Thursday, May 30, 2013

AB 455 California Bill to Force Students to Learn ASL?

California Bill AB 455 is in the process of being written to force(?) students with hearing loss from K - 12th grade to learn ASL (as opposed to "sign language" which would be broader in scope). Nothing in the bill says anything on other modes of communication such as CUED speech, SEE, PSE, or aural-oral uses.

You can visit the AB 455 section of the legislative page to check in for updates.  The Bill was introduced on February 19, 2013. It has been amended three times so far. And was voted on as well. Check the current status in the legislative page. 

The author of the bill is Assembly member Jose Medina for District 61 (map) which is Riverside. The bill has the hallmark touch coming from an over-zealous faction of the culturally deaf group.

Here's the relevant section of the bill. Note the revision of the term "deaf" which was struck and changed to "Deaf"? The handmark of the zealots in changing those terms in the effort to define deaf people per their own agenda.
This bill would additionally require the Superintendent, upon
consultation with a group of experts on the  deaf 
 Deaf  and hard-of-hearing, to develop standards that are
aligned to the common core academic content standards, for 
deaf  Deaf  and hard-of-hearing pupils to learn,
and achieve mastery of and literacy in, American Sign Language as a
child progresses through kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive.
The bill would require the Superintendent to recommend these
standards to the state board by March 30, 2015.
   (2) Existing law requires the state board to adopt braille reading
and mathematics standards for visually impaired pupils by June 1,
2006.
   This bill would require the state board to adopt braille reading
and mathematics standards for blind and visually impaired pupils that
are aligned to the common core academic content standards by June
30, 2015, as specified. The bill would require county offices of
education, school districts, and special education local plan areas
to provide blind and visually impaired pupils opportunities for
instruction to master the standards adopted by the state board,
thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
   This bill would also require the state board to adopt American
Sign Language standards for  deaf   Deaf 
and hard-of-hearing pupils that are aligned to the common core
academic content standards by June 30, 2015, as specified. The bill
would require county offices of education, school districts, and
special education local plan areas to provide  deaf 
 Deaf  and hard-of-hearing pupils opportunities for
instruction to master the standards adopted by the state board,
thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.

And this section as well.

Article 3.6.  Individualized Education Program for Deaf and
Hard-of-hearing Pupils


   56355.  (a) The Superintendent shall consult with a group of
experts on the  deaf  Deaf  and
hard-of-hearing to develop standards that are aligned to the common
core academic content standards to learn, and achieve the mastery of
and literacy in, American Sign Language as a pupil progresses through
kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive.
   (b) The group of experts shall include, but shall not be limited
to, members representing all of the following:
   (1) Parents of  deaf   Deaf  and
hard-of-hearing pupils.
   (2) Teachers of  deaf   Deaf  and
hard-of-hearing pupils.
   (3) Researchers in the field of deafness and auditory impairment.
   (4) Curriculum and instructional specialists with experience with
 deaf   Deaf  and hard-of-hearing pupils.
   (5) Groups that advocate for teaching of, and use of, American
Sign Language.
   (c) At least one-half of the members of the group of experts shall
be currently employed public schoolteachers.
   (d) The standards described in subdivision (a) shall be developed
for pupils who are  deaf   Deaf  or
hard-of-hearing and who use American Sign Language as their primary
language or literacy access mode.
   (e) The Superintendent shall make a recommendation to the state
board regarding the standards developed pursuant to subdivision (a)
by March 30, 2015.
   56356.  (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), by June 30,
2015, the state board shall adopt American Sign Language literacy
standards that are aligned to the common core academic content
standards for pupils who are  deaf   Deaf 
or hard-of-hearing and use American Sign Language as their primary
language or literacy access mode.

UPDATE I: The problem in this bill is that they included the terms "Deaf AND hard of hearing" pupils. "Hard of hearing" by itself does not mean the person knows sign language or is a culturally deaf person. It appears to reek of "entitlement."

UPDATE II:  From one group (a closed FB group of parents and adult CI users) who said:

"We oppose AB455 and any legislation that forces a language or culture upon any group of beings. We are opposed to AB455 because it infringes upon the civil rights of parents and the right to choose what's best for their deaf or hard of hearing child."

UPDATE III: Another potential problem for this bill. The term "Deaf" has always meant for culturally deaf people but as of late over the last few years some of the militant deaf group in the Bay area of California and elsewhere have been pushing to redefine the term "Deaf" to include all people with hearing loss whether they know sign language or not. So, that group is actually shooting themselves in the foot over that one with this bill. And here's why.

UPDATE IV: This bill is just a bit funky in the way it is written. It is now gaining legs with the attention of parents of deaf and hard of hearing children and one powerful lobby group. The big problem could be the bill is not clear on what they want to cover or it has every intention to force all kids with hearing loss to learn ASL from K - 12th grade. The shouts will only get louder from here on out until something is made clear by the author of the bill or the bill itself.
 





8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am in total support of this bill. All Deaf children should learn ASL. All blind and visually impaired children should learn braille.

When my parents found out I was Deaf over 45 years ago, the doctors and audiologists, at that time, told them the oral method was the way to go. My family did not learn ASL because they were brainwashed that ASL (as well as any form of sign language was "bad".)

All my life, I also battled migraines - as many as three or four migraines a week! Just a few years ago, my parents have admitted, to me, that they agree with me that there's a possibility my migraines are related to stress in trying to lipread various people's lips, as well as keeping up with what's happening. They do realize that I battle with expressing my thoughts, as my voice is obviously very Deaf (I have to repeat myself or rephrase if I am not understood in the first place). They are sorry that their minds were not open when making decisions about my communication access. They are trying to learn ASL now - and they do tell others that if they had to do the whole thing over, they would have done the bi-bi method (teaching me ASL first, then teaching me how to talk).

Anonymous said...

Thought you might be interested in this article clarifying AB455. The info about forcing all kids to learn ASL is wrong and just plain scare tactic to try to oppress quality education in ASL and state testing. Auditory-oral people are twisting the bill (or just plain lying?). Hope you can correct your blog to reflect more accurate information.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-980536

Mike said...

As I have already explained, the bill isn't quite clear and there are a few words that make us question the bill's intention.

Although, it is interesting that I blogged *yesterday* the words:

"From one group (a closed FB group of parents and adult CI users) who said:

'We oppose AB455 and any legislation that forces a language or culture upon any group of beings. We are opposed to AB455 because it infringes upon the civil rights of parents and the right to choose what's best for their deaf or hard of hearing child.' "

That was yesterday.

But 5 hours ago in the iReport CNN page Tara blogged this:

" 'We oppose AB455 and any legislation that forces a language or culture upon any group of beings. We are opposed to AB455 because it infringes upon the civil rights of parents and the right to choose what's best for their deaf or hard of hearing child,' the posts state."

The "posts state"??? No hyperlink to where that post came from. Tara never bothered to state where she got that source from. Just "the posts state." Can she name the FB group where that quote came from?

Hmm....*rubs chin*...

Candy said...

At first glance, the bill did looked like the standards to achieve common core only applies to those who uses ASL for language access. However, blind people do not have various modes of communication or language usage and as such, I can see where standards can be applied to them. I think it would be wrong to apply standards to deaf and hard of hearing kids. Hey, note that I used the small d? Yea, for me it denotes all deaf as in neutral as to whether one is culturally deaf or not.

The bill need to be revised or thrown out. It need to be revised to include standards for other modes of common core in different modes of communication and/or language pathways, this way each pathways have their own standards. Or just throw it out completely sans the part that covers the blind student since that is what the original bill was written for.

Mike said...

I'd recommