The "Mainstreaming" Experience: "Isolated cases"?

[jillio]

Naisho, I see what you mean about the sociological aspect of "norms" or "normal"...but it could also be a "loaded" word in mass communication. In order to have "normal" one then ends up having an "opposite" and everything is compared to the "normal" as being "standard" "healthy" "what is" etc.

Exactly. The concept of normal is just too subjective to be that compartmentalized. Even from a sociologic perspective.

 

[SJCSue]

But as dogmom says: Who defines what is normal, within the norm, typical, not exceptionally nuts, healthy.....????

I have a condition with my shoulders called Cleidocranial Dystosis. The shoulder bones are present but in each shoulder, the bone is in two pieces. The doctors believe that this condition is responsible for my mild to moderate hearing loss. It is normal for me to have sore shoulders/back when I lift something heavy. However, for another person, it may be weird.

 

[TheOracle]

Might want to spend some time perusing the forum and seeing what actual deaf individuals have to say about the mainstreaming experience. Happy and normal are not 2 words you will find used.

Given the state of education, mainstreaming is not the panacea it was believed it would be.

I have. I've been active in 90 per cent of this thread.

But "norm" is a word used in statistics, behavioral science, psychology...

I can't change the dictionary for AD.

I'm well aware of the deficits of mainstream ed.

 

[TheOracle]

Naisho, I see what you mean about the sociological aspect of "norms" or "normal"...but it could also be a "loaded" word in mass communication.

It could be. In an education thread, it's perfectly appropriate.

In order to have "normal" one then ends up having an "opposite" and everything is compared to the "normal" as being "standard" "healthy" "what is" etc.

No. It is not an a priori statement. To be "normal" does not mean everyone else is "abnormal". Normal is just part of the means of distribution.

 

[jillio]

I have. I've been active in 90 per cent of this thread.

But "norm" is a word used in statistics, behavioral science, psychology...

I can't change the dictionary for AD.

I'm well aware of the deficits of mainstream ed.

Might want to review some of the older threads, too. Mainstreaming is just not well thought of, partuclarly by the deaf/Deaf that have survived it. I can also recommend a couple of books on the topic if you are interested.

Contextual definition is often very different from content (dictionary) definition.

 

[deafdyke]

Given the state of education, mainstreaming is not the panacea it was believed it would be.

And that is very true for a lot of low incidence disabilties. The first fleet of kids who were mainstreamed back in the mid 70's did very well, b/c they had the advantage of a foundation of specialized training. Now unfortunatly, their education tends to be general special ed (think headstart or easter seals) or general early intervention preschool and you have to really try to dig down deep to try to find the deaf ed system.
I think too educational admins saw the kids who did well with minimal accomondations, and thought that ALL kids could do well that way.

 

[shel90]

Might want to review some of the older threads, too. Mainstreaming is just not well thought of, partuclarly by the deaf/Deaf that have survived it. I can also recommend a couple of books on the topic if you are interested.

Contextual definition is often very different from content (dictionary) definition.

I surviving mainstreaming academically. Emotionally, nope.

 

[Hohtopics]

Might want to review some of the older threads, too. Mainstreaming is just not well thought of, partuclarly by the deaf/Deaf that have survived it. I can also recommend a couple of books on the topic if you are interested.

Contextual definition is often very different from content (dictionary) definition.

Now, let's get a little constructive here. Now, if I say "Mainstreaming was a good experience" for me, I become the bad guy. And some of you will "try to shoot it down" and reply it with a "mainstreaming sucks!". And that some of you seem to act that it's okay for an AD'er to say "Mainstreaming sucks" but it isn't for one to say "Mainstreaming was a good experience".

I mean where do we draw the line?

 

[Daredevel7]

Now, let's get a little constructive here. Now, if I say "Mainstreaming was a good experience" for me, I become the bad guy. And some of you will "try to shoot it down" and reply it with a "mainstreaming sucks!". And that some of you seem to act that it's okay for an AD'er to say "Mainstreaming sucks" but it isn't for one to say "Mainstreaming was a good experience".

I mean where do we draw the line?

There is no line. We ARE on a forum that has a lot of...... people who feel very strongly against mainstream due to their bad experiences. Think of it this way, we enjoyed mainstream, right? But do we feel AS strongly (in a good way) about it as people who had a horrible time in mainstream? When I first joined AD, I learned that I should just keep my mouth shut about "how great of a time I had in mainstream" unless it was constructive to the argument. Talking about my good experiences are not worth reminding those who had a terrible experience, and it is definitely not efficient nor convincing for AD.

I mean honestly, when someone says "I did great in mainstream!" is as constructive as someone simply saying "Mainstream sucks.". I'd much prefer WHY it is awesome or WHY it sucks.

Plus, I am willing to bet that most people here will not believe you when you say that you were happy in mainstream. To them, you were "simply brainwashed". So there is no point in convincing people.

Do you feel THAT strong enough to defend mainstream to convince parents that mainstream is definitely the way? For everyone?

