History of Deaf education in Utah

F

faire_jour

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
3
A good friend of mine wrote this paper. I thought it could explain some of the educational issues that have been misunderstood by some people here.

http://www.uad.org/DeafEd/utah_deafed_history/Deaf Education History in Utah.pdf

It explains the USDB policy for mainstreaming and the laws that govern IEPs and the fact that a child with a hearing loss must have a delay to retain placement at the school for the Deaf.
 
Siegel (2002) states, “Failed communication leads to failed education, then failed
education leads to a failed adulthood. Failed communication affects all aspect of life” As
90
a result, deaf and hard of hearing adults have a higher rate of mental illness and have
more concurrent health difficulties than their hearing counterparts (p.10).

quoted from the paper...
 
When discussing a deaf
student’s appropriate placement in the IEP meeting, there is no established legal
requirement that this student be assessed for communication and language proficiency or
provided services needed to ensure access to instruction (Siegel, 2005, p.7).

That's the problem
 
For years, deaf and hard of hearing students have repeatedly been denied access to the
programs and communication available to all other children. Moreover, they deal with
failure to provide a qualified interpreter or access to a state school for the deaf. Most
importantly, deaf children are denied to what all other children take for granted: access to
the academic, social and linguistic components of an education (Siegel, 2005).

:hmm:
 
Families in Utah encounter many roadblocks when trying to have their child
enrolled in a special school because most districts have policies or practices that inhibit
such placements, using IDEA as justification. In the case of a deaf and hard of hearing
child such a practice is potentially harmful because of their unique language and
communication needs.

Was that the failure model u were referring to, FJ? Just wanted to make sure that I am understanding your point of view with this issue...
 
It provides full language and communication
access in ASL and English on campus. The approach at JMS brought to a full circle the
bilingual approach that was used at schools for deaf children in the 19th century.

For those who made inccorect claims that BiBi was a new approach when it wasnt.

It was used at the schools for deaf children in the 1800s but wasnt called "BiBi" but the practices are exactly the same.
 
Moreover, when
Melissa asked about JMS, she was actually told, "No, you don't want her [her daughter]
to go there! Don't you want her sent to TC? It has everything you could want." Moreover,
she was erroneously told that it was against JMS policy and philosophy to provide speech
services, and that children with cochlear implants were not allowed at JMS. Melissa was
told that her daughter could succeed in an oral classroom and that if she didn't then they
could consider moving her to a signing class. Melissa asked if the teacher would
understand the signs her daughter already had and was told that everybody at USD could
understand a little but they would never sign back and that within a short time, the
daughter would stop signing. Melissa was also told that if her daughter didn't learn to talk
by the time she was 3 or 4 she would never be able to learn (Jensen, 2007, personal
communication, name used with permission). This story, which happened in 2006, is
reflective of the history of bias that USD has, and of the continued bias currently still at
USD as a result of the history.


Tsk Tsk Tsk...:hmm:
 
shel90 said:
When discussing a deaf
student’s appropriate placement in the IEP meeting, there is no established legal
requirement that this student be assessed for communication and language proficiency or
provided services needed to ensure access to instruction (Siegel, 2005, p.7).

That's the problem
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if they don't assessed for proficiency, they don't get information regarding the delays, either.
 
shel90 said:
It provides full language and communication
access in ASL and English on campus. The approach at JMS brought to a full circle the
bilingual approach that was used at schools for deaf children in the 19th century.

For those who made inccorect claims that BiBi was a new approach when it wasnt.

It was used at the schools for deaf children in the 1800s but wasnt called "BiBi" but the practices are exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Bingo! How many times have we said it in the Deaf Ed threads?
 
While this is a reasonably complete paper, if one is truly interested in the history of deaf ed., I will be glad to refer to several published books that go into great detail.
 
shel90 said:
Families in Utah encounter many roadblocks when trying to have their child
enrolled in a special school because most districts have policies or practices that inhibit
such placements, using IDEA as justification. In the case of a deaf and hard of hearing
child such a practice is potentially harmful because of their unique language and
communication needs.

Was that the failure model u were referring to, FJ? Just wanted to make sure that I am understanding your point of view with this issue...
Click to expand...

Actually, the author mentions using IDEA as justification for not placing in special programs. That has nothing to do with delays or anything remotely resembling a "failure model", but is a reference to the LRE. We have discussed many times on this forum how the LRE is generally interpreted as meaning the home school district, and how that interpretation has a negative impact for the deaf child.
 
jillio said:
Actually, the author mentions using IDEA as justification for not placing in special programs. That has nothing to do with delays or anything remotely resembling a "failure model", but is a reference to the LRE. We have discussed many times on this forum how the LRE is generally interpreted as meaning the home school district, and how that interpretation has a negative impact for the deaf child.
Click to expand...

Yea, I understand that but I am trying to understand where FJ is coming from with this issue. Are people calling the LRE a failure model?
 
shel90 said:
Yea, I understand that but I am trying to understand where FJ is coming from with this issue. Are people calling the LRE a failure model?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm still not getting where that comes from, since it isn't a theory of education. The LRE is based on civil rights, not educational theory.:dunno2:
 
shel90 said:
It provides full language and communication
access in ASL and English on campus. The approach at JMS brought to a full circle the
bilingual approach that was used at schools for deaf children in the 19th century.

For those who made inccorect claims that BiBi was a new approach when it wasnt.

It was used at the schools for deaf children in the 1800s but wasnt called "BiBi" but the practices are exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Helen Keller started out in ASL, didn't she?
 
oh, whatever it was, it was her first language before she learned to speak. and she turned out pretty good.
 
jillio said:
I don't know. I'm still not getting where that comes from, since it isn't a theory of education. The LRE is based on civil rights, not educational theory.:dunno2:
Click to expand...

I am telling you that in Utah, services are NOT given until a child is delayed and as soon as they become age appropriate, the services are pulled and they are mainstreamed. The law is in the process of being fought, so that kids can get services.
 
faire_jour said:
I am telling you that in Utah, services are NOT given until a child is delayed and as soon as they become age appropriate, the services are pulled and they are mainstreamed. The law is in the process of being fought, so that kids can get services.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that you are lying but just that this is new stuff. That's a shame if Utah does that.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
what type of service are you talking about ?
Click to expand...

You can't be at the School for the Deaf if you are not delayed. They pull the IEP and then you have to be mainstreamed. You can have a 504, and accomadations, but not Teacher of the Deaf services or a placement at the Deaf school.
 
Back
Top