I have been reading various blogs about the House Bill 1367 which proposes to "remove the outreach center currently housed at the Indiana School for
the Deaf, terminate all staff working in that center, and recreate a new
outreach center separate from the school" (from NAD's Action Alert: Support Ind.School for the Deaf, Oppose HB 1367). Many people online oppose this bill, while few support it. People in favor of communicating with sign language seem to be against it, while those who use auditory/oral means seem to support the bill.
I personally don't really have any strong opinions on the matter. I have never been to the school and the outreach center. I have not heard from or met anyone who personally visited the outreach center and receive services from them. From looking at their website, they offer several different services and support in various areas (speech and language, audiology, IEPs, working with mainstreamed students, Deaf Role Model, education, literacy coach, assessment services, etc.). Seems like a great place for parents and caregivers to get information and help.
I guess it would be more cost effective to keep the center and just add to it, whatever services the outreach center may be lacking. It is nice that the center is located on campus. I can see why some people are upset by this bill. There are concerns that ISD would have no control over what happens in the center and that it will eventually focus mostly on auditory/oral approaches since HEAR INDIANA will apparently be a part of the new outreach center.
However, since ISD students are entitled to free appropriate education, the center could provide services and information on all communication modes such as cued speech and AVT. I did not see anywhere on their website that discusses or provides information about these two. So, I can also see why some support this bill, because they would like to see more auditory/oral information and services offered for free.
Before forming your own opinions on the matter, unless you know about the situation first hand (have visited the outreach center and school, met people who work there, met people who use their services, etc.) it is important to actually read the bill, look at both sides and try to understand where each side is coming from.
Below are some links to bloggers and organizations against the bill:
Here are some links (not many out there) to bloggers and organizations supporting the bill:
We'll have to see what happens. But, in the end, whether a new center is built or not, parents and caregivers are still ultimately responsible for their children and learning about what they can do to support their children. There are no excuses in this day and age with easy and instant internet access to information about deaf and hard of hearing children, education, and communication modes. It is a daunting task, to weed through the information provided, no doubt. But, people should know better than to rely on only one or two sources of information. The information is out there on the internet, from various centers, schools, specialists, educators, deaf and hard of hearing people, and organizations. Do your research. Knowledge is power.
(e
I personally don't really have any strong opinions on the matter. I have never been to the school and the outreach center. I have not heard from or met anyone who personally visited the outreach center and receive services from them. From looking at their website, they offer several different services and support in various areas (speech and language, audiology, IEPs, working with mainstreamed students, Deaf Role Model, education, literacy coach, assessment services, etc.). Seems like a great place for parents and caregivers to get information and help.
I guess it would be more cost effective to keep the center and just add to it, whatever services the outreach center may be lacking. It is nice that the center is located on campus. I can see why some people are upset by this bill. There are concerns that ISD would have no control over what happens in the center and that it will eventually focus mostly on auditory/oral approaches since HEAR INDIANA will apparently be a part of the new outreach center.
However, since ISD students are entitled to free appropriate education, the center could provide services and information on all communication modes such as cued speech and AVT. I did not see anywhere on their website that discusses or provides information about these two. So, I can also see why some support this bill, because they would like to see more auditory/oral information and services offered for free.
Before forming your own opinions on the matter, unless you know about the situation first hand (have visited the outreach center and school, met people who work there, met people who use their services, etc.) it is important to actually read the bill, look at both sides and try to understand where each side is coming from.
Below are some links to bloggers and organizations against the bill:
Here are some links (not many out there) to bloggers and organizations supporting the bill:
We'll have to see what happens. But, in the end, whether a new center is built or not, parents and caregivers are still ultimately responsible for their children and learning about what they can do to support their children. There are no excuses in this day and age with easy and instant internet access to information about deaf and hard of hearing children, education, and communication modes. It is a daunting task, to weed through the information provided, no doubt. But, people should know better than to rely on only one or two sources of information. The information is out there on the internet, from various centers, schools, specialists, educators, deaf and hard of hearing people, and organizations. Do your research. Knowledge is power.
