Talk about AUDIST!

[Journey]

Is it the responsibility of E and R though to ascertain that?
or should they concentrate on to do only what they are supposed to do - to train Laascht as a future teacher? what are they paid for to do? Professors and practicum mentors not only train the teachers but are also the ones who decide if a student is ready and equipped to be certified,

In the end, what they are trying to ascertain -
1.that she speak and understand English,
or
2.that can communicate with her students, parents and other teachers without the use of an interpreter?

which one is it, and which they CAN require? Both I would imagine
(if either at all)




1. So, why don't you just provide what you need to provide? I am not sure what you are saying here, sorry.

2. You don't know, yet you are already deciding against that person.
How's the future workplace Edwards and Roods problem, again ?
Do you think a future employer is incapable of making a sane decision?No, I have not decided against anyone, I am asking questions and offering thoughts in order to gain insight.



Then they should make sure that their students have the best academic and moral qualifications possible.
Let their future employers worry if they want to hire a deaf teacher who require an interpreter, okay? Again, I was tring to get some sort of understanding of why they wish to wean her off an interpreter, what could their reasons be?



Yes they do, because the disability laws help with assisting such individuals,
so the job of E and R is to train teachers not to pass judgements.



that's not your business. As a retired teacher, I know teachers wages and the limits of school budgets therefore, it was again, in an effort to learn, that I asked who funds interpreters for teachers.

but, just for the heck of it - maybe she'll find a millionaire and open her own school.

If a deaf or HoH individual wants to become a teacher,
who are you to judge whether or not he/ she can afford the FUTURE interpreter services?

Don't you think what Edwards and Roods are doing infringe on the civil rights of deaf and HoH individuals granted in Constitution?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

You are preventing this lady from becoming a valuable and fully functional member of society the way she wants to be
by denying her an interpreter which she is perfectly allowed and granted by law. I am not doing anything other than asking questions with the hope of discussion and constructive feedback about the situation from all angles.

Also
See here:
Dr. Angela Earhart
Association of Medical Professional with Hearing Losses (AMPHL)
Changing the Face of Medicine | Dr. Judith Ann Pachciarz

and learn.
It is E and R who make others like her DISabled.
If not for Edwards and Roods, she would have no problem becoming a teacher and have a salaried job.

btw
New federal legislation prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities (section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)


Let this woman have her interpreter and her teacher degree in peace.
It's her right.

Fuzzy

Whoa back the bus up here a little Fuzzy. I am asking what I ask and am sharing some of my thoughts here to LEARN. Not once have I said one is right or wrong - as with the information I had, I did not feel qualified to make such a judgement (see my previous post where I am attempting to get information to help myself to understand things). Other responses I have are above in bold.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Journey
Professors and practicum mentors not only train the teachers but are also the ones who decide if a student is ready and equipped to be certified,

Yes, and in order to do that, they should remember not to overstep their boundaries.

Clearly, as student Ms Laascht must have displayed her knowledge of English by way of written English also.
Does she write in a classroom, for example?
Do quizzes?

One does not have to 'speak' orally to be able to "understand and speak English".
To "speak English" is merely an euphemism indicating one communicate in English.
Do you feel I "speak English, Journey?, even if we do not communicate orally?

If she did (write), then she clearly established what the E an R wished her to establish - that she is able - your own words:

as teacher, one must “understand and speak in English.”

Furthermore, if ms Laascht is able to read and write, then yes if she has to,
she also is capable to communicate with others without the use of interpreter - she can write and read.

but are also the ones who decide if a student is ready and equipped to be certified

all fine and dandy, but they are not allowed to judge and plan their life, too
and this is dangerously thin line E and R are balancing here on with this lady.

1. So, why don't you just provide what you need to provide? I am not sure what you are saying here, sorry.

Alright, not you - Edwards and Roods.
Provide what "you" are supposed to - an education and training, not patronizing.

btw sorry, but at this point I am unclear who exactly you are?
at first I thought you are just a regular member of AD but the more I read I see you seem to be either and independent adviser
for E and R or Ms L or you are one of the E& R staff ?