Some deaf people here definitely feel strong enough to defend ASL to convince parents that ASL is definitely the way to go for everyone. Can you meet their match? If not, then you're simply starting an useless fire whenever you simply say "Mainstream rocks!".

 

[KristinaB]

Now, let's get a little constructive here. Now, if I say "Mainstreaming was a good experience" for me, I become the bad guy. And some of you will "try to shoot it down" and reply it with a "mainstreaming sucks!". And that some of you seem to act that it's okay for an AD'er to say "Mainstreaming sucks" but it isn't for one to say "Mainstreaming was a good experience".

I mean where do we draw the line?

I personally was mainstreamed and for the most part did well. I still feel like I could have benefited from more or a different type of schooling, but for the area I lived in at the time of the century it was, I did well. I am also of the opinion that mainstreaming is not for everyone. Deaf and HOH kids will sometimes need a lot more and having to be pulled out in the middle of class, or to have just 1 class period to do speech or whatever is not really conducive to a well-rounded education, IMO. I know because I have had to deal with it both for myself and for my child.

 

[jillio]

It could be. In an education thread, it's perfectly appropriate.


No. It is not an a priori statement. To be "normal" does not mean everyone else is "abnormal". Normal is just part of the means of distribution.

The only thing your bell curve demonstrates is the average mean scored on a given test by a particular population. Normal / abnormal involves a great deal more than that. For instance, a deaf individual could easily fall within the mean range for an IQ score, however, that says nothing about the daily experiences they encounter that create a normal exisitence for them. When you attempt to limit the human experience to a set of statistical findings, you leave out far too many variables. That is why the scores are determined in what is the mean and what deviates from the mean, and not what is normal or abnormal. "Normal distribution" refers to the way the numbers would be expected to fall based on the assessment used, not behavior or experience. In other words, results are distributed normaly (evenly) given a representative population. Numbers, however, are not people.

Not to mention, in many cases, a normal distribution is completely undesirable, and indicates a pathology in behavior. You are using terms that you evidently don't quite grasp the meanings of, as you are using them interchangably when they are not interchangable.

 

[jillio]

Now, let's get a little constructive here. Now, if I say "Mainstreaming was a good experience" for me, I become the bad guy. And some of you will "try to shoot it down" and reply it with a "mainstreaming sucks!". And that some of you seem to act that it's okay for an AD'er to say "Mainstreaming sucks" but it isn't for one to say "Mainstreaming was a good experience".

I mean where do we draw the line?

You place the value judgement on yourself as being the bad guy. Not anyone here. That is where you make your biggest error. You see everything as a value judgement on the person, rather than a commentary on the system. Stop taking things so personally.

 

[jillio]

I have. I've been active in 90 per cent of this thread.

But "norm" is a word used in statistics, behavioral science, psychology...

I can't change the dictionary for AD.

I'm well aware of the deficits of mainstream ed.

And you are misusing the word "norm". You are using it as it applies to statistical numbers. Numbers are not people, nor are they experience. A statistical norm does not equate to a normal experience for the individual. Additionally, statistics are quite often manipulated in order to create a normalized distribution.

 

[jillio]

Social norms. It's a norm in Western culture to celebrate birthdays, get presents on Christmas, got to Prom, drive a car at 16.

As far as education goes: It's pretty much 1) kids who fall in certain testing guidelines on most subjects 2) kids who stay out of trouble for the most part 3) kids who aren't constantly bullied.

Social norms are values generally accepted by a particular society. That does not transfer to normal for an individual given their unique experience. You are misusing the English language here.

 

[Hohtopics]

There is no line. We ARE on a forum that has a lot of...... people who feel very strongly against mainstream due to their bad experiences. Think of it this way, we enjoyed mainstream, right? But do we feel AS strongly (in a good way) about it as people who had a horrible time in mainstream? When I first joined AD, I learned that I should just keep my mouth shut about "how great of a time I had in mainstream" unless it was constructive to the argument. Talking about my good experiences are not worth reminding those who had a terrible experience, and it is definitely not efficient nor convincing for AD.

I mean honestly, when someone says "I did great in mainstream!" is as constructive as someone simply saying "Mainstream sucks.". I'd much prefer WHY it is awesome or WHY it sucks.

Plus, I am willing to bet that most people here will not believe you when you say that you were happy in mainstream. To them, you were "simply brainwashed". So there is no point in convincing people.

Do you feel THAT strong enough to defend mainstream to convince parents that mainstream is definitely the way? For everyone?

Some deaf people here definitely feel strong enough to defend ASL to convince parents that ASL is definitely the way to go for everyone. Can you meet their match? If not, then you're simply starting an useless fire whenever you simply say "Mainstream rocks!".

Alright, you have a constructive point there.

Ok, but then shouldn't a statement like "Mainstreaming is just not well thought of, particularly by the deaf/Deaf that have survived it." be written as "Mainstreaming is not well thought of by some or many of the deaf/Deaf that have survived it." See the difference?

