Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[AlleyCat]

Girls, Let's not get back on that. Let's not break out a catfight and to end up pulling each other's hairs, okay?

I'd hate to end up closing this thread and take actions. If it happens, I will have no choice but to do it.

Good point. I don't want to close down any threads either. But, after thinking about it, I feel I must add this:

In the case of Flip, it was requested. In the case of Cheri, I would expect that you would refer back to the original post in which she stated that TC was a good system because her grammar was fine. If she is going to use her own grammar as an example to support TC, then she opens herself up to being shown how her support is invalid based on an incorrect assumption.

If that is what Jillio believed, then that was all she had to say. Going the extra step to actually correct her grammar (when not asked to do so) was demeaning. All that does is increase insecurity/negative feelings when we’ve already experienced so much of that (and this has been discussed in many other threads.) Any shortcomings we may have don’t need to be highlighted. That IS an important issue. There, I'm done now, I promise!

 

[Jolie77]

Good point. I don't want to close down any threads either. But, after thinking about it, I feel I must add this:

If that is what Jillio believed, then that was all she had to say. Going the extra step to actually correct her grammar (when not asked to do so) was demeaning. All that does is increase insecurity/negative feelings when we’ve already experienced so much of that (and this has been discussed in many other threads.) Any shortcomings we may have don’t need to be highlighted. That IS an important issue. There, I'm done now, I promise!

All right, Let's iron this out in the open for once and all.

Like you said, This is an important issue.

A lot of things has been presented in a negative way and it continues to be refuted one way or another. While it is not necessary to step in and to correct another's grammar in a certain post but in order to do that, I want to see how that is refuted in a civilized way rather than stomping one or other out of this?

Granted, For one to validate the discussion with a personal view is good but it also brings the immediate need of how it is possible to soothe things out.

I am only here to see it from both sides.

Let's lay it out on the table and we're all adults here, right? So, with that, We can sort this out.

Deal?

If anyone wants to get in on this discussion, Please do keep an open mind and to approach this wisely. I do not want to harbor this into a "finger-pointing" game as well.

 

[Daredevel7]

If anyone wants to get in on this discussion, Please do keep an open mind and to approach this wisely. I do not want to harbor this into a "finger-pointing" game as well.

*fingerpoints at Daredevel7*
SHE STARTED IT ALL.

Seriously folks, so far I've seen evidence that there is no concrete evidence that BiBi is best for majority, and I've seen evidence that BiBi solves (or minimizes) a lot of problems that other methods had.

My conclusion: BiBi method, at least, shows PROMISE to be a minimum standard for doctors/audiologist to recommend.

 

[Jiro]

*fingerpoints at Daredevel7*
SHE STARTED IT ALL.

Seriously folks, so far I've seen evidence that there is no concrete evidence that BiBi is best for majority, and I've seen evidence that BiBi solves (or minimizes) a lot of problems that other methods had.

My conclusion: BiBi method, at least, shows PROMISE to be a minimum standard for doctors/audiologist to recommend.

so since you concluded that BiBi method is, at best questionable for majority.... what would you say is best option for majority then?

 

[jillio]

Girls, Let's not get back on that. Let's not break out a catfight and to end up pulling each other's hairs, okay?

I'd hate to end up closing this thread and take actions. If it happens, I will have no choice but to do it.

Agreed, Jolie. No need to take things to that level.

 

[jillio]

All right, Let's iron this out in the open for once and all.

Like you said, This is an important issue.

A lot of things has been presented in a negative way and it continues to be refuted one way or another. While it is not necessary to step in and to correct another's grammar in a certain post but in order to do that, I want to see how that is refuted in a civilized way rather than stomping one or other out of this?

Granted, For one to validate the discussion with a personal view is good but it also brings the immediate need of how it is possible to soothe things out.

I am only here to see it from both sides.

Let's lay it out on the table and we're all adults here, right? So, with that, We can sort this out.