Again, I was tring to get some sort of understanding of why they wish to wean her off an interpreter, what could their reasons be?

Probably because in their ignorance, they think it matters.

First of all, E & R have absolutely no slightest idea what disabled people are capable of.
They are not even remotely interested in finding out.
Even more obvious is they ignorance of disability laws which prohibit discrimination against disabled, and enables deaf people to work in hearing environment thanks to interpreters.

they (E&R) exceed their competences when they anticipate in Ms Laascht future employment opportunities - they have no rights to do so.
The simple thing here is, they have absolutely no reason to expect Ms Laascht to wean off interpreter.
What are they doing, they are overstepping her personal boundaries.

I gave you two examples of deaf physicians -one of which uses an interpreter - (what fact you conveniently and totally ignored)
to show you that there is a deaf DOCTOR out there who is responsible for other people health and life.
If THIS was- is possible, don't you, E&R think a deaf teacher is even more possible?

As a retired teacher, I know teachers wages and the limits of school budgets therefore, it was again, in an effort to learn, that I asked who funds interpreters for teachers.

So????????? This is still not yours not nobody else business in the least how Ms Laascht "can afford that on her future (teacher's) salary".

I am not doing anything other than asking questions with the hope of discussion and constructive feedback about the situation from all angles.

I urge you to do it with true objectivity.

Whoa back the bus up here a little Fuzzy. I am asking what I ask and am sharing some of my thoughts here to LEARN. Not once have I said one is right or wrong - as with the information I had, I did not feel qualified to make such a judgement (see my previous post where I am attempting to get information to help myself to understand things).

If you honestly are, then I will apologize.
Right now, I am sorry to say, have a feeling you are really trying to back up E& R, and frankly, I don't like that.

E&R is a classic case of hearing telling the deaf what they are capable of
and not capable of. And this is beyond oppressive.

Only the person who is undertaking the task, whether hearing or deaf, knows what he/she is capable of.

I truly, truly hope, once again, you are looking for answers with an open mind
and objectivity here.

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

Thanks Shel. I am trying to learn here so please bear with me . Here teachers are only certified if they receive a B.Ed degree, not a BA or B.Sc. B.Ed certifies you to teach all subjects at the elementary level, does a BA or B.Sc do the same? Also do some of the education majors who used interpreters during their practicums go on to teach in hearing schools?

Yes, a BA does the same. I hold a highly qualified certification. I had to take and pass the Praxis tests. As for the Gallaudet students going onto to teach in hearing schools after graduation, I don't know because I graduated from Gallaudet 10 years ago and don't keep in touch with the undergrad students. Mind you, I didnt attend the undergrad program at Gallaudet.

 

[Journey]

Yes, a BA does the same. I hold a highly qualified certification. I had to take and pass the Praxis tests. As for the Gallaudet students going onto to teach in hearing schools after graduation, I don't know because I graduated from Gallaudet 10 years ago and don't keep in touch with the undergrad students. Mind you, I didnt attend the undergrad program at Gallaudet.

Shel. I was not familiar with "Praxis" so had to look up some information on that. The post-secondary process to become a teacher is quite different than what I (and my daughter experienced) so I find it very interesting . So many different routes to the same end.

 

[Jane B.]

Shel. I was not familiar with "Praxis" so had to look up some information on that. The post-secondary process to become a teacher is quite different than what I (and my daughter experienced) so I find it very interesting . So many different routes to the same end.

Well . . . it does not seem surprising to me when you consider that you are in Canada and Shel is in the US.

