Oral school

[deafdyke]

Exactly. The whole philosophy behind AVT is an oppostion to any manual language at all. The hard core AVTers won't even permit a child to lip read, and will cover their mouth or turn their head away to prevent the child reading lips during therapy.

Yes, I know that. It's also very hardcore " therapy 24/7" " therapy as lifestyle.
That said, I think that some tenants of AVT can be used in spoken language therapy sessions for dhh kids. I'm not against the therapy techniques....even some "learning to listen" techniques are useful.....I just think that the whole AVT therapy 24/7 thing is overkill.....NOT attacking some one on one therapy.
However the hardcore practitioners seem to think that if some therapy is good....24/7 therapy will be even better.
And faire_jour family is important.......but on the other hand, it's a lot of fun to travel to see grandparents.

 

[jillio]

Yes, I know that. It's also very hardcore " therapy 24/7" " therapy as lifestyle.
That said, I think that some tenants of AVT can be used in spoken language therapy sessions for dhh kids. I'm not against the therapy techniques....even some "learning to listen" techniques are useful.....I just think that the whole AVT therapy 24/7 thing is overkill.....NOT attacking some one on one therapy.
However the hardcore practitioners seem to think that if some therapy is good....24/7 therapy will be even better.
And faire_jour family is important.......but on the other hand, it's a lot of fun to travel to see grandparents.

Agreed. AVT is not just a therapeutic technique. It is a philosophy that incorporates every waking moment and every part of a child's environment. If you remove the parts of AVT that require it as a lifestyle, what you have left is simply aural-oral rehab. However, aural-oral rehab, with the vast majority of practitioners, do not disallow visual cues, and in fact, use visual cues to enhance therapy and functioning. Aural-oral rehab does not fall into a direct opposition with various educational philosophies. And I also agree that those who support AVT fall into the category of believing that if some is good, more is better. That is rarely the case in real life. Anything taken to extremes creates a harmful situation.

 

[faire_jour]

Agreed. AVT is not just a therapeutic technique. It is a philosophy that incorporates every waking moment and every part of a child's environment. If you remove the parts of AVT that require it as a lifestyle, what you have left is simply aural-oral rehab. However, aural-oral rehab, with the vast majority of practitioners, do not disallow visual cues, and in fact, use visual cues to enhance therapy and functioning. Aural-oral rehab does not fall into a direct opposition with various educational philosophies. And I also agree that those who support AVT fall into the category of believing that if some is good, more is better. That is rarely the case in real life. Anything taken to extremes creates a harmful situation.

Interesting, because when I said that I wanted aural rehab, you said that it was my responsibilty and that I had no right to ask the school to do that, and that it is against their philosophy. I think you compaired it to Hebrew and Catholic school

 

[jillio]

Interesting, because when I said that I wanted aural rehab, you said that it was my responsibilty and that I had no right to ask the school to do that, and that it is against their philosophy. I think you compaired it to Hebrew and Catholic school

You are requesting AVT. You don't want any signing from the SLP. Quite a different situation. Likewise, I did not say that aural rehab was not in opposition of a Bi-Bi philosophy, and that is where your daughter is currently placed. I said "various educational philosophies." It is not in opposition to a TC philosophy, it is not in opposition to an oral philosophy, it is not in opposition to a mainstreamed philosophy.

And I stand by my statement. If you want additional services that are not provided by the educational philosophy of the school in which she is currently enrolled, then it is your responsibility to obtain them. Or change her placement. Either one. Or both. But when a school is set up as a BI-BI school, and you know that when you enroll her, and they provide services in direct agreement with their philosophy, you do not have the right to demand that they provide services in another way.

 

[faire_jour]

You are requesting AVT.

No, I'm requesting "appropraite pull outs to meet the goals in her IEP". That is what I wrote in my letter to the school. Her IEP contains listening goals, so that would mean she would need some kind of aural rehab

You don't want any signing from the SLP.

I also never said that. I said that in an auditory discrimination test it would be counter productive to sign. If you are trying to see if she can hear the difference between "boot" and "boat" and you sign them both, how do you know if she heard the difference???