(e
Here is another link to a fairly detailed and clear explanation of the concerns:
ReplyDeletehttp://deafecho.com/2012/01/indiana-school-for-the-deaf-vs-hear-indiana/
The thing that really caught my attention was the fact that only one (or perhaps two) of nine board members at ISD seems to have any ties to the Deaf community or to parents of children at ISD, or seems to be a 'stakeholder' in ISD. This raises serious questions. Imagine if you found that the school board of the public school district at which *you* work were composed of nine members, eight of which are home-school advocates and do not have their own children in the district's schools. Even without questioning the motives of the eight, you might be concerned that they would not understand the schools they were supposed to help run.
David
Most teachers deal with board members and administrators who are clueless about what goes on in the classroom today and have little experience teaching or working in public schools. This is not anything new.
DeleteBut, I see your point. I suppose I can understand why some would be upset about the selection of board members of ISD. But, I would have to meet and learn more about the board members and visit ISD before I can give any opinions on this. I hear so many different things on the internet, and I can't completely trust everything that is being said online and in the media.
I have asked this question tons of places and have not gotten a good answer.
ReplyDeleteCan ISD provide unbiased information AND services? If not, they need the new center. If ISD can not provide AVT and cuing right along with ASL, then they are not meeting the needs of all the students.
Reasonable question. Wish I could answer it.
DeleteDefine "unbiased" information concerning Deaf children.
DeleteI have seen bosses and policy makers forcing Deaf employees and Outreach specialists to be "unbiased" which in reality meant NO valid research and information to be given about ASL and bilingual/bicultural education, NO honest personal experiences from Deaf adults and children about their upbringing with Oralism with criticism or the benefits of ASL UNLESS it's in favor of CI, Oralism, etc. Talk about unbiased on the other side? And we Deaf people and our allies know that's like "trying to catch a flea" (according to one of the old NAD films)...
What HB 1367 has been revealing is that proponents of OOOO (Only One Option = Oralism) is twisting "unbiased" to mean lies, invalid research, bad/limited reporting, ethnocentric ignorance, and pushing for control of Deaf education money WITHOUT the biggest stakeholders - the members of the signing Deaf community - involved in any real influential positions.
Nowadays, EHDI has pushed practically every hospital to provide "unbiased" (in reality BIASED) testing and information to parents which DO NO INCLUDE APPROPRIATE information about what Deaf babies really need to lead full, quality, confident lives THROUGH a NATURAL language and positive cultural environment that includes awareness and skills of dealing with the bigger world AS THEY ARE. Check out Karl White of NCHAM. Check out NIDCD website. Check out their "unbiased" (INVALID AND BIASED) comments and leanings.
What you noticed about the strategic set up of the ISD school board way back in May and since then with this bill popping up shows this so-called "unbiased" leaning or rather brainwashing of the legislators by the powers that be which includes Hear Indiana in a very large capacity.
Puhleez Miss K's Parents Get out of stone age and stop stressing so much on what nots! AVT and cuing do NOT work for deaf children. Use Bi-Bi approach (English and ASL). It seems you lack common sense in deaf culture area.
ReplyDeletePuhleez, you are not contributing to the discussion by telling us simply that you disagree with oral/aural means and that Miss Kat's Parents lack common sense. She simply asked a question. She did not ask you to insult her.
DeleteNow if you would like to be a part of the discussion in a meaningful way, I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this and why you feel so strongly about this bill. Telling us that you disagree with AVT and Cued Speech does not contribute much.
Anonymous, what experience do you have with cueing to say that it does not work? I know several native cuers who credit that system with giving them wonderful literacy skills in both reading and writing English.
DeleteLiz
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI have not been following this much and have started to read up on this bill in Indiana.