 

[Journey]

Fuzzy, I feel like you are going all over the map here to try and make everything into something it is not. I hesitated to jump into this thread for fear of the exact thing you are doing. Fortunately Shel and purplewowies have not and have given me some direct information which is appreciated. Let me be perfectly clear, I have experience with the process of teacher certification in my province within the parameters of hearing education. I do not have any experience with the teaching process within the US or the use or non-use of interpreters during this process. This is why this topic not only interests me but has me asking questions (to learn).
I was going to addresses/respond to your points/questions but, to be honest, when you threw in this statement, "at first I thought you are just a regular member of AD but the more I read I see you seem to be either and independent adviser for E and R or Ms L or you are one of the E& R staff ?", I lost all interest in doing so. :roll:. However, I will respond to the assumption/accusation that I "conveniently and totally ignored" your linked articles. I did not. I read them in their entirety.
You "urged" me to be objective. That is exactly what I have been in my attempts to see both sides of this case before feeling I have enough knowledge to say whether I believe it is or is not "audist". Considering the fact that this particular University offers and ASL minor which " helps students acquire conversational skills in American Sign Language and develop an appreciation and understanding of the way in which people in the deaf community live, think, and communicate" (see CMU website), I am having a hard time understanding why they would do anything that would be discriminatory towards deaf students. This is why I am interested in the reasoning behind the idea of Laascht weaning off an interpreter for her practicum requirement.

 

[Journey]

Well . . . it does not seem surprising to me when you consider that you are in Canada and Shel is in the US.

I don't find it surprising either, just interesting.

 

[Bebonang]

It does not matter to you how we functioned on getting jobs whether we tried to go into the fields of what we wanted to be and learned in College. Many times we were being turned down like we were nothing to the hearing society. We were often disappointed and felt discriminated not having the job we asked for. We all wanted to have ASL interpreters in our careers and were told "no". It is the same in mainstream schools. They refused to pay for ASL interpreters or wanted to go the road to oral only approaches. That make this harder for us to deal with hearing society who don't understand our needs to understand what is being said in classes and workplaces. Lipreading is not accurate and we do miss a lot on this. So ASL interpreter is the number one priority for us to understand what everyone said in both places.

I am really sorry that Laatsch had to gone through again like she was in high school being mainstreamed. No ASL interpreters but only oral only program. Geeze :roll:

 

[Journey]

Thank you Bebonang and I do understand what you are saying. Within the last year I have gone on numerous job interviews with a deaf friend (at her request to provide interpreting assistance). There were many frustrating experiences. One that really sticks in my mind was an interview for a job as household cleaner. Everything was going well, she had a solid resume, good experience and good communication with the employers - it looked like she would get the job. But then they asked if she could use a telephone as they often would have to contact her on the job regarding changes in that days schedule. She informed them that, no, she could not use a phone but they could contact her via text. They replied that they do not use text, only voice phone and were unwilling to look further into that option for immediate communication during the work day. A simple willingness on their part would have gained them a dedicated long-term employee, instead they behaved in, what I think is, a truly audist manner. And, as I mentioned earlier, I can understand Laascht's frustration, especially considering this is only a step in her goal to pursue a career in deaf education.

 

[shel90]

Thank you Bebonang and I do understand what you are saying. Within the last year I have gone on numerous job interviews with a deaf friend (at her request to provide interpreting assistance). There were many frustrating experiences. One that really sticks in my mind was an interview for a job as household cleaner. Everything was going well, she had a solid resume, good experience and good communication with the employers - it looked like she would get the job. But then they asked if she could use a telephone as they often would have to contact her on the job regarding changes in that days schedule. She informed them that, no, she could not use a phone but they could contact her via text. They replied that they do not use text, only voice phone and were unwilling to look further into that option for immediate communication during the work day. A simple willingness on their part would have gained them a dedicated long-term employee, instead they behaved in, what I think is, a truly audist manner. And, as I mentioned earlier, I can understand Laascht's frustration, especially considering this is only a step in her goal to pursue a career in deaf education.

Stories like these just keep happening. It is just unbelievable that many hearing people cant just change some of their ways. It is NOT so hard!

Texting? Like that is such a HARD task to do? Ridiculous!

 

[Journey]

Stories like these just keep happening. It is just unbelievable that many hearing people cant just change some of their ways. It is NOT so hard!

Texting? Like that is such a HARD task to do? Ridiculous!