 

[jillio]

Alright, you have a constructive point there.

Ok, but then shouldn't a statement like "Mainstreaming is just not well thought of, particularly by the deaf/Deaf that have survived it." be written as "Mainstreaming is not well thought of by some or many of the deaf/Deaf that have survived it." See the difference?

To answer your question, NO.

 

[deafdyke]

]Now, if I say "Mainstreaming was a good experience" for me, I become the bad guy. And some of you will "try to shoot it down" and reply it with a "mainstreaming sucks!". And that some of you seem to act that it's okay for an AD'er to say "Mainstreaming sucks" but it isn't for one to say "Mainstreaming was a good experience".

I mean where do we draw the line? [/QUOTE]Hohtopics, no you're missing our point completely. NOBODY here is all "mainstreaming sucks and all deaf kids should attend Deaf School or program. I think overall we reconize that a continum of placement approach works well with education as a whole. We just think that educational policy should be on "smart streaming" making sure that kids don't fall through the cracks, and that kids aren't automaticly kneejerk mainstreamed. Also, you miss that you're the type of kid who would have done well in the mainstream even BEFORE mainstreaming became the norm.

 

[Hohtopics]

Hohtopics, no you're missing our point completely. NOBODY here is all "mainstreaming sucks and all deaf kids should attend Deaf School or program. I think overall we reconize that a continum of placement approach works well with education as a whole. We just think that educational policy should be on "smart streaming" making sure that kids don't fall through the cracks, and that kids aren't automaticly kneejerk mainstreamed. Also, you miss that you're the type of kid who would have done well in the mainstream even BEFORE mainstreaming became the norm.

Alright, I see your point. And thanks for the compliment. Although some of the credit goes to my parents for their help and support, especially my mother's (i.e. with due respect to my father, it was my mother that was the forerunner that mostly took care of my hearing loss / education). And best of luck in helping other deaf students!

 

[deafdyke]

And thanks for the compliment. Although some of the credit goes to my parents for their help and support, especially my mother's (i.e. with due respect to my father, it was my mother that was the forerunner that mostly took care of my hearing loss / education).

And even with that, you might have benifited from attending a magnet/regional program.You DO have to admit that even with the fact that you got a comparable to hearing peers education (ie you weren't in the Resource Room) it prolly would have been super nice to attend school with other dhh kids/teens and have access to teachers who were familiar with teaching kids like us. I have to say I think you still have a rose colored glasses "Clarke School" 1970's view of oral only and mainstreaming. Yes, some kids do very well as solotaires.....but overall those kids are the ones who would have done well even before mainstreaming was the norm. I really think you don't realize that most oral only and mainstreamed kids are resource roomed and hit the fourth grade acheivement ceiling.....
The simple fact of the matter is that mainstream is TOO one size fits all....God, I remember an IEP meeting in elementary school where the IEP team told my parents I wasn't "really deaf" and all I needed was Resource Room.
I'm sorry but that is the major problem. Oral admins thought that mainstreaming would = higher acheivement. It doesn't b/c special ed(and the gross majority of dhh kids are special ed) in the mainstream is generally targeted towards LD kids ....and of course the "dumping ground" " who's President Obama?' kids whose only problem is that they are super apathetic towards learning.

 

[Hohtopics]

And even with that, you might have benifited from attending a magnet/regional program.You DO have to admit that even with the fact that you got a comparable to hearing peers education (ie you weren't in the Resource Room) it prolly would have been super nice to attend school with other dhh kids/teens and have access to teachers who were familiar with teaching kids like us.

To tell you the truth, not really. Cause I felt I was able to develop my own identity this way without being lumped with the others. However, I still sometime saw some deaf friends on weekends and so forth. To each, his or her own.

However, allow me go a little further on my mainstreaming background.

That admittedly, being in the honor class probably made the experience more "uplifting". And it's possible that had I been in the regular classes, whereas the students were usually not only less academically-inclined but also the more social / peer oriented, the more "cool" group, I would not have enjoyed the experience as much. Who knows.

Part of the credit goes to my 6th grade teacher when she, and to my initial surprise not to also mentioned eventually being a little flattered, decided to place me in the "SP" class at the local Junior High.

And once I was put into that environment, one thing led to another. And you know how it is "you become like the people you're surrounded with". And once I was placed in a class with other smart students, whose wavelength were usually similar to mine, it helped me fit in more even during the times I may have been a little quiet and so forth.

And to this day, that if I go to any reunions, I tend to gravitate towards those I knew in the honor classes. Not only cause I got to know them better, but also feeling that they're the ones I usually have more in common with and all.

And it was also cause of the help I got my from parents, especially from my mother at the elementary level. Whereas it kind of jump started me into doing better the rest of my mainstreaming experience.

Again, this been just my experience and I understand it very much depends on each deaf individual. And again best of luck in helping other deaf students get a good education or as you like to say "not fall through the cracks", etc.