Anonymous said, "AVT and cuing do NOT work for deaf children"
That statement should not be the reason for not supporting the bill. Clearly, that statement is erroneous. It is erroneous because the truth is that what works for deaf children varies. It is true that Bi-Bi works for deaf children, however, other approaches works too. It is true that AVT and cuing works for deaf children, other approaches works too. This is where one side that supports Bi-Bi seem to choose to ignore, and that is AVT and Cuing DOES works for those who opt for it and are dedicated to it. It is false to say that only Bi-Bi works for all deaf children and if that is one of the argument against the bill, then the opposition to that bill will only hurt their cause even further. There has to be a better argument as to why they oppose the bill. What I'm seeing so far is that the key to ensuring that ISD keep their outreach center is to show proof that they are in fact providing FREE APPROPRIATE EDUCATION, which means all options must be on the table and nothing should be hidden or withheld to provide these parents/children. Is that an issue? Has ISD been unbiased? I don't know and I'm asking that. Why the need for the bill? Is there guarantee that an outreach outside of ISD will ensure unbiased services? There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions at this point, and like you (e, I don't have too much of an opinion on this yet. Clearly this outreach will not affect ISD's education for their current students, whether it would mean less enrollment for future students is unclear at this point. Is that one of the reason why they oppose the bill? Is it speculation? Is the speculation valid? I would very much like to see the transcript of the hearing to see why each side supports/oppose this bill to get an idea of what the real issue is. There seem to be (maybe seem is a loose word - more like, there is...) lack of trust towards certain organization. Is their lack of trust towards these organization valid? At some point, everyone would need to work together to respect each side's view. There has to be a point somewhere soon in the future otherwise, this will only hurt everyone down the road.
Agreed. Thanks for your comment, Candy.
Delete(e
Bi-Bi is the correct one. I still stand for it. AVT and cuing are not natural.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading about this topic, and it seems to boil down to 1) There is nothing wrong with ISD as it is so leave it alone, and 2) AG Bell is part of this initiative through the state chapter, so don't trust anything related to them. There are also claims that there is no reason for this bill, but it appears based on a report by the Office of Management and Budget. There's only a PowerPoint presentation of the report available for now, so it would be useful to see the full report.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that ISD has been the home to outreach services, is it that surprising that there is one board member (or two) who do not have direct ties to the school? The services help deaf children who are mainstreamed around the state. They are not necessarily going to be tied to the Deaf community or even ISD itself. Without the full report, I'm not sure how proponents of the bill think that the outreach center being part of ISD is not good enough as it is. They could be biased, they could perceive bias, or they have heard concerns of parents who use the services and need more. There's more research needed, and right now all we have are boring ad hominem attacks.
I'm speaking simply as a tax payer from Indiana. I want to see less government control and less taxes being taken from us. Hence I oppose this bill because it increases government control and increases spending.
ReplyDeleteYes, more research is needed. It seems as if some parents who were seeking information from the outreach center, other than sign language or manual communication, were disappointed in their lack of information about other modes of communication especially those that are strictly oral/aural. So proponents of the bill think that a new center may provide more 'unbiased' information in all areas, not just bi-bi approach, speech pathology, audiological services, and sign language.
DeleteThose who oppose it think it is unnecessary and a waste of money. You are opposing it as a tax payer from Indiana. It is understandable that you would like to see less government control and spending. Makes sense.
Others oppose it because anything that has to do with AG Bell is bad and can't be trusted as you pointed out. Personally, I think they should focus more on how it is a waste of money, resources, and time to build a new center. Also it is troubling how the bill is vague and it does not seem as if ISD was told about it before they decided to propose it. This argument makes more sense. Screaming about oralism, cued speech, AVT, AG Bell, and HEAR INDIANA is not going to do much.
Hmm. Interesting. Thanks for your comment, Anonymous.
This reminds of the AB2072 for the brochure that attempted to be in the unbiased and neutral "zone". If the unbiased resources that held at ISD, the ISD would NOT provide the communication options to the parents. If the outreach/resource center at the outside of ISD, they would have provided all options at the neutral boundary zone. It must provide all the communication options EQUALLY no matter what.
ReplyDeleteParents unfortunately will dig the information on the scores at any schools in the internet.
Makes no difference.
Interesting comments and "dialogue" over at:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/hearindiana
Do not know how reliable the opposition's message is over there.
Some of what is being said is off topic and astoundingly ridiculous. I am really embarrassed for some of the commentators.
DeleteWhy would you think if it's off topic and astoundingly ridiculous? Huh? Could you please elaborate what you think if you are embarrassed by the commentators' views? I don't see anything wrong if there are any controversial issue, it's only pros and cons argument. They only do not want any politics to take the American Sign Language away from the ISD. I know it's biased to have the Resource/Outreach Center to be on the ISD's property but it's their rights and voices.
DeleteAs you can see that there are many protestors from many "Occupy" sites to live on the "first class" street? Is that what you are embarrassing by that kind of the statement?