So true! All I could think of was ... Are you kidding me?? Like no one working in this office has a phone with text capabilites? Ya ok.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Fuzzy, I feel like you are going all over the map here to try and make everything into something it is not. .

I am merely responding to your replies.

when you threw in this statement, "at first I thought you are just a regular member of AD but the more I read I see you seem to be either and independent adviser for E and R or Ms L or you are one of the E& R staff ?", I lost all interest in doing so.

why not just answer the question? you know who -I- am - and AD member, that's all.

However, I will respond to the assumption/accusation that I "conveniently and totally ignored" your linked articles. I did not. I read them in their entirety.

But you didn't comment on them, yet the reason I showed this to you was
to prove that deaf people not only are capable of studying in the hearing environment but find legitimate employment in such, too - with an INTERPRETER.
More over, with even more serious responsibilities than the teacher requires.

That is exactly what I have been in my attempts to see both sides of this case before feeling I have enough knowledge to say whether I believe it is or is not "audist".

That is what I am beginning to worry about.
The very statement "I am the former teacher and I wonder how she will afford the interpreter on her salary" doesn't sound objective.
It is also rude.

Considering the fact that this particular University offers and ASL minor which " helps students acquire conversational skills in American Sign Language and develop an appreciation and understanding of the way in which people in the deaf community live, think, and communicate" (see CMU website),

I am sorry to say that doesn't mean the University understands the deaf, their needs and and their capabilities. Or their rights.

This is why I am interested in the reasoning behind the idea of Laascht weaning off an interpreter for her practicum requirement.

Then keep in mind please what the E& R is doing is also simply a power struggle,
which goes beyond laws and regulations.
And also, some of the reasoning behind E&R crosses the professional boundaries.

The deaf people are entitled to an interpreter always and everywhere,
and no "E&R" has right "to feel" weaning any off one.
Who pays for an interpreter is also immaterial, since and interpreter
is a deaf person right like yours to a wheelchair if you ever need one..

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

It does not matter to you how we functioned on getting jobs whether we tried to go into the fields of what we wanted to be and learned in College. Many times we were being turned down like we were nothing to the hearing society. We were often disappointed and felt discriminated not having the job we asked for. We all wanted to have ASL interpreters in our careers and were told "no". It is the same in mainstream schools. They refused to pay for ASL interpreters or wanted to go the road to oral only approaches. That make this harder for us to deal with hearing society who don't understand our needs to understand what is being said in classes and workplaces. Lipreading is not accurate and we do miss a lot on this. So ASL interpreter is the number one priority for us to understand what everyone said in both places.

I am really sorry that Laatsch had to gone through again like she was in high school being mainstreamed. No ASL interpreters but only oral only program. Geeze :roll:

That is exactly what I am trying to say here.
This is nobody business how Ms Laascht is going to find employment once she finishes E&R.

Like I've said, maybe she will find or marry a millionaire and open her own school, maybe she will teach at a deaf school only,
maybe she will shove her teacher's diploma high into a dark closet forever - who cares?

What she needs to do is to pass her exams like everybody else.
HOW is she going to do that - IS HER PROBLEM.

But accepting her into this school then scrutinizing her every move THEN placing ridiculous demands on her - is outrageous discrimination.
right along the lines what for example disabled, Blacks and homosexuals had to endure for millennia.


A perfect example of similar power struggle that is transpiring here is:
Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board

Marc Hall v. Durham Catholic School Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prom Fight: The Marc Hall Story (2002) - IMDb


They say they "defended the principles of their religion".

I say bollocks, they had power over the helpless gay student and they knew it.

Fuzzy

 

[Dixie]

Shel- unbelievable!

Hopefully I will not run into this issue in the future when I return to Uni to finish my teaching degree.

 

[kellycat]

I teach in a public school in WI. Our school offers ASL as a world language, just like French or Spanish, or German. Two of our three instructors in that program are deaf, and the school pays for staff interpreters for them. Our school also has the d/hh program of the district, so we have like 10 interpreters on staff. When we have faculty meetings, we hire outside interpreters so our staff terps can participate fully.