Quite a different situation. Likewise, I did not say that aural rehab was not in opposition of a Bi-Bi philosophy, and that is where your daughter is currently placed. I said "various educational philosophies." It is not in opposition to a TC philosophy, it is not in opposition to an oral philosophy, it is not in opposition to a mainstreamed philosophy.

And I stand by my statement. If you want additional services that are not provided by the educational philosophy of the school in which she is currently enrolled, then it is your responsibility to obtain them. Or change her placement. Either one. Or both. But when a school is set up as a BI-BI school, and you know that when you enroll her, and they provide services in direct agreement with their philosophy, you do not have the right to demand that they provide services in another way.

I contend that if the goals are in her IEP, they must provide the services.

 

[rick48]

I contend that if the goals are in her IEP, they must provide the services.

You are correct. If its in the IEP then its up to the school, not the parents, to provide the services. Still, think about the situation you are in, you have a school that does not want to accomodate your daughter's needs even though they have contractually and legally agreed to do so. However, if you force their hand (no pun intended) and they provide the service, will they do so at a level that actually benefits your daughter? You may have won the battle but your daughter will lose the war.

This bi-bi school does not sound like a school that puts the interests of its students first and foremost but is more concerned with preserving their "philosophy" at the expense of students such as Miss Kat. My two cents, for what its worth, is to consider moving her now to the school/program where you ultimately want her to be. It will probably be more beneficial to all if you work with that school to build the program that best suits her needs then to continue to fight with an uncompromising school that is not where you ultimately want her to be.
Good Luck,
Rick

 

[jillio]

I contend that if the goals are in her IEP, they must provide the services.

You can contend it all you want to. Goals don't address the specific methodology that will be used to reach those goals, nor is it a guarantee that those goals will ever be reached. The goals are simply an achievement level to shoot for.

 

[jillio]

You are correct. If its in the IEP then its up to the school, not the parents, to provide the services. Still, think about the situation you are in, you have a school that does not want to accomodate your daughter's needs even though they have contractually and legally agreed to do so. However, if you force their hand (no pun intended) and they provide the service, will they do so at a level that actually benefits your daughter? You may have won the battle but your daughter will lose the war.

Actually, this is incorrect. The school is a bi-bi school and they have contracted to provide services under a bi-bi philosophy. They are doing just that. If a parent disagrees with the fundamental philosophy of this school, the options remain open of moving her to an oral environment where she will receive the AVT that the parent deems necessary, or to a mainstream environment. A parent does not have the right anywhere under the ADA or IDEA to dictate methodology. IDEA provides for "reasonable accommodation". That has been made by virtue of the bi-bi environment.

This bi-bi school does not sound like a school that puts the interests of its students first and foremost but is more concerned with preserving their "philosophy" at the expense of students such as Miss Kat. My two cents, for what its worth, is to consider moving her now to the school/program where you ultimately want her to be. It will probably be more beneficial to all if you work with that school to build the program that best suits her needs then to continue to fight with an uncompromising school that is not where you ultimately want her to be.
Good Luck,
Rick

To vere from that philosophy would compromise the best interest of the students that are there specifically for the bi-bi educational placement. There are other options available to this parent. If she does not agree with the philosophy of the charter school, she has other options available to her. The charter school was started with the specific intent of providing a bi-bi environment for its students. The parent chose to enroll her there knowing full well what the purpose of the charter school was. If she disagrees with the intent of the charter school, she is perfectly free to withdraw her daughter and place her elsewhere. But she cannot force the entire school to change it's intent and it's mission.

 

[jillio]

What are Charter Schools?

Charter Schools are schools of choice. Choice to parents, students, teachers, and administrators. Parents and students get to choose to enroll in a school that may offer a unique learning environment, alternative learning methodologies, etc. Teachers and administrators get more authority to make decisions than most traditional public schools. Basically, these schools are free from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools.

 

[rick48]

No, actually I am correct. If a school agrees to an IEP then they are bound to provide the services agreed to or they will be subject to liability and damages to the child for the services they are denying.

