School For The Deaf Or Mainstream?

Teacherofthedeaf, I just thought of something. If those mainstreamed children that you teach are indeed doing so well and are on grade level, etc how come they need intense TOD services? If they were indeed doing so well, they'd just be on monitor status.
 
deafdyke said:
Teacherofthedeaf, I just thought of something. If those mainstreamed children that you teach are indeed doing so well and are on grade level, etc how come they need intense TOD services? If they were indeed doing so well, they'd just be on monitor status.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Teacherofthedeaf is working at the Kindergarten level with the objective of getting them to be able to preform at grade level going forward since in today's world for the USA elementary education is normally K-8 with the last few years considered "middle school".
 
deafdyke said:
And you do realize that only a small percentage of Gally students attended a deaf school or a dhh program right? I know for a fact that the percentage of students there who were educated oral/mainstream/ AV style (meaning with little/no dhh specific supports) is very high.....and get off your fixtation with CIs. Nobody's saying that CIs are causing anything..... But yes, AVT or an AV style education DOES cause delays since an AV approach assumes that the mainstream educational enviorment is high quality. You do realize that we are in the middle of a huge educational reform debate over hearing schools right? If hearing schools need to be reformed then why do we worship them as a placement for dhh and other disabled kids?
Click to expand...
Actually, only a tiny minority of students are able to access AV therapy, because there are so few practitioners. I also don't know who is worshiping any particular placement. Parents often want their children to attend their local school because that assures that they have getting an education equal to their hearing peers, but I have no idea what you mean otherwise.
 
Jane B. said:
I have gone back and re-read from the first post in this thread. The more I think about it the less I think that the particular Deaf School the the OP visited is a good fit for her daughter. Not that she shouldn't have the chance to learn ASL but that the kids seem to be so completely different than her daughter. Isn't there something around between to two things the OP presented?
Click to expand...
I agree. It is all about what works for the individual child, not saying that all kids should do X.
 
deafdyke said:
Exactly. TeacheroftheDeaf, do you wear glasses? Imagine if we had an educational system that demanded that you couldn't use your glasses, and you couldn't use alterntive methods to learn, like Braille and books on tape, but you HAD to exclusively use your vision to learn. You wouldn't do so well b/c trying to function like a sighted person without glasses would be focusing on your weaknesses!
Click to expand...
No, imagine that I did have glasses and they allowed me to read and understand print and even see well enough to drive, but there was a group of people who demanded that I *must* use a cane and learn braille, no matter what.
 
dogmom said:
WDYS- YES- I missed that part about the "religious belief" system from TeacheroftheDeaf...that pisses me off now too.
<below will be off-topic but will come back>

I'm also Jewish <as you know, WDYS, but this second line is more generally directed as part of the thread>> and I THANK and bless my parents for having the foresight to let me choose my religious path, including whether or not as a child I wanted to go to synagogue. Over the years I also became involved in UU'ism while still remaining <after having re-investigated Judaism in college> strongly, but not religiously, Jewish. Children -DO- have a right to learn about and choose their religion or belief system.

<on topic>

and the whole thing you have going, TeacheroftheDeaf, reeks of audism, so much so that you can't see it. That is part of what audism is about, just like with racism, sexism, homophobia and other injustices.
Click to expand...
And when she was 1 or two, did you teach her your beliefs or did you teach nothing at all. Of course a person who is mature enough to have input should be given the choice. I teach 2 and 3 year olds, they cannot have the choice.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
WTF! I am Jewish and my daughter wanted to go to an Unitarian church to see what it was like when she was a child and I let her go so she could decide what belief she wanted to follow. What century are you living in?? If my child was born HOH like me it would had been up to her which language she wanted to use and not me .
I am her mother not her owner as she was a my pet !
Click to expand...
When an infant is born, you have to decide. You have to provide the language in the home. You have to use that language to and around the baby. You are deciding because the child is too young to make a choice.
 
deafdyke said:
I'm thinking either she's one of those well meaning but "can't see the forest for the trees" people who work with dhh or disabled kids b/c they're so enthralled with how CUTE they are or a troll Unfortunatly there's a subtype of teacher/professional who works with dhh or otherwise disabled kids b/c they are so enthralled with how cute the kids are, or that they're so excited about making a dhh or otherwise disabled kid NORMAL. They don't understand the value of a comprehensive approach, seeing specialized techniques, methodologies, etc as "not normal"
Click to expand...
How cute they are? That is incredibly disrespectful. I spent 6 years in college learning how to teach students with hearing loss. I have spent time and money traveling to conferences, reading and performing research, studying and seeking data to inform my best practices. It has nothing to do with my students being "cute" and everything to do with using specialized strategies to help them become the most successful adults they can be. I am helping them learn to navigate the world and have the opportunity to do anything they wish in the future.
 
