Quarrel Over Deaf Education Flares Again

[deafdyke]

I see, so going through your list it looks like you've not yet found one school for the deaf that meets your blanket description of deaf schools in general, not one school for the deaf where "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies"?

Ask one of the ex posters who is a TOD if she thinks that at maryland school for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies." I don't think you can possibly be at all familiar with auditory-oral methodology if you think that this is what the majority of students experience at non-oral schools for the deaf.

By the way, are you aware that the needs of deaf-blind students are quite different from those of deaf students and such schools are not interchangeable with schools for the deaf in terms of providing appropriate academic services?

Grendel, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?
Almost all bi-bi schools offer auditory-oral style services. Not nessarily an old school auditory oral exclusive education, but intense good quality auditory oral services as part of a bilingal bicultral education yes!

 

[GrendelQ]

Grendel, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?
Almost all bi-bi schools offer auditory-oral style services. Not nessarily an old school auditory oral exclusive education, but intense good quality auditory oral services as part of a bilingal bicultral education yes!

Quite a few, but no, I don't know of a bi-bi school that offers Clarke style interventions and speech therapies, or auditory-oral services for the majority of students. "Intense good quality auditory oral services" for the student body are not part of the bilingual bicultural model. If that's what you are looking for, you attend an auditory oral school, not a bi-bi school like Indiana, TLC, or MSD.

Are you a closet auditory-oral proponent? I can't think of why you insist on this fantasy you have that using an auditory-oral approach, that requiring "intense good quality auditory oral services," is in place today for the majority of students in bi-bi schools for the deaf or would be appropriate for the majority of students at non-oral schools for the deaf.

 

[deafdyke]

"Intense good quality auditory oral services" for the student body are not part of the bilingual bicultural model.

Yes, they are. Development of oral skills IS a part of bilingal bicultural education.
And no, I am NOT a closet auditory-oral advocate. What I am an advocate for is smashing the myth that just b/c a program/student uses ASL, it means that kids cannot develop spoken language skills. I am an advocate for bi bi programs having good spoken language services and programs, so that kids can have the best of both worlds.

 

[GrendelQ]

Yes, they are. Development of oral skills IS a part of bilingal bicultural education.

You keep saying that at non-oral schools for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies" and now upping the ante to describe "intense" auditory oral services as a part of the bilingual-bicultural model. You may think these things should be in place, but they aren't. Seriously, if you want to make such bizarre claims about bi-bi schools employing Clarke-style auditory-oral methodologies and intense speech therapies for the majority of students, first contact the admissions office or the headmasters/ principals of any of these schools and talk to them about their philosophies, their services. See if any of them would agree with your description.

Why don't you contact Indiana or TLC and ask to sit through a day with their middle school students. Contact Clarke and sit through a day with theirs. I've done this in several schools. When you see it in real life there's a world of difference in the student experience.

 

[Jiro]

You keep saying that at non-oral schools for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies" and now upping the ante to describe "intense" auditory oral services as a part of the bilingual-bicultural model. You may think these things should be in place, but they aren't. Seriously, if you want to make such bizarre claims about bi-bi schools employing Clarke-style auditory-oral methodologies and intense speech therapies for the majority of students, first contact the admissions office or the headmasters/ principals of any of these schools and talk to them about their philosophies, their services. See if any of them would agree with your description.

Why don't you contact Indiana or TLC and ask to sit through a day with their middle school students. Contact Clarke and sit through a day with theirs. I've done this in several schools. When you see it in real life there's a world of difference in the student experience.

or..... why don't you simply ignore deafdyke?

 

[CSign]

Quite a few, but no, I don't know of a bi-bi school that offers Clarke style interventions and speech therapies, or auditory-oral services for the majority of students. "Intense good quality auditory oral services" for the student body are not part of the bilingual bicultural model. If that's what you are looking for, you attend an auditory oral school, not a bi-bi school like Indiana, TLC, or MSD.

Are you a closet auditory-oral proponent? I can't think of why you insist on this fantasy you have that using an auditory-oral approach, that requiring "intense good quality auditory oral services," is in place today for the majority of students in bi-bi schools for the deaf or would be appropriate for the majority of students at non-oral schools for the deaf.

Both the California Schools for the Deaf employ the Bi-Bi philosophy, however there is no direct instruction in spoken language. The only people speaking there are typically visitors, and those visitors have an interpreter.

I'm also quite certain that very few students (if any) who attend the CA schools for the Deaf have speech therapy. In fact, if a student were to have it on their IEP the district would need to provide a SLP. Im about 99% sure they don't have one on staff.

 

[CSign]

I see, so going through your list it looks like you've not yet found one school for the deaf that meets your blanket description of deaf schools in general, not one school for the deaf where "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies"?

Ask one of the ex posters who is a TOD if she thinks that at maryland school for the deaf "the majority of kids do receive Clarke style interventions and speech therapies." I don't think you can possibly be at all familiar with auditory-oral methodology if you think that this is what the majority of students experience at non-oral schools for the deaf.

By the way, are you aware that the needs of deaf-blind students are quite different from those of deaf students and such schools are not interchangeable with schools for the deaf in terms of providing appropriate academic services?

The Auditory-Oral methodology is in direct opposition to what most traditional (ASL using) schools for the deaf stand for.

 

[Cloggy]

Grendel, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?
........................

deafdyke, how many schools for the deaf do you have experiance with?