I feel the same way, (e. I would have supported them more if they had a rational argument, even though I strongly feel that parents have the right to be fully informed and decide. The argument seems ridiculous at times. It is possible to support a group, even though one does not agree with the stance. I have noticed in another FB page, the Indiana Deaf Education Coalition where folks are putting up pictures saying that they survive AGBell, etc. I noticed one person from deaf family saying it for his friends, not for himself. I wonder...many deaf families do send their children to oral programs and from what I have seen so far, most of us do not have scars. This isn't about oral or deaf schools here and that is what it is becoming, so off topic. It is about the Outreach and putting it in a neutral place, not in ISD or in St. Josephs. There is a fact that cannot be denied: Majority of deaf babies are not profoundly deaf, many have enough hearing to benefit from hearing aid and to be able to take advantage of technology. Parents want the best for their child, they want to get services and referrals based on that. I truly think both sides can work together. One day, hopefully they can. I'm going to leave this to the parents of deaf/hh kids in Indiana to figure this out. Good post, (e and interesting comments all around. Ciao~
DeleteThanks for the clarification as where the FB page,Indiana Deaf Education Coalition is located at.
DeleteI agree with you, Candy.
I strongly believe that all communication options should be at the neutral place.
sigh.....Analogy to the AB2072's crazy saga......neutral, neutral, neutral......
I checked the Facebook page - found this quote: "Nothing about us without us".
ReplyDeleteI am particularly concerned that the "professionals" with whom parents of deaf and HoH kids come in contact seem to go to a great deal of effort to prevent contact with Deaf mentors. I recall the author of "We Never Landed in Holland" and, if I recall correctly, Rachel Coleman talking about the resistance they faced when they wanted their children to meet adult Deaf mentors. I think Miss Kat's mom mentioned similar resistance - please correct me, MKM, if that recollection is faulty.
I even suspect that you, (e, have faced discrimination in the field of Deaf Ed because of your hearing status.
Why is there such resistance to allowing signing Deaf people "a seat at the table"? Clearly such resistance and exclusion fosters mistrust and suspicion.
[How would it be received if the NAACP still only had one African American executive, as they did 100 years ago? (Source: http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history)]
David
I am not sure what the bill has to do with keeping parents of deaf and hoh kids come in contact with deaf professionals or mentors. Unless you think that if the bill passes this kind of negative treatment would escalate.
DeleteBut, what you describe happens frequently, from what I hear. I really don't understand why some professionals go a great length to prevent deaf/hoh kids be in contact with deaf mentors.
I have been lucky that this has not happened in the school district I work for, in fact they encourage it. However, being in a rural area, with lack of resources and money, it has been hard to find deaf mentors in the area. We instead contact deaf mentors online and watch tons of videos about various deaf and hoh professionals. I have had a teacher and parents request that I visit a class that has a hoh student that is not receiving deaf/hh services, just so the kid can meet a hoh adult. I thankfully have not been discriminated against as a teacher of the deaf/hh here thus far. There have been stupid comments and misunderstandings here and there, but no blatant discrimination. My students face it more than I do. One time before I became an itinerant teacher of the deaf/hoh, I was told by another teacher of the deaf (she was hearing) that I would not be looked at as a good spoken language model and that I will only find jobs in schools for the deaf where they sign. Funny, when I did apply to and interview at some schools for the deaf (where they mainly sign) it did not seem to matter whether or not I was a good sign language model (more on that later).
So, I see that you are upset about the board of directors and that there are not enough signing Deaf/HOH individuals with a "seat at the table". Understandable. I do think the input of various deaf and hoh people is invaluable and people should listen and can learn a lot from us.
I think its interesting that the discussion has been around the provision of cued and AVT services in the outreach program at ISD, yet rather than proposing legislation that requires a diverse outreach program at ISD to be inclusive, the assumption is that they are only providing a bi-bi approach at the outreach center.
ReplyDeleteRather than creating more government, more oversight and in essence a process that increases spending, why wouldn't we simply look to initiate a discussion with ISD rather than avoiding discussion and simply trying to create an outreach center focused on cued and AVT? No other group in the state of IN is going to be able to provide what ISD does when it comes to the development of Deaf or Hard of Hearing children.
