The "Mainstreaming" Experience: "Isolated cases"?

[shel90]

Hey, I'm curious. If the law were amended to read "Deaf" instead of defining hearing impairments as disabling, would that really piss you off?

Because if you want to frame it, then you need to differentiate between D and d. I think most of us here do that. You, ironically, seem to be hung up on how it sounds to those who hear.

whenever I rent DVDs, I have to click on " set up" or "settings" to enable the rationing. Whenever I see "subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing" it feels more respectful than some that say "subtitles for the hearing impaired." I think in the law, it should say "deaf, hard of hearing, and the hearing impaired." The reason is that there will always be people who identify themselves as impaired in some way so that's fine but I don't want to be associated with that word, "impaired."

 

[TheOracle]

But the law defines what a disability is, and Mr. Potts didn't like that I used that word, even in context of the law.

 

[Mister Potts]

This kind of sarcastic commentary doesn't merit a response. Have a good day.

 

[Bottesini]

Grendel said what I said! Look, do I think of you as disabled? Uh, no. But I don't think of my former students with autism as disabled either. In that framing, disabled can suggest someone is less than human, less than perfect, or there's something "wrong" with them. Or as my former boss liked to think, "This (disabled) kid is SO lucky to have me around."

But when I talked about disability in terms of the law, that's exactly what I did. If you want to change the law, that's your campaign. It ain't mine.

The very fact that a hearing impairment is a "disability" under the law also offers the same kinds of protections that Grendel was talking about. Those protections were in the context of what I said. If you want to change the framing, then you need to address educational settings. You need to point out what I just did - that the dhh population is the only population that has a legal disability (which as educators, we must ADDRESS APPROPRIATELY) and a separate language. There's nothing in there about cognitive deficits. Hearing is defined as a major life task that the average (yes I said average! think of math!) person can perform easily, and HI obviously falls in that category.

I think the current bi - bi movement is looking to address that.

If I thought something was okay, standard, or true just because it was a law, then I'd have a hard time reconciling my liberal weenie views with the country I live in. But I used it in a legal manner that was totally appropriate and you know it.

Hey, I'm curious. If the law were amended to read "Deaf" instead of defining hearing impairments as disabling, would that really piss you off?

Because if you want to frame it, then you need to differentiate between D and d. I think most of us here do that. You, ironically, seem to be hung up on how it sounds to those who hear.

But the law defines what a disability is, and Mr. Potts didn't like that I used that word, even in context of the law.

Tail between your legs?

 

[TheOracle]

You're going to have to find someone a little more clever to work your reframing movement.

 

[Tousi]

Well, maybe this is just too simplistic but, hey, I'm a simple guy, Maybe take the many definitions of deafness in, say, the OED, and reverse the order they are currently in.....this is probably a request so huge that it'd never see the light of day, especially at my age, lol.....

 

[Reba]

Thanks for the video.

Mainstreaming has always worked better in theory than in practice.

 

[TheOracle]

Thanks for the video.

Mainstreaming has always worked better in theory than in practice.

at first I was like, "why is that smiley slapping himself?" and then I got it. DUH.

mainstreaming has been good for some students. maybe not deaf ones, though.

 

[Reba]

at first I was like, "why is that smiley slapping himself?" and then I got it. DUH

mainstreaming has been good for some students. maybe not deaf ones, though.

I should have added "for deaf students."

 

[TheOracle]

*sigh*

but considering that a lot of deaf students have to go to deaf school far away from homes...isn't that not really the least restrictive environment? well, for parents, anyway.

 

[Reba]

*sigh*

but considering that a lot of deaf students have to go to deaf school far away from homes...isn't that not really the least restrictive environment? well, for parents, anyway.

It's only my opinion but I think deaf day school would be a good option but it usually requires the whole family moving to a location near the school.

 

[inmate23]

isn't that not really the least restrictive environment? well, for parents, anyway.

one thing I have learned when it comes to education till the end highschool is all about the parents when it comes to high needs students

 

[TheOracle]

i don't think most parents want their children go away. it eerily sounds like institutionalizing them as people did 70 years ago. even if that's not the case.

 

[Bebonang]

i don't think most parents want their children go away. it eerily sounds like institutionalizing them as people did 70 years ago. even if that's not the case.

Well, it is too bad if the parents don't care to be close to the Deaf schools or don't want to communicate with their deaf sons or daughters. That way we can be comfortable being in a Deaf community in the Deaf schools whether they are in the classrooms or outside of the classrooms.

If hearing parents along with hearing children move near the Deaf school, then that show that they care about wanting to communicate with their Deaf child or Deaf children. Then go for it. The Deaf child will be happy to come home from the Deaf school right in the area.