This is not about forcing the school to change its "philosophy", a point on which I agree with you, but rather expecting this school to honor the terms of the IEP which it agreed to with the parents and the child.

If the school administrators did not read nor understand the terms of the IEP which they signed, then Miss Kat should not have to suffer for their stupidity and/or negligence. They must provide the services they agreed to provide.

Again, from FJ's posts it is my belief that it is clear that this school does not value Miss Kat's bests interests over their "philosophy" and that is why I opined that it is best to consider moving her at this point. This is yet another in a long line of examples of parents who fight to get services placed into their child's IEP only to realize that the real battle has just begun to get the school to properly administer and provide those services.

 

[rick48]

You can contend it all you want to. Goals don't address the specific methodology that will be used to reach those goals, nor is it a guarantee that those goals will ever be reached. The goals are simply an achievement level to shoot for.

Again, not accurate. Many parents have their children's IEPs drafted so that the goals incorporate the methodolgy to be used. For instance, our daughter's IEP specifically stated that the goal of developing her oral language skills were to include speech and language therapy by a certified S&L therapist who had experience with children with cochlear implants. If properly drafted and then advocated, you can combine goals with methodolgy to serve your child's best interests.

 

[jillio]

No, actually I am correct. If a school agrees to an IEP then they are bound to provide the services agreed to or they will be subject to liability and damages to the child for the services they are denying.

This is not about forcing the school to change its "philosophy", a point on which I agree with you, but rather expecting this school to honor the terms of the IEP which it agreed to with the parents and the child.

If the school administrators did not read nor understand the terms of the IEP which they signed, then Miss Kat should not have to suffer for their stupidity and/or negligence. They must provide the services they agreed to provide.

Again, from FJ's posts it is my belief that it is clear that this school does not value Miss Kat's bests interests over their "philosophy" and that is why I opined that it is best to consider moving her at this point. This is yet another in a long line of examples of parents who fight to get services placed into their child's IEP only to realize that the real battle has just begun to get the school to properly administer and provide those services.

The school has not agreed to provide AVT. That is the whole point.:roll:

And, since this is a charter school, you might want to check your legal standing on what you are claiming.

Then FJ has the option of moving her child to a different school. To date, she has not found one that will meet all of her considerable demands, and the chances are nil that she ever will. The parent does not determine whether the services are being properly administered. If the IEP calls for speech therapy, then the school provides the speech therapy under their current provisions. A parent cannot tell the school which speech therapist to hire, nor what technique that speech therapist is to use.

 

[jillio]

Again, not accurate. Many parents have their children's IEPs drafted so that the goals incorporate the methodolgy to be used. For instance, our daughter's IEP specifically stated that the goal of developing her oral language skills were to include speech and language therapy by a certified S&L therapist who had experience with children with cochlear implants. If properly drafted and then advocated, you can combine goals with methodolgy to serve your child's best interests.

That is not dictating methodology. The school that FJ's daughter is enrolled in is already providing services by a certified SLP. No where do you, nor any other parent, have the right to dictate the methodology used by that SLP. And according to your post, you did not even attempt to dictate methodology. You simply requested a certified SLP. That has nothing to do with methodology.

And again, your daughter did not attend a charter school that has a specific intent. That is a very different situation from having a child in a mainstream environment. Let me re-post this for you:

What are Charter Schools?

Charter Schools are schools of choice. Choice to parents, students, teachers, and administrators. Parents and students get to choose to enroll in a school that may offer a unique learning environment, alternative learning methodologies, etc. Teachers and administrators get more authority to make decisions than most traditional public schools. Basically, these schools are free from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools.

 

[rick48]

The school has not agreed to provide AVT. That is the whole point.:roll:

And, since this is a charter school, you might want to check your legal standing on what you are claiming.

Then FJ has the option of moving her child to a different school. To date, she has not found one that will meet all of her considerable demands, and the chances are nil that she ever will. The parent does not determine whether the services are being properly administered. If the IEP calls for speech therapy, then the school provides the speech therapy under their current provisions. A parent cannot tell the school which speech therapist to hire, nor what technique that speech therapist is to use.

