Parents want hearing school to get state funding

I never said that private school should be allowed when there is an appropriate program available. I said over and over that schools should, and do, pay for private schools when an appropriate placement is NOT available.

And, again, that has virtually nothing to do with this case. Appropriate placement is available. The parents just don't want it; they want a private placement. And all along, you have argued that the taxpayers should be held responsible for paying this child's tuition because that is what the parents want.
 
Here we go again. You have been dealing with these issues for what? Four years or so? As a parent, not a professional. Shel was educated in an oral system, has a Master Degree in Deaf Ed., has worked in the field for many years, and yet you are trying to tell the expert what deaf ed is and isn't.:roll:

Then she should know how profoundly different an oral deaf education is than a mainstream education. Just because someone uses the same language does not make the strategies, emphasis, and techniques the same. If it was the same there would be no such thing as a oral teacher of the deaf and there would be no need for their degrees.
 
And, again, that has virtually nothing to do with this case. Appropriate placement is available. The parents just don't want it; they want a private placement. And all along, you have argued that the taxpayers should be held responsible for paying this child's tuition because that is what the parents want.

I never said that, read again. I said OVER and OVER that a private school placement should be allowed if there is no appropriate LRE available.
 
Then she should know how profoundly different an oral deaf education is than a mainstream education. Just because someone uses the same language does not make the strategies, emphasis, and techniques the same. If it was the same there would be no such thing as a oral teacher of the deaf and there would be no need for their degrees.

She does know. You are simply assuming she doesn't. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, FJ. You might want to wait until you have gone back to school and earned at least a Bachelor in Deaf Ed before you try correcting someone like Shel that is a professional in the field and deaf, as well.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I am referring to when I talk about hearing parents discounting the experiences of the deaf and the people who have worked in the field for years.
 
did it happen in USA? If so, any information about it like links?

I d like to see parents to win the case if the case is vaild.

I think it wrong for the parents to want tax payers to pay for their child to go to private school. What about the people that have their own kids and they can't afford to send their children to private school and they have house to pay for. I am a tax payer and I would not want to pay for a child to go to private school when my child did not go to one. The parents need to pay for it. I am sorry their child need help , but if the state pay for this child , there will more parents wanting the state to pay for their child too.
And this could open the state to be sue if they say 'no' to the next child.
 
Wirelessly posted

If the state does not offer a full spectrum of placements for deaf children, they should have to pay for an appropriate private placement.

Wirelessly posted

Actually DD it is about that. the state is required to provide a variety of placements so the deaf child can be placed in the least restrictive enviroment.

also, ag bell DOES offer scholarships to kids of all ages.

A mainstream enviroment is more restrictive for an oral deaf student because they do not have a teacher who understands the needs of deaf students and they are not around deaf peers. This sort of placement can easily be the least restrictive enviroment, and if the IEP determines that, the school should pay. There needs to be a contium of placements available, not just one deaf school or the mainstream.

Are you saying that if there is NOT a self contained classroom available, in the child's language, or that if the school is unwilling to fund sending the child to the other approved school, they would be wrong? If those options are not available to a family, what should the school offer?

I'm postive. I'm sitting in St. Lois right now. They are private schools to which the districts pay the tution because they can not provide an appropriate placement. The law clearly allows for public districts to pay for private school placements if they can not provide appropriate services.

Yes it does. Schools contract with private schools everyday when they can not provide appropriate services.

Ruling 2

Why not? It shows that if the school can not provide an appropriate placement they must pay for a private placement.

The law doesn't support your position. If the school can not provide an appropriate placement for a special needs student, they have to pay for one. It happens all the time, with deaf kids, those with autism, and other situations.


Nope, there is case law to back up districts paying for a PRIVATE option, if a suitable LRE is not available. Sorry that you don't like it, but it happens every single day.


I never claimed that they should pay for a private school unless another appropriate option is not available.
 
I think it wrong for the parents to want tax payers to pay for their child to go to private school. What about the people that have their own kids and they can't afford to send their children to private school and they have house to pay for. I am a tax payer and I would not want to pay for a child to go to private school when my child did not go to one. The parents need to pay for it. I am sorry their child need help , but if the state pay for this child , there will more parents wanting the state to pay for their child too.
And this could open the state to be sue if they say 'no' to the next child.

They only pay for it in a situation where the school can not provide a free and appropriate education, which is guaranteed to every handicapped child.
 
I never claimed that they should pay for a private school unless another appropriate option is not available.

I have read all of your posts, FJ. You have consistently stated that the taxpayers should be paying for this child's private placement. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that services are already available for this child. Therefore, private placement in this case is parental choice. You seem to have gotten so hung up on trying to make a point about oral ed that you are missing the crux of the matter here.
 
They only pay for it in a situation where the school can not provide a free and appropriate education, which is guaranteed to every handicapped child.