You just have to understand our feeling not being with hearing parents who don't understand why we are deaf. They don't understand the meaning of the word "deaf". They think that hearing aids or CIs help us to hear sounds and to listen to them speaking, but that is not what our hearing loss is all about. We can not hear the exact words or could not pick up the words at all. So why the assumptions when they don't know what it is like to be deaf? That is what turns us off and get all rile up about that. :roll:

 

[TheOracle]

I'm saying it's not plausible for all parents to be near their deaf children. Most parents don't want to separate themselves. And...it would make those parents look bad, in a "how dare you send your deaf child away!" sort of bad. So anyway, that's how most parents think.

My son is hearing and if he weren't, he'd be at a school nearby...but that's because I live in a metro area.

 

[Bebonang]

I'm saying it's not plausible for all parents to be near their deaf children. Most parents don't want to separate themselves. And...it would make those parents look bad, in a "how dare you send your deaf child away!" sort of bad. So anyway, that's how most parents think.

My son is hearing and if he weren't, he'd be at a school nearby...but that's because I live in a metro area.

Did your son goes on the school bus to his school or did he walk to the school close by from your home even if you are in the metro area?

Oh, come on, now. I can not believe that you feel that most parents don't want to be separate themselves if they can not find a way to help the deaf child's need instead of going through with oral-only method. Only if they can find a mainstream schools with ASL friendly enough to have ASL interpreters in the classrooms being able to understand the lessons taught by the hearing teachers. A day Deaf school would be great for the deaf child or deaf children to have ASL in the programs so that they would not be delay.

 

[deafdyke]

Mainstreaming has always worked better in theory than in practice.

Even for disabled kids who aren't dhh, it works better in theory then in practice. Believe me. I think mainstreaming works best for kids who have relatively common issues. It does seem like mainstreaming and inclusion are pushed by people who are CLUELESS about the lack of qualified teachers, (even sped teachers aren't generally trained in low incidence disabilties) about how bright kids who do not respond to minimal accomondations get lumped in with the low acheivers, about how fucking sociopathic kids can be, about how we are "nominally" included but we never go to prom, and we have NO friends in school and we are not even really included in any real community.

t eerily sounds like institutionalizing them as people did 70 years ago. even if that's not the case.

Not quite. Insistutionalization would be just warehousing them. I do agree....it is a sticky sitution......and I support day programs as much as possible. Especially when the kid is a little kid. If a kid goes off to res school, they should be a bit older...I would say that if a kid is old enough to sleep over a friend's house, they're old enough to stay in the dorms. Remember, nowadays, virtually all Deaf Schools have a weekend home policy (except for MSSD, but that is a high school)
It's no longer the old old days when kids lived at school for months and months without seeing their families. But sometimes there are cases where it might be a good idea for kids to live at school. Not all school districts can provide good accomondations, some kids might be from really bad school districts like East St. Louis or Gary Indiana or Detroit or even a one room schoolhouse sort of dealie (meaning a really rural area with not a lot of resources, even for hearing/nondisabled kids) For example, would you say that an inner city mom who has kids by lots of different fathers and who lives in a crappy school district should stay in that sitution? If it is done right, res school can be like a really good summer camp. Not to mention that it can provide independent living skills to teens with disabilties. (a population which can be very sheltered) Wealthy families often send their kids to boarding schools when they are teens. Heck missionary families often send their kids to boarding schools. I'm ALL for day programs, and I have to say I was horrified when Deaf friends told me that when they were at school, there were four year olds in the res program. But I do think res school can be a viable option, and should be preserved as an option, especially for older kids (old enough to sleep over a friend's house) and teens.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

i think there are two huge issues in mainstreaming.

the first is access to the curriculum. There are two ways to access the information in a mainstream class.

First, visually. That would mean that the student would need a highly quailified interpreter as well as pre-teaching and general oversight by a teacher of the deaf.

The second would be through listening. The student would need to be able to understand open set language, in noise, at an age appropriate level, without lipreading.

the second issue would be social. Inclusion is more than geography! The students would actually need to be part of the class, equal members, who are as valued as anyone else. If the child is unable to socialize and understand the other kids, they are going to struggle socially.

 

[Hohtopics]

Mainstreaming was a good experience for me.

 

[AlleyCat]

Wirelessly posted

i think there are two huge issues in mainstreaming.

the first is access to the curriculum. There are two ways to access the information in a mainstream class.

First, visually. That would mean that the student would need a highly quailified interpreter as well as pre-teaching and general oversight by a teacher of the deaf.

The second would be through listening. The student would need to be able to understand open set language, in noise, at an age appropriate level, without lipreading.

the second issue would be social. Inclusion is more than geography! The students would actually need to be part of the class, equal members, who are as valued as anyone else. If the child is unable to socialize and understand the other kids, they are going to struggle socially.

I agree on the second issue. That was an area very sorely lacking for me.

However, the first issue -- the 2nd part: being able to understand language without lipreading. Why? If you've got an interpreter, everything you're supposed to be learning in the class is already being conveyed to you.