subjects interacting with their parents, I would be surprised if she didn't do just that. Perhaps you can write to her and ask her if she has the tapes?
What I should of said was the first three sentences of what she said was purely conjecture on her part and I will go back and edit it to say just that.