deafdyke said:
I'm thinking either she's one of those well meaning but "can't see the forest for the trees" people who work with dhh or disabled kids b/c they're so enthralled with how CUTE they are or a troll Unfortunatly there's a subtype of teacher/professional who works with dhh or otherwise disabled kids b/c they are so enthralled with how cute the kids are, or that they're so excited about making a dhh or otherwise disabled kid NORMAL. They don't understand the value of a comprehensive approach, seeing specialized techniques, methodologies, etc as "not normal"
Click to expand...
And, by the way, I use specialized techniques and strategies every moment of the day. It is fully ignorant to think that LSL teachers don't do anything. Check out these documents for a tiny preview of what we do. http://www.audrehab.org/jara/2010/Duncan, Kendrick et al.pdf http://firstyears.org/c4/u2/AVTsimser.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Sound-Obj Assns.pdf
    129.7 KB · Views: 0
deafdyke said:
Teacherofthedeaf, I just thought of something. If those mainstreamed children that you teach are indeed doing so well and are on grade level, etc how come they need intense TOD services? If they were indeed doing so well, they'd just be on monitor status.
Click to expand...
What do you consider "intensive" services? When I was an itinerant, I had students receiving time from 40 minutes a day to an hour a week. I wouldn't consider those intensive teacher of the deaf services. I worked with some of my students on curriculum specific vocabulary, others on writing, and another on auditory skills. It all depends on the student.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
When an infant is born, you have to decide. You have to provide the language in the home. You have to use that language to and around the baby. You are deciding because the child is too young to make a choice.
Click to expand...
Wrong ! You should give your deaf or hoh baby all the chooses there are to communicate so they'll be able to live their life to the fullness and the way the they want
and not the way their parents want them too! Children are NOT property like pets are consider to be ! And I don't even treat my pet as property ! I feel really sorry for your students !
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Wrong ! You should give your deaf or hoh baby all the chooses there are to communicate so they'll be able to live their life to the fullness and the way the they want
and not the way their parents want them too! Children are NOT property like pets are consider to be ! And I don't even treat my pet as property ! I feel really sorry for your students !
Click to expand...
My families have chosen to give their child access to the language of their family. They want to provide an enriched language environment in the language that they can provide. The one in which they are fluent. The data suggests that a child's language competence at age 8 is directly related to a mother's skill in the child's primary language. That would be a problem for a parent who is just beginning to learn the language that they want their child to use. For a family who already knows ASL, it would be much easier. For one who would be starting from nothing, it would be impossible to provide fluent immersion in that language and to allow for incidental of it.

It is not about viewing a child as property or doing what the parents want, it is about doing what the family believes will allow the child the best opportunity for early and fluent language acquisition.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
My families have chosen to give their child access to the language of their family. They want to provide an enriched language environment in the language that they can provide. The one in which they are fluent. The data suggests that a child's language competence at age 8 is directly related to a mother's skill in the child's primary language. That would be a problem for a parent who is just beginning to learn the language that they want their child to use. For a family who already knows ASL, it would be much easier. For one who would be starting from nothing, it would be impossible to provide fluent immersion in that language and to allow for incidental of it.

It is not about viewing a child as property or doing what the parents want, it is about doing what the family believes will allow the child the best opportunity for early and fluent language acquisition.
Click to expand...

I noticed that many parents forced deaf children to learn how to use oral language, even force kids to wear CI or HA if they don't want to wear.

Unfortunately, you are correct that parents make ultimate decision about how deaf children communicate, especially authoritative parenting.