The whole point is that the school must comply with the IEP. I will defer to FJ who has actual knowledge of her daughter's IEP and if she says the goal is in there, that is good enough for me.

Whether a school is or is not a charter school is meaningless if they have agreed to an IEP then they are bound by its terms.

 

[shel90]

Nope, no parent has the right to dictate on how a school shud be run or who shud be hired etc BUT a parent CAN work with the school by making suggestions and work TOGETHER. If neither one is not able to work together, then u do what u feel is right for u and your daughter.

I know u want both..maybe start out with small steps instead of a total overhaul. Maybe inform her school about oracy?

 

[jillio]

The whole point is that the school must comply with the IEP. I will defer to FJ who has actual knowledge of her daughter's IEP and if she says the goal is in there, that is good enough for me.

Whether a school is or is not a charter school is meaningless if they have agreed to an IEP then they are bound by its terms.

And the IEP does not state that AVT is to be provided. That has already been determined. The goals have nothing to do with it. AVT is not a goal.

 

[jillio]

Nope, no parent has the right to dictate on how a school shud be run or who shud be hired etc BUT a parent CAN work with the school by making suggestions and work TOGETHER. If neither one is not able to work together, then u do what u feel is right for u and your daughter.

I know u want both..maybe start out with small steps instead of a total overhaul. Maybe inform her school about oracy?

They are already addressing oracy. They have an SLP. She is getting speech therapy. But the bi-bi charter school will not put in the IEP that they will provide AVT. And they have every right not to put it in the IEP. This is a charter school already set up to fufill a specific intent regarding deaf education. They are what they are. A parent cannot force them to become the same as an oral program. They are an alternative to the oral program. They serve deaf students in a specific way, and to compromise that would risk their charter.

 

[deafbajagal]

I think maybe or sometimes. It all depends. Each individual is... well .. individual. One size doesn't fit all.

I agree.

 

[faire_jour]

The school has not agreed to provide AVT. That is the whole point.:roll:

And, since this is a charter school, you might want to check your legal standing on what you are claiming.

Then FJ has the option of moving her child to a different school. To date, she has not found one that will meet all of her considerable demands, and the chances are nil that she ever will. The parent does not determine whether the services are being properly administered. If the IEP calls for speech therapy, then the school provides the speech therapy under their current provisions. A parent cannot tell the school which speech therapist to hire, nor what technique that speech therapist is to use.

They are not a charter school. They are part of the State school for the Deaf.

Her IEP calls for LISTENING, not speech.

 

[jillio]

They are not a charter school. They are part of the State school for the Deaf.

Her IEP calls for LISTENING, not speech.

That doesn't mean that they are not a charter school. And listening is a goal. It does not specify the methodology used to obtain that goal, and that is what you are trying to dictate.

You know, you really do need to just pull her out of school and do it yourself. Obviously, there is not a programin existence anywhere in this country that can fulfill your demands.

You really have no idea how lucky you should consider yourself. You have any number of options to choose from regarding schooling. The vast majority of parents of deaf children have a single option available in their home district. They are forced to either move to an area that actually has specialized placement, or accept a mainstream placement with a terp. The lucky ones have a self contained classroom within an hour of their home school. This constant whining of yours over not having everything your way is really beginning to be annoying. You need to wake up and realize exactly how good you've got it, and be grateful for the choice and the variety of services that are available to you.

You are obsessive about to have it all. You want your daughter to be Deaf, you want your daughter to be hearing, you want your daughter to be a native signer, you want your daughter to a native oral language user, you want your daughter to have a signing environment, you want your daughter to have an oral only environment, you want your daughter to have deaf classmates, you want your daughter to have hearing classmates. What you are asking for is a perfect world, and one just doesn't exist. For your daughter's sake, make a decision and stick with it. Allow her to be a kid and enjoy her school years. Continue in this way and her deafness is going to be the least of your concerns.

No offense intended, but it's the same thing over and over and over. Nothing is ever good enough. Raisiing a deaf kid is so hard. Welcome to reality.