Deal?

If anyone wants to get in on this discussion, Please do keep an open mind and to approach this wisely. I do not want to harbor this into a "finger-pointing" game as well.

I was going to go back and quote my own previous post, but I think it has been removed. That's fine, if you thought it was best.

I did, however, make it clear that I was not crticizing the individual, but simply showing an example of how our eductional system convinces deaf students that they are learning what they need to learn, when in fact, they aren't. That was my only point. I do not believe that anyone who has trouble with the English language is at fault for that. It is the educational system that is at fault, and that is what people like shel90 and myself are trying to correct. There was no intent to degrade another poster. The intent was to show in a very real way, the way our educational system has failed deaf students, and that the need for revision of the system is obvious.

I believe that my original post was clear in that intent, and that I did it in a civilized and polite way. If anyone was offended by that, then I apologize. But I can assure you, the post was not meant to be personal in any way, but simply to provide a real life example of the deficits in the educational system.

 

[jillio]

*fingerpoints at Daredevel7*
SHE STARTED IT ALL.

Seriously folks, so far I've seen evidence that there is no concrete evidence that BiBi is best for majority, and I've seen evidence that BiBi solves (or minimizes) a lot of problems that other methods had.

My conclusion: BiBi method, at least, shows PROMISE to be a minimum standard for doctors/audiologist to recommend.

Excellent conclusion!

 

[AlleyCat]

so since you concluded that BiBi method is, at best questionable for majority.... what would you say is best option for majority then?

Good question. Part of me wonders why we have to stick with the majority as far as what approach to take? It seems that many of us have cited personal examples and they get thrown out because an individual response/experience does not infer the best for the majority. I'm not disputing anyone here in any way; I still fail to understand where statistics come from that show so many deaf people are failing at literacy levels. Makes me think the environment I happen to be in happens to be an exception -- that the majority of deaf people I know (and I know quite a few) came from either bi-bi or TC mainstreamed programs and most of us have turned out fine. I will say there are some that are lacking, but it absolutely does not seem like the majority. And since I'm referring this large pool of deaf people I know across the entire metro area (and there is a very large deaf population here,) where are these statistics coming from? That only makes me think each school/IEP programs need (and have been, at least around here,) to evaluate what's working for their students and what's not. And if action isn't taken upon those students whose program isn't working for them, then that IS a problem. This seems, to me, to be an individualized approach and not a majority approach.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

All right, Let's iron this out in the open for once and all.

Like you said, This is an important issue.

A lot of things has been presented in a negative way and it continues to be refuted one way or another. While it is not necessary to step in and to correct another's grammar in a certain post but in order to do that, I want to see how that is refuted in a civilized way rather than stomping one or other out of this?

Granted, For one to validate the discussion with a personal view is good but it also brings the immediate need of how it is possible to soothe things out.

I am only here to see it from both sides.

Let's lay it out on the table and we're all adults here, right? So, with that, We can sort this out.

Deal?

If anyone wants to get in on this discussion, Please do keep an open mind and to approach this wisely. I do not want to harbor this into a "finger-pointing" game as well.

I was going to go back and quote my own previous post, but I think it has been removed. That's fine, if you thought it was best.

I did, however, make it clear that I was not crticizing the individual, but simply showing an example of how our eductional system convinces deaf students that they are learning what they need to learn, when in fact, they aren't. That was my only point. I do not believe that anyone who has trouble with the English language is at fault for that. It is the educational system that is at fault, and that is what people like shel90 and myself are trying to correct. There was no intent to degrade another poster. The intent was to show in a very real way, the way our educational system has failed deaf students, and that the need for revision of the system is obvious.

I believe that my original post was clear in that intent, and that I did it in a civilized and polite way. If anyone was offended by that, then I apologize. But I can assure you, the post was not meant to be personal in any way, but simply to provide a real life example of the deficits in the educational system.