My parents forced me to wear CI and made me to use oral language, but it didn't work out so my parents abandoned all oral language therapies on me. The children don't enjoy same freedom as adult did, even same with religious and political too.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
Actually, only a tiny minority of students are able to access AV therapy, because there are so few practitioners. I also don't know who is worshiping any particular placement. Parents often want their children to attend their local school because that assures that they have getting an education equal to their hearing peers, but I have no idea what you mean otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that still doesn't negate the fact that AG Bell worships an auditory verbal like upbringing. Auditory verbal like means, not nessarily having access to auditory verbal therapy....but still idolizing " like hearing" and " mainstreaming in ALL areas. In other words the mentality that dhh kids should just magically assimulate into mainstream society, and shouldn't even " need" stuff like closed captioned, CART, schooling with dhh kids or even much exposure to other dhh kids. Also, most parents aren't even really informed about the option of the school or programs for the Deaf......and no it's a myth that mainstream schooling assures an education equalivant to hearing peers.....there are lower tracks in hearing schools after all, and not all hearing schools are good quality.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
No, imagine that I did have glasses and they allowed me to read and understand print and even see well enough to drive, but there was a group of people who demanded that I *must* use a cane and learn braille, no matter what.
Click to expand...
That's not even close. Almost all kids, including good hearing technology users still require INTENSE accomondations that hearing people don't use like CART, closed captioned and FM device. We're arguing for a SAFETY net, a backup, and CHOICE. Your argument is like saying that a kid with mild mobilty issues shouldn't be allowed to use a wheelchair as an option. BTW, you do realize that audilogically HOH kids experience the exact same issues that deafer kids do, don't you? It's not just about the kids who grew up in the '70's who had a very difficult time learning to speak and had limited access to speech correct? The downsides of an exclusive oral approach do not disappear b/c a kid is more HOH.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
What do you consider "intensive" services? When I was an itinerant, I had students receiving time from 40 minutes a day to an hour a week. I wouldn't consider those intensive teacher of the deaf services. I worked with some of my students on curriculum specific vocabulary, others on writing, and another on auditory skills. It all depends on the student.
Click to expand...
That said, if your students were indeed doing so well, then they would not require ANY help. They could just be taught like a hearing kid. Isn't that what auditory oral tries to do? Make it so that a dhh kid can be taught like a hearing kid?
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
When an infant is born, you have to decide. You have to provide the language in the home. You have to use that language to and around the baby. You are deciding because the child is too young to make a choice.
Click to expand...
Well why not do EVERYTHING? You don't know what will/won't be useful for the dhh kid, so why not put the choice in their hands and GIVE them ALL the choices possible? Yes, the child is too young to make a choice....that is why they have a right to access EVERYTHING available. Otherwise you're not providing them with the choice in the first place!
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
How cute they are? That is incredibly disrespectful. I spent 6 years in college learning how to teach students with hearing loss. I have spent time and money traveling to conferences, reading and performing research, studying and seeking data to inform my best practices. It has nothing to do with my students being "cute" and everything to do with using specialized strategies to help them become the most successful adults they can be. I am helping them learn to navigate the world and have the opportunity to do anything they wish in the future.
Click to expand...
No it IS about how cute they are. I know the mentality. You see them as little kids, and you see how cute they are, but you do not understand that does not last. Things change drasticly when children are older, but you just don't see it b/c again you're so stuck on how cute these cute little kids are. I see it all the time. And boy if you have the attitude that speech only allows them to do anything, that is VERY audist and aggronet. If speech was the answer to Life the Universe and Everything, then all hearing and speaking people would be incredibily successful. You've probaly never seen the kids I have....the ones who have never dated, the ones who still have issues with the difference between boycotted and boycotting, the ones who can barely read or write, the ones who have never been invited to a party, the ones who are on the low level educational track.......I could tell you thousands of horror stories of kids who fell through the cracks. Heck my friend Jill is a psychologist who works with dhh kids. She's been working with dhh kids for 30 years. She says she still hears the same stories.
 
deafdyke said:
Yes, but that still doesn't negate the fact that AG Bell worships an auditory verbal like upbringing. Auditory verbal like means, not nessarily having access to auditory verbal therapy....but still idolizing " like hearing" and " mainstreaming in ALL areas. In other words the mentality that dhh kids should just magically assimulate into mainstream society, and shouldn't even " need" stuff like closed captioned, CART, schooling with dhh kids or even much exposure to other dhh kids. Also, most parents aren't even really informed about the option of the school or programs for the Deaf......and no it's a myth that mainstream schooling assures an education equalivant to hearing peers.....there are lower tracks in hearing schools after all, and not all hearing schools are good quality.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Auditory verbal practice has very specific tenants. Do you know anything about it? Have you research the methodology?
 
deafdyke said:
That's not even close. Almost all kids, including good hearing technology users still require INTENSE accomondations that hearing people don't use like CART, closed captioned and FM device. We're arguing for a SAFETY net, a backup, and CHOICE. Your argument is like saying that a kid with mild mobilty issues shouldn't be allowed to use a wheelchair as an option. BTW, you do realize that audilogically HOH kids experience the exact same issues that deafer kids do, don't you? It's not just about the kids who grew up in the '70's who had a very difficult time learning to speak and had limited access to speech correct? The downsides of an exclusive oral approach do not disappear b/c a kid is more HOH.
Click to expand...
No they don't. I have actually read the research. There have been longitudinal studies about the needs of students and adults who were raised using listening and spoken language with access to sound. I am not talking about profoundly deaf people born before universal newborn hearing screenings. I am talking about people who were diagnosised at a very young age and given access to spoken language very young. Those kids are now adults and we are not seeing the things you claim.
 
Back
Top