And that is not the case here. And, that would be child with a disability, not "handicapped child".
 
And that is not the case here. And, that would be child with a disability, not "handicapped child".

I apologize for my momentary lapse in political correctness. The language of the law was changed in 1990 to IDEA and they use the wording individuals with a disability instead of "handicapped children" from PL 94-142
 
I have read all of your posts, FJ. You have consistently stated that the taxpayers should be paying for this child's private placement. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that services are already available for this child. Therefore, private placement in this case is parental choice. You seem to have gotten so hung up on trying to make a point about oral ed that you are missing the crux of the matter here.

I have consistantly stated that a private placement should be paid for when there is no other appropriate placement for the child.

Again, and again,and again
 
I have consistantly stated that a private placement should be paid for when there is no other appropriate placement for the child.

Again, and again,and again

Then what exactly are you arguing with everyone about? There is appropriate placement for this child. Which means the taxpayers should not be paying for her private placement. That is exactly what everyone is saying, and you are continuing to argue. So what is your argument about?
 
Then what exactly are you arguing with everyone about? There is appropriate placement for this child. Which means the taxpayers should not be paying for her private placement. That is exactly what everyone is saying, and you are continuing to argue. So what is your argument about?

People are saying that a private placement should never be paid for. I disagree. It is the law that a free and appropriate education must be given to each child, and sometimes that means that the public school must pay tution for a private school for a particular child. It has nothing to do with be overly "intitled" or being "selfish brats" as you have claimed, it is about provide what the child has the legal right to, a free and appropriate education in their least restrictive enviroment.
 
People are saying that a private placement should never be paid for. I disagree. It is the law that a free and appropriate education must be given to each child, and sometimes that means that the public school must pay tution for a private school for a particular child. It has nothing to do with be overly "intitled" or being "selfish brats" as you have claimed, it is about provide what the child has the legal right to, a free and appropriate education in their least restrictive enviroment.

That isn't what people are saying. People are saying that a private placement should not be paid for just because that is what a parent wants when there are other options available to that parent and child. The child has a placement that would fulfill the "free and appropriate" clause.

And it is about entitlement and selfishness. I'll ask you again...where do you think all the other EI children go to once they are finished at Clarke? Where do you think this child's classmates will go? They will go to one of the placements that are available. Obviously, these programs are fulfilling the requirements under the ADA.

See? You are continuing to argue for this case of payment for private placement. This is about this child, and this child only.
 
That isn't what people are saying. People are saying that a private placement should not be paid for just because that is what a parent wants when there are other options available to that parent and child. The child has a placement that would fulfill the "free and appropriate" clause.

And it is about entitlement and selfishness. I'll ask you again...where do you think all the other EI children go to once they are finished at Clarke? Where do you think this child's classmates will go? They will go to one of the placements that are available. Obviously, these programs are fulfilling the requirements under the ADA.

The kid in the story is being mainstreamed and the parents are happy about it.

Some stay, I'm sure, others find another placement and some are mainstreamed.

I'm talking about the entire issue, not just this specific parent. I never said that this child should remain at Clarke and have the state pay for it.
 
The kid in the story is being mainstreamed and the parents are happy about it.

Some stay, I'm sure, others find another placement and some are mainstreamed.

I'm talking about the entire issue, not just this specific parent.

You need to go back and read the story. The parents are trying to have Clarke put on the list of approved private schools because they are not happy about her being mainstreamed.

This thread is about this specific case. You are going in circles trying to make some obscure point about oral deaf ed in general that doesn't pertain to this thread at all.

Here is the issue: parents with a profoundly deaf child that insist on an oral only environment. They are upset that Clarke is not an APS. The believe that the should have the option of using Clarke as a private placement and the state should pay for it. Even when other resources are available in the immediate area. The Dept. of Ed. says that Clarke will not be placed on the APS list because the funding is not available, and to fund tuition to Clarke would mean cutting services for other children already being served in the district.
 
You need to go back and read the story. The parents are trying to have Clarke put on the list of approved private schools because they are not happy about her being mainstreamed.

This thread is about this specific case. You are going in circles trying to make some obscure point about oral deaf ed in general that doesn't pertain to this thread at all.

I just re-read it, and you are wrong. They say it is remarkable that she is going to kindergarten with her peers. They had to pay age 3-now, but they are thrilled she is being mainstreamed. Maybe you should read it again :hmm:
 
Video: Parents want hearing school to get state funding - Main Line Suburban Life - Main Line Media News

Olivia Lampley of Wayne was born with a moderate to profound hearing loss, which was not discovered until she was 2 years old.

But today the 6-year-old dances to the beat at dance recitals, sings along with starlet Miley Cyrus and isn’t afraid to talk or listen to anyone she meets.

Olivia is heading to Beaumont Elementary School in Devon in September to learn alongside her hearing peers. She received an oral and auditory education at the Clarke School for Hearing and Speech in Bryn Mawr.