I also meant no offense with what I said as well. I'm on this forum to learn and I admit I make mistakes. If I offended anybody, I apologize. It was NOT my intention to do so.

 

[jillio]

Good question. Part of me wonders why we have to stick with the majority as far as what approach to take? It seems that many of us have cited personal examples and they get thrown out because an individual response/experience does not infer the best for the majority. I'm not disputing anyone here in any way; I still fail to understand where statistics come from that show so many deaf people are failing at literacy levels. Makes me think the environment I happen to be in happens to be an exception -- that the majority of deaf people I know (and I know quite a few) came from either bi-bi or TC mainstreamed programs and most of us have turned out fine. I will say there are some that are lacking, but it absolutely does not seem like the majority. And since I'm referring this large pool of deaf people I know across the entire metro area (and there is a very large deaf population here,) where are these statistics coming from? That only makes me think each school/IEP programs need (and have been, at least around here,) to evaluate what's working for their students and what's not. And if action isn't taken upon those students whose program isn't working for them, then that IS a problem. This seems, to me, to be an individualized approach and not a majority approach.

It is necessary to use a majority approach because that how educational policy is determined. That holds true for hearing or deaf children. We use an IEP and enrichment programs to reach those that fall outside the majority.

I said it in another thread, but it bears repeating. We are using the IEP in a distorted manner. It is intended to provide for those that fall outside the majority. We instead, are using it to accommodate the majority when it comes to deaf ed.

The statistics are coming from randomized samples. The population and the way it was selected is outlined in the methods section of the research reports.

 

[Cheri]

Good question. Part of me wonders why we have to stick with the majority as far as what approach to take? It seems that many of us have cited personal examples and they get thrown out because an individual response/experience does not infer the best for the majority. I'm not disputing anyone here in any way; I still fail to understand where statistics come from that show so many deaf people are failing at literacy levels. Makes me think the environment I happen to be in happens to be an exception -- that the majority of deaf people I know (and I know quite a few) came from either bi-bi or TC mainstreamed programs and most of us have turned out fine. I will say there are some that are lacking, but it absolutely does not seem like the majority. And since I'm referring this large pool of deaf people I know across the entire metro area (and there is a very large deaf population here,) where are these statistics coming from? That only makes me think each school/IEP programs need (and have been, at least around here,) to evaluate what's working for their students and what's not. And if action isn't taken upon those students whose program isn't working for them, then that IS a problem. This seems, to me, to be an individualized approach and not a majority approach.

 

[AlleyCat]

It is necessary to use a majority approach because that how educational policy is determined. That holds true for hearing or deaf children. We use an IEP and enrichment programs to reach those that fall outside the majority.

I said it in another thread, but it bears repeating. We are using the IEP in a distorted manner. It is intended to provide for those that fall outside the majority. We instead, are using it to accommodate the majority when it comes to deaf ed.

The statistics are coming from randomized samples. The population and the way it was selected is outlined in the methods section of the research reports.

Thank you, Cheri

Jillio, what do you mean by using an IEP in a distorted manner? And using it to accommodate the majority? Certainly not arguing your point at all, just don't have a clue -- I've only been able to speak from my own experience.

 

[jillio]

If you don't mind me asking, AlleyCat, what accommodations did you receive in the mainstream? We could then discuss how those accommdations would not have been necessary, perhaps, in a bi-bi environment. That is what I mean when I say the use of the IEP is being distorted when it comes to deaf children. If you don't mind using your own experience as an example, we can come up with a real life, individualized example.

