Implants changing life for Modesto girl born deaf

deafdyke said:
What she means is that why can't she simply have her kid go to Auditory Verbal Therapy (covered by insurance as part of rehab with a CI) or see a speech therapist affliated with California School for the Deaf?
Click to expand...

I can not speak to California school for the Deaf, but my states Bi-bi school does NOT have speech therapist who are experienced and trained to work with children acquiring spoken language through cochlear implants. Also, it is extrememly difficult to find any therapist privatly who has ever worked with a deaf child, especially one who has CI's. And, many insurances don't cover therapy at all, let alone an AVT.

Again, my question remains, if the placement is the only appropriate, least restrictive enviroment, why shouldn't the child be allowed to go there? Califonia School for the Deaf is paid for by tax payers, and it is extremely expensive. Each student that attends the school is being funded by the tax payers, why is this different?
 
everyone have their own idea of how they want their child to be raised. I'm afraid that the gov't think public school is good enough for kids with CI if they are not accepted in deaf school. And they do provide speech therapy. Afterall, it is a gov't school available for everyone. There are schools who are trained to handle deaf people with hearing aids and CI (including speech). They have been doing it for years. You can always have an oral interpreter at a bi-bi school if you could if you want her to be exposed to spoken language daily.

When people get picky, that's when they turn to private schools. We all want the "best" for our child.
 
Last edited:
can not speak to California school for the Deaf, but my states Bi-bi school does NOT have speech therapist who are experienced and trained to work with children acquiring spoken language through cochlear implants. Also, it is extrememly difficult to find any therapist privatly who has ever worked with a deaf child, especially one who has CI's. And, many insurances don't cover therapy at all, let alone an AVT.
Click to expand...
California School for the Deaf is HUGE. Most established and sizable schools and programs for the dhh (not just oral) offer pretty decent speech therapy. (with speech therapists who are very experianced in teaching dhh kids)
And many insurances DO cover AVT as part of rehab for CI.
 
A said:
everyone have their own idea of how they want their child to be raised. I'm afraid that the gov't think public school is good enough for kids with CI if they are not accepted in deaf school. And they do provide speech therapy. Afterall, it is a gov't school available for everyone. There are schools who are trained to handle deaf people with hearing aids and CI (including speech). They have been doing it for years. You can always have an oral interpreter at a bi-bi school if you could if you want her to be exposed to spoken language daily.

When people get picky, that's when they turn to private schools. We all want the "best" for our child.
Click to expand...

It's nice to think that bi-bi school would be a suitable place for a child to learn and use spoken language, but in my experience that just isn't true. Spoken language is not allowed in the classroom, and I have never heard of a spoken language interpreter being used at a bi-bi school either. If a parent wants a child to learn and use spoken language and not ASL, a Deaf school is NOT the right placement.

Why is ok for an ASL user to be allowed to spend thosands of tax payer dollars but an oral kid can't?
 
deafdyke said:
California School for the Deaf is HUGE. Most established and sizable schools and programs for the dhh (not just oral) offer pretty decent speech therapy. (with speech therapists who are very experianced in teaching dhh kids)
And many insurances DO cover AVT as part of rehab for CI.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about "decent speech therapy" for an ASL using kid. I'm talking about appropriate aural habilitation for a spoken language using implanted child. Those are two polar opposite things.
 
they do have it in public school for the deaf. A lot of deaf kids in public school wear hearing aids, have mild/moderate hearing loss, and CI. Do I recommend it? No. But if they want balance their budget, that's what they are going to do ... separate those who can do fine in a mainstream setting from those who can't.
 
A said:
they do have it in public school for the deaf. A lot of deaf kids in public school wear hearing aids, have mild/moderate hearing loss, and CI. Do I recommend it? No. But if they want balance their budget, that's what they are going to do ... separate those who can do fine in a mainstream setting from those who can't.
Click to expand...

But I think that all deaf children deserve the specialized education that the law requires they get. They deserve to have deaf peers, teachers who understand their needs, and to communicate in their mode of communication.
 