The "must understand and speak English" policy, which that school takes way too seriously, is no doubt to stop immigrants with thick accents from being certified, then not be able to communicate with kids, admins, etc. So basically the school's interpretation of the law is audist. The policy itself is probably more racist, if we want to assign it an "-ist" label.

 

[RoseRodent]

I was discriminated out of teaching in the UK. I was in the last batch of students still subject to the pre-training "medical" which required you to be able to hear a whisper with someone's back turned to you. I appealed my way through that one on the basis that it would be illegal 12 weeks into my course to require me to do this, so I may as well start now as there'd be no "medical" for graduation.

I started the course and I did very well with the on-campus stuff, but always fell into problems with my school experience. They were always picking at the same things on my school placements, that I did not "Integrate well with other staff in the staff room" (couldn't understand them, unlike the children they made no effort). Then I was told off for "ignoring" someone who came up and talked at the back of my head. Some schools actually asked me specifically not to let the children know I had hearing aids in case they did some unspecified horror or other. It seemed they thought I'd lose control of the class immediately. I was constantly in trouble for "speaking in a flat voice" too. They just didn't get it.

The whole thing got even worse in my final year. I'd always had trouble getting placed in a wheelchair accessible school as the council had no list of them, so they claimed. The list was nonsense anyway, as those schools which provided access to pupils did not have the same access for staff - one pupil can be taken in a 2-man lift. A teacher responsible for supervision on the stairs cannot take 32 children in a 2-man lift. They refused to allow me to have support staff on site from the university. The final placement they put me in a school with no access to the staff room then failed me on not mixing with the other staff yet again.

In my (blind) father's day you could qualify directly into the special sector, so he qualified as a teacher in a blind school, but the law now is that you cannot do anything at all in a special school until you have qualified in the mainstream. The Deaf school would very happily have had me for placement and are fully accessible because they take children with multiple additional needs, but it was turned down because you can't qualify via a special school any more. I was due to take a class via interpreter services anyway, but being on "special school" soil meant it couldn't be counted.

And then when I tried to repeat the placement and had asked for a part-time place because of my difficulties with my health they told me I could only have my rest breaks if I took them on the premises, and I could only be part time so long as I didn't miss any lessons - eventually I was there all the time and they questioned my "commitment" to teaching because I "wouldn't" (couldn't!) work full time.

Final straw was the day I told them that I was on serious medical treatment and had a list of things to phone the hospital about if they happened. I'd got my husband to call in to tell them about my symptoms and they said I had to go in immediately. I explained all this to them but they wrote on my report that I "should have made medical appointments in my own time" - this was not a routine thing, this was the hospital saying "If you don't come now you may die".

They didn't want me, everyone could see they didn't want me and they made stuff up and made a fuss until they could get rid of me. And they told me regularly how the disabled kids shouldn't be allowed in the mainstream and should all be in special schools, so clearly they thought disabled teachers fell into the same category.

I never did qualify. I aced all my exams, came top of the class in many, but they refused to pass me on my placement, not because I was poor at teaching but because my face didn't fit with the staff since I "didn't mix well" and "talked in a flat voice". I've got 320 out of 360 credit points for my teaching degree, but can't get the others because they must come from the same institution to count, and they are a dead loss.

 

[purplewowies]

I wanted to bump this because I just realized today that I know this woman. She's doing graduate school at my school, and today, during her graduate presentation in my Deaf History class, she told her story in detail. It was even more serious/...infuriating(?) to hear from her directly. Luckily, she got her BA in Education.

 

[Lau2046]

I was in the last batch of students still subject to the pre-training "medical" which required you to be able to hear a whisper with someone's back turned to you.

They have a similar requirement for federal agents and I think it's off the wall stupid. Who the Hell hears this? For agents though, they're supposed to be able to hear several feet away. Give me a break.....Some of the agents I've worked with have never seen the inside of a gym. I could probably out run many of them and I'm in much better shape physically....yet to think I wouldn't cut it simply because of my hearing, talk about crazy rules....

Laura