"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel
ReplyDelete"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
-Desmond Tutu
It is hyperbolic to apply these statements by Wiesel and Tutu to the current situation. Wiesel spoke of the Holocaust, and Tutu spoke, I assume, of atrocities in Africa. This situation pales in comparison to what they referenced. It appears that the argument in favor of separating the outreach services from ISD is to ensure access to all communication methods. The PDF giving an overview of the outreach services seem to be fairly encompassing, except for what e) mentioned. Apparently the proponents of the bill find these services lacking. Is it because of the center's relationship with ISD? What evidence is there of this possible bias?
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the outreach services should be to help deaf and hard of hearing students throughout the state with their different needs. I would like to know how the services include ISD. Is it possible that they may encourage enrollment in ISD and/or bilingual–bicultural education over other options? Would separating the center from ISD allow for a neutral presentation of options for parents? Do opponents of the bill worry that a separate center means that bilingual–bicultural education, their preferred approach, will not be as prevalent without the backing of ISD?
I have not seen a high-level assessment of how parents learn about and choose the different types of services on Indiana. There are anecdotes on both sides; someone opposing the bill argues that they found ISD the most welcoming option of all available, and someone supporting the bill complained that they were never contacted by outreach services. Reviewing these anecdotes, it is going to depend on what parents want to investigate and what information about everything they get, and it is going to depend on how the outreach center contacts parents. Is the person who was not contacted just an outlier? Or could the center do better in their outreach? Of course, this does not require separation from the state school, just an improvement on the existing infrastructure. There are a lot of questions to ask but also a lot of hot heads.
I agree, these statements by Wiesel and Tutu are applicable to their experience but isn't applicable to ISD's situation. That's going way overboard and is something I keep seeing every time there's some new issues popping up.
ReplyDeleteI agree also, there are lots of unanswered question. I wish OMB could have been straight forward and stated WHY they had this recommendation to move outreach outside of ISD. Right now they're saying it is broken, but no detail as to why it is broken. Yet, we have some parents explaining why it is broken. So, we have a good idea why, at least.
This is not about ASL vs Oralism as some have made it out to be. It is typical lack of understanding by some who are against this bill.
This bill will not affect current ISD students.
This bill apparently will fix the "Broken Outreach" according to those who support this bill and for those who do not support this bill, they are saying that the Outreach is working fine as it is. HOWEVER, reading what both sides said about the Outreach on ISD, it is clear that the Outeach need to be improved.
ISD and ASL/Bi-Bi education is not in danger at all. I wonder if those who are against the bill is aware of that?
If the bill does not get passed, ISD and the Outreach on ISD would do well to improve their services by setting in place a tracking system where hospitals/EHDI notify Outreach of children who have been diagnosed with hearing loss for Outreach to follow up on all of the children and inform parents on all options. It's what ISD Outreach is supposed to be doing, anyway. That is what they're about. And, I wonder if some who are against the bill is aware of that? I don't think they are, based on the comments I'm seeing. It is not about ASL/Bi-Bi versus Oralism. Outreach is about ALL options, it always has been and always will be.
This is way more just this and that, it has alot more issues beside this. That is all i have to say!
ReplyDeleteDoes the Indiana Deaf School really use Bi-Bi education in their classrooms? Have responsible educators from the community observed the classrooms and residential dorms at the Indiana Deaf School on a regular basis with unannounced visits? Have responsible educators observed the Bi-Bi programs in operation at the school? Are students receiving speech and hearing services on a weekly basis or whatever schedule is recommended by the State of Indiana at the Indiana Deaf School? What about students at the Indiana Deaf School who have cochlear implants? How are these students receiving appropriate instruction when voice is not allowed at the Indiana Deaf School? Why is the Indiana Deaf School not fully accredited? When did the school lose its accreditation and why?? If the assessment center is on state property why are employees who presently work at the assessment center allowed to present biased information to parents of deaf children? I'm assuming that parents of deaf children who have taken their children to the center for assessment have reported biased information. Why not hire individuals who will present a more objective format of educational opportunities available for deaf children and whatever their individual education needs might be? Who is the present administrator in charge of the assessment center and why is the individual not held accountable?
ReplyDelete