But children after the age of 3 who need financial support from the state cannot get it for the Clarke School because it is not on the state’s list of 40 or so Approved Private Schools (APS).

Parents at the school have launched a campaign to get the school APS status, stating that with only one state-supported oral and auditory school (the DePaul School for Hearing in Pittsburgh), parents in the eastern part of the state are not being supplied a viable choice, said Treacy Henry, regional development director for the Clarke School.

Henry, who raises money for children to attend the school, says that there is nothing wrong with American Sign Language, but that parents should have a choice. They say the state, by not adding the Clarke School to its funded Approved Private School list, is denying that choice.

According to Henry, officials from the Department of Education have stated that the current APS list will not be changed. Parents have sought and gained support from a number of state legislators, including State Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17).

In fact, a meeting between school representatives, parents and Department of Education representatives took place in Leach’s office. As Leach relays it, the group could not get answers as to why the school would not be considered for APS status.

Legislation has since been drafted naming Clarke an APS that will be attached to upcoming education bills.

But there is a new secretary of education and “we’re hoping the administration makes that not necessary,” Leach said of the legislation.

A Department of Education spokesperson said that the department is not currently taking any applications for APS status and that adding any schools to the list would dilute the budgeted line-item funds for the other schools.

There is no proposal to increase the allocated funding for the 2010-11 year, according to spokesperson Steve Weitzman, who added that the decision has nothing to do with the merits of the Clarke School.

But according to Henry, making Clarke an APS would save taxpayers money. She says that the required financial aid (for lifelong translators, for example) of a person who uses sign language is much higher than one who learns to speak.

This is not to say that those who use the oral and auditory method do not require some assistance; Olivia will get some supplemental speech and auditory sessions and her teachers need to undergo some training at Beaumont.

Olivia’s mother, Michelle Lampley, said her family moved to the area from South Carolina specifically for the Clarke School’s resources.

When she was born, Olivia could only hear a sound as loud as a jet engine. Missing her first two years of hearing required “remarkable” catching up, her mother said.

They moved here when Olivia was 3 years old and “she could hardly be understood. It was a dire situation.”

Now, “for her to be in a kindergarten class with her peers, I feel it’s a huge milestone.”

The field of deaf education has been revolutionized by standardized newborn screening, amplifier-technology advances (hearing aids and cochlear implants for example) and improved early-intervention services, Henry said.

The Clarke School in Bryn Mawr is one of five Clarke Schools, the first established in 1867 in Northampton, Mass.

The school provides services for children with moderate to profound hearing loss from birth through preschool using the auditory/oral model.

The building is designed for the acoustic needs of its students by using items like foam, soft wood and cork flooring to reduce background noise. The curriculum includes an intense language focus and speech therapy.

The tuition-based preschool program is $12,500 per year, but it costs about $40,000 per year to educate one child, Henry said.

If the school achieved APS status, she said she predicts it could receive $30,000 per child per year in state funding.

For children from birth to 3 years old, early-intervention services for the hard of hearing are funded through the Department of Public Welfare.

Once a child turns 3, it is determined whether he or she goes on to a “mainstream” facility or continues with preschool for special needs. At that point, the funding goes through the Pennsylvania Department of Education through the counties to individual school districts.

At that point, state funding is not applicable to all schools including Clarke.

So if a family needs taxpayer funding and wants a child to speak and hear, Pittsburgh is the only option, Henry said.

“Parents want an option on both sides of the state,” she said. “Our parents believe that parents should have the ability to choose the educational model for their deaf or hard-of-hearing child.”

Katy Friedland of Philadelphia is one of the Clarke School parents who are working on the campaign.

Her 3-year-old son, Julian, attends the school.

She said the choice to use spoken language is a “basic human right” and that the current model for funding is problematic.

“I’m not saying that [sign language] is not a great choice for parents; I’m saying parents should have a choice,” Friedland said. “Julian might learn sign language, but he also might learn Hebrew because that’s a culture we’re a part of.”

Michelle Lampley and her husband are both hearing. In fact, according to Henry, a vast majority of hard-of-hearing children are born to those with no history of deafness.

Lampley said they never considered teaching Olivia sign language.

“Maybe she’ll be the president of the United States. Maybe she’ll be a great opera singer. As a parent I want her to have every option available to her,” she said. “What would she say to me if I didn’t choose this option for her?”

The parents in general want it to pass, not this specific family. Their child is mainstreaming and they are happy.
 
I just re-read it, and you are wrong. They say it is remarkable that she is going to kindergarten with her peers. They had to pay age 3-now, but they are thrilled she is being mainstreamed. Maybe you should read it again :hmm:

Yes, FJ, everyone is always wrong except you. No where does it say that anyone is "thrilled" that she is mainstreamed.

Go back and read the rest of my post. It will clarify the issue for you.
 
Back
Top