I thought that's what self contained class are for, remember, those classes have all sort of hearing level students.

like I said, private schools are for parents who are picky about the way mainstream handle certain kids.

but yeah, the gov't should cover it, but you have to be aware that when parents put their kids in, they may demand their rights to keep their kids there because it is funded by the gov't
 
A said:
I thought that's what self contained class are for, remember, those classes have all sort of hearing level students.

like I said, private schools are for parents who are picky about the way mainstream handle certain kids.

but yeah, the gov't should cover it, but you have to be aware that when parents put their kids in, they may demand their rights to keep their kids there because it is funded by the gov't
Click to expand...

And if there are no oral self contained classes? Then would a private school placement be appropriate? A school district wouldn't contract out if they had a placement. If they are willing to pay, they clearly don't.
 
faire_jour said:
And if there are no oral self contained classes? Then would a private school placemnt be appropriate?
Click to expand...

people don't like being discriminated. So when a private school get funded by the gov't, it sometimes lose it purpose of why they started the school in the first place. Deaf kids may come there (because they have CI) and use ASL . Oral school discourage that.The parents may say their kids have CI, and this is a gov't funded school so they have the rights to stay and be with their deaf friends.
 
A said:
people don't like being discriminated. So when a private school get funded by the gov't, it sometimes lose it purpose of why they started the school in the first place. Deaf kids may come there (because they have CI) and use ASL . Oral school discourage that.The parents may say their kids have CI, and this is a gov't funded school so they have the rights to stay and be with their deaf friends.
Click to expand...

The school district is required by law to provide a placement for a child that is the "least restrictive enviroment". If the school district can not provide that placement they must pay for the child to attend another placement. In my daughter's case that meant bussing her to another district to attend the bi-bi school. In another case that could mean paying for a residental student to attend a state school for the Deaf. In some cases it has been argued that a private school is the only appropriate placement. Why? Because the child would have access to professionals who understand and can work with deaf students, and they can provide the services the child needs to reach their IEP goals. The child must be in a placement that can help the child reach their IEP goals.
 
And you don't think CI kids who use ASL belong there?
 
A said:
Those private schools who use AVT
Click to expand...

It depends on the goals for the child. It very well could be a VERY restrictive enviroment instead of "least restrictive". If the family wants a spoken language outcome and they don't want ASL in the child's educational enviroment, then it could be a good placement fit. If instead they want ASL everyday in class, then no, it's not a good placement.
 
this whole thing is causing too much division among the deaf/HH. No wonder most gov't don't cover it.
 
Middle school is social hell. It's hard enough just to be in middle school. Any kid who is different in any way suffers. I wonder if parents have forgotten what middle school was like. The most awkward years! I just survived my first kid's middle school years. High school has been much better!
 
sallylou said:
Middle school is social hell. It's hard enough just to be in middle school. Any kid who is different in any way suffers. I wonder if parents have forgotten what middle school was like. The most awkward years! I just survived my first kid's middle school years. High school has been much better!
Click to expand...

This family in the article is talking about just preschool and maybe kindergarten. Most oral schools don't go beyond kindergarten.
 
It's nice to think that bi-bi school would be a suitable place for a child to learn and use spoken language, but in my experience that just isn't true. Spoken language is not allowed in the classroom, and I have never heard of a spoken language interpreter being used at a bi-bi school either. If a parent wants a child to learn and use spoken language and not ASL, a Deaf school is NOT the right placement.

Why is ok for an ASL user to be allowed to spend thosands of tax payer dollars but an oral kid can't?
Click to expand...
Just b/c you had a negative experiance with a limited funded bi-bi Deaf School, it does NOT mean that ALL bi-bi Deaf Schools have poor speech therapy services. Most established and sizable Deaf Schools have experianced speech therapists....including ones who are somewhat experianced in teaching listening skills to CI kids.
Were you aware that there are actally some ORAL classes at some Deaf Schools?
The ONLY reason why they couldn't take advantage of the stuff at California School for the Deaf is b/c it's not a 24/7 oral eternal speech therapy session.
In other words, it's not "name brand" ...........
The difference is simple.......Why the HELL should we as taxpayers have to pay for someone who only wants a name brand education for their kid? It's like having to pay for a kid to go to a high school where the grads go to Harvard or Princeton or another Name Brand School, when their neighborhood school is perfectly fine.
California taxpayers ALREADY have California School for the deaf as a resource. The only reason why the mom wants the private school placement is b/c she wants therapy 24/7. Public money should NOT go to private enterprise!
 
Back
Top