Oral school

[rick48]

Stop obseessing over FJ and what she is trying to accomplish for her daughter. She is trying to get a state school that recieves tax payer dollars to live up to the terms of the IEP that the school agreed to. The level of venom you are spewing is so hypocritical as you sued your school district and got them to pay for your son's tuition and education in another state! You did the same thing to Jackie about a year ago. We all know that if FJ was fighting for ASL related services you would be championing her cause.

Wow, FJ is trying to get the best possible services for her child and give her the opportunity to obtain a quality education in the best possible setting for Miss Kat---what a horrible parent! Imagine that, looking out for her child's best interests, what is she thinking!

It is this type of exchange and vendetta that is one of the main reasons why very few parents remain on this forum.

 

[jillio]

Stop obseessing over FJ and what she is trying to accomplish for her daughter. She is trying to get a state school that recieves tax payer dollars to live up to the terms of the IEP that the school agreed to. The level of venom you are spewing is so hypocritical as you sued your school district and got them to pay for your son's tuition and education in another state! You did the same thing to Jackie about a year ago. We all know that if FJ was fighting for ASL related services you would be championing her cause.

Wow, FJ is trying to get the best possible services for her child and give her the opportunity to obtain a quality education in the best possible setting for Miss Kat---what a horrible parent! Imagine that, looking out for her child's best interests, what is she thinking!

It is this type of exchange and vendetta that is one of the main reasons why very few parents remain on this forum.

You need to get your facts straight. I never claimed anything of the kind. But that is just more indication of your not reading thoroughly or of twisting words in an attempt to suit your agenda.

She is fighting the wrong battle. She is perfectly welcome to fight for whatever services she wants. She is not, however, entitled to force a school district to provide a specific methodology. If she wants AVT, she needs to change her child's placement. You can't have it both ways. And constant vacillation back and forth, as well as the obsession over AVT is decidedly not in the best interest of a child. FJ has options available to her. She needs to stop complaining about all the deficits, and the fact that no one program can be oral only and Bi-Bi at the same time because of differences in the foudational philosophy.

There are numerous parents on this forum.

 

[shel90]

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.

I meant about starting LA classes in spoken English only for those who have CIS or who are HOH. I was thinking of that when I suggested it to FJ.

All other classes are taught in ASL but just for reading and writing classes, the two different groups are split..one for ASL instruction and one for spoken English instruction but with sign support whenever the kids need clarification. I think it is a new trend to try to meet all the needs.

 

[jillio]

I meant about starting LA classes in spoken English only for those who have CIS or who are HOH. I was thinking of that when I suggested it to FJ.

All other classes are taught in ASL but just for reading and writing classes, the two different groups are split..one for ASL instruction and one for spoken English instruction but with sign support whenever the kids need clarification. I think it is a new trend to try to meet all the needs.

Ahh...gotcha. I misunderstood what you were referring to. I took it as AVT. I don't have a problem at all with English instuction supported with sign for LA. Some kids will do well in that environment. It is, in fact, an excellent compromise that does not violate the Bi-Bi philosophy because sign support is incorporated when needed for clarification, and the approach is restricted to LA classes. My objection is to an attempt to force a Bi-Bi school to provide AVT, or any other system that is not sign supported. That is an oral philosophy, not a bi-bi philosophy. If someone wants oral, it is available. No need to change a bi-bi environment.

 

[shel90]

Ahh...gotcha. I misunderstood what you were referring to. I took it as AVT. I don't have a problem at all with English instuction supported with sign for LA. Some kids will do well in that environment. It is, in fact, an excellent compromise that does not violate the Bi-Bi philosophy because sign support is incorporated when needed for clarification, and the approach is restricted to LA classes. My objection is to an attempt to force a Bi-Bi school to provide AVT, or any other system that is not sign supported. That is an oral philosophy, not a bi-bi philosophy. If someone wants oral, it is available. No need to change a bi-bi environment.

Right...that would go against the purpose of the BiBi philosophy. It is like demanding a Christian school teach the Koran! LOL!

 

[jillio]

Right...that would go against the purpose of the BiBi philosophy. It is like demanding a Christian school teach the Koran! LOL!

Exactly! I doubt you could find one that would agree to do that.

 

[rick48]

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

Her IEP calls for LISTENING, not speech.

What do you contend listening means? Are you seeking AVT services and if so, in what context?
Thanks
Rick

 

[faire_jour]

You need to get your facts straight. I never claimed anything of the kind. But that is just more indication of your not reading thoroughly or of twisting words in an attempt to suit your agenda.

She is fighting the wrong battle. She is perfectly welcome to fight for whatever services she wants. She is not, however, entitled to force a school district to provide a specific methodology. If she wants AVT, she needs to change her child's placement. You can't have it both ways. And constant vacillation back and forth, as well as the obsession over AVT is decidedly not in the best interest of a child. FJ has options available to her. She needs to stop complaining about all the deficits, and the fact that no one program can be oral only and Bi-Bi at the same time because of differences in the foudational philosophy.

There are numerous parents on this forum.

I am not asking for AVT. I am asking for listening therapy (aural rehab). I have repeatedly said that I do NOT want hearing peers OR an oral only enviroment.