 

[AlleyCat]

I did state some of this in another thread. I don't know if that post is still there. But to reiterate and give further detail: From 3rd grade and on (it was decided I didn't need an interpreter prior,) I had an interpreter in all my classes. I was the only deaf student in my elementary school so I had the interpeter all to myself, all day. From junior high to high school graduation, there were 3 of us that were deaf. We each had different classes so we had our own interpeters. We all shared the same IEP teacher, but had our own "sessions" with them. (In junior high, us 3 waived the band/foreign language class to have IEP time. In high school, we waived study hall/band/foreign language time to have IEP time. This lasted until about 11th grade, and thereafter it was determined I didn't need regular IEP time anymore -- I can't speak or remember for the other 2 deaf students -- but I did take regular study hall time after that.) I had a speech therapist from pre-kindergarten until around 11th grade in which time (by 11th grade was only about once a week because the speech therapist had determined she had "taken me as far as I could go" and my parents agreed, I hadn't shown any improvement since 5th grade) was taken from IEP time (the same time as band/foreign language time). Does that help?

 

[jillio]

I did state some of this in another thread. I don't know if that post is still there. But to reiterate and give further detail: From 3rd grade and on (it was decided I didn't need an interpreter prior,) I had an interpreter in all my classes. I was the only deaf student in my elementary school so I had the interpeter all to myself, all day. From junior high to high school graduation, there were 3 of us that were deaf. We each had different classes so we had our own interpeters. We all shared the same IEP teacher, but had our own "sessions" with them. (In junior high, us 3 waived the band/foreign language class to have IEP time. In high school, we waived study hall/band/foreign language time to have IEP time. This lasted until about 11th grade, and thereafter it was determined I didn't need regular IEP time anymore -- I can't speak or remember for the other 2 deaf students -- but I did take regular study hall time after that.) I had a speech therapist from pre-kindergarten until around 11th grade in which time (by 11th grade was only about once a week because the speech therapist had determined she had "taken me as far as I could go" and my parents agreed, I hadn't shown any improvement since 5th grade) was taken from IEP time (the same time as band/foreign language time). Does that help?

Yes, it helps tremendously. Thanks for your response. I am off to a class right now, and will not be back until a bit after 9:00 pm. Because I want to take the time to make my reply clear, I will respond later this evening. Please bear with me.

 

[shel90]

"Change We Can Believe In"

I agree! I dont accept a less than adequate system. Growing up, I was always thriving for the best and that's my personality.

 

[shel90]

It is needed everywhere, my friend. We seem to be very good at creating harmful situations and then hanging onto them with the teeth of a wolverine until it blows up in our face. Then instead of trying something different, we try the same old thing over again. That is not progress, nor is it productive. Repeat that which works. Abandon that which doesn't. Simple principle.

That's my view...why use the methods that didnt work for a majority? If literacy skills of the majority of deaf children were on par with hearing kids in the last 30 years, I would leave it alone but since it is not so.....leave it or improve it?

 

[shel90]

but it's the WRONG tool!!!!! WRONG approach!!!! That studies are basically saying... ASL first as L1 and it will open up a gateway to ANYTHING... including spoken language. You're misunderstanding their studies. It does not support your claim.

Exactly!

 

[shel90]

But the CI has not been shown to provide a child with language input from the moment of birth, not does it provide 100% access to language. The change needs to be made to insure that children receive access to proper linguistic models beginning with early intervention. The way to correct the problems is not with mechanics, it is with the use of linguistic systems themselves.

We must also keep in mind that the CI is not available to all deaf children. What would you suggest we do with those?

If the CIs provided 100% auditory access like hearing kids have, then we wouldnt be seeing children with CIs coming to our program with language delays. That's why Switzerland made it a policy in Deaf ed even though a high percentage of deaf children there have CIs. Great model there and it is working very well.

 

[shel90]

Jillio!

I noticed you did comment some grammar errors a couple of posts above this one. I live in a non-speaking english country, so english is a third or fourth language for me. It's been a while ago some evaluated my english, so curious what kind of grammar errors I have in my english? I would be happy to know, as I can't detect this myself, and would be great to know what level my english are at? Pre-school, highschool, or perhaps kindergarten?

Your English is a 3rd or 4th language? Wow! Your grammar is pretty good! I am impressed. I wish I was fluent in Spanish, French and etc.