Oh, and it is NOT a charter school. It was started, 10 years ago, as one, but has since forfeited control and merged with the School for the Deaf.

 

[faire_jour]

Ahh...gotcha. I misunderstood what you were referring to. I took it as AVT. I don't have a problem at all with English instuction supported with sign for LA. Some kids will do well in that environment. It is, in fact, an excellent compromise that does not violate the Bi-Bi philosophy because sign support is incorporated when needed for clarification, and the approach is restricted to LA classes. My objection is to an attempt to force a Bi-Bi school to provide AVT, or any other system that is not sign supported. That is an oral philosophy, not a bi-bi philosophy. If someone wants oral, it is available. No need to change a bi-bi environment.

And what do you think about the bi-bi schools that have spoken language classes? MSSD has a whole spoken language "track". Why is ok for some bi-bi schools to over appropriate services for children with access to spoken language, but NOT ok for others?

 

[faire_jour]

What do you contend listening means? Are you seeking AVT services and if so, in what context?
Thanks
Rick

I am seeking aural rehab during pull-out therapy time.

 

[shel90]

I am seeking aural rehab during pull-out therapy time.

So to make sure that I am not confused...u want the SLP to refrain from signing during speech therapy so Miss Kat can practice her listening skills?

 

[faire_jour]

So to make sure that I am not confused...u want the SLP to refrain from signing during speech therapy so Miss Kat can practice her listening skills?

If she is working on auditory discrimination, yes. How are you supposed to judge if she is hearing the difference between "cut" and "kite" if you sign them both?

 

[shel90]

If she is working on auditory discrimination, yes. How are you supposed to judge if she is hearing the difference between "cut" and "kite" if you sign them both?

Ok gotcha..

 

[rick48]

I am seeking aural rehab during pull-out therapy time.

Thanks, I thought that was what you had said numerous times! But then you are only the child's mother, who would think to question that you not only know what is in your child's IEP but also the type of school she attends?

 

[faire_jour]

Thanks, I thought that was what you had said numerous times! But then you are only the child's mother, who would think to question that you not only know what is in your child's IEP but also the type of school she attends?

I do find it ironic that her school has been so rigerously defended JUST because it uses ASL. It could be the worst school in the nation for all anyone knows (it's not but still...)

 

[jillio]

I am not asking for AVT. I am asking for listening therapy (aural rehab). I have repeatedly said that I do NOT want hearing peers OR an oral only enviroment.

Oh, and it is NOT a charter school. It was started, 10 years ago, as one, but has since forfeited control and merged with the School for the Deaf.

Just because it has merged with the school for the deaf does not mean that it has not retained it's charter status. Many charter schools are affiliated with a public district. That doesn't mean that they don't have charter status under the board of education.

You have said those things repeatedly. Then you have turned right around and said those things repeatedly. That is the problem. You waffle back and forth. You, for instance will say that you want her to be in school with signing deaf students for communication and social reasons, then will turn right around and say that you want her with hearing kids and non-signing environments because you don't see how she will ever develop oral skill in a silent evironment during the school day. In fact, it was just a short while ago that you were going to move her to an oral only environment academically because you believed she needed to be around hearing people and speech all the time. Now you have reversed that position once again, after having reversed it from a strong bi-bi position after she received her CI. It's back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.

 

[jillio]

If she is working on auditory discrimination, yes. How are you supposed to judge if she is hearing the difference between "cut" and "kite" if you sign them both?

There you go. Non-sign supported aural rehab. The very definition of AVT. Call it what you will. It is still demanding that a bi-bi school not use sign in this selected instance. Totally against the philosophy to deny sign on a bi-bi campus.

 

[rick48]

Most of all, the main point is being missed that you are just asking them to comply with the terms of the IEP they agreed to.

Again, I caution you to think about whether the fight is worth it. Will they ultimately "provide" the service but in a wholely ineffective manor? Are you better off starting with the school where you think she might ultimately wind up and working with that Administration?

 

[jillio]

I do find it ironic that her school has been so rigerously defended JUST because it uses ASL. It could be the worst school in the nation for all anyone knows (it's not but still...)

It is defended because it is the appropriate placement for the children that are there. If a parent decides that this is no longer the appropriate placement for their child, then it is incumbant upon that parent to change the child's placement: not to interfere with the environment that is appropriate for the remainder of the students. Don't want your child in a sign supported environment, don't place them there. And if you do place them there, don't attempt to change it to an oral environment.

Quite frankly, this is a repeat of history. The hearing attempting to change what is already working for the deaf.

 

[jillio]

Thanks, I thought that was what you had said numerous times! But then you are only the child's mother, who would think to question that you not only know what is in your child's IEP but also the type of school she attends?

Pull out aural rehab that is not supported by sign. Yeppers, that's AVT. And the mother has every option of placing her child in a school that provides just that. Having her in a bi-bi program is a choice. And, you obviously don't realize this, but having her in a bi-bi program is seen as meeting her needs, which in turn, fulfills the obligation under the ADA, and IDEA. She is being provided accommodation. And FJ has repeatedly said that academically, she is above age group. Therefore, her goals are being met. She has also posted, on numerous occasions, that her daughter hears and comprehends speech. Therefore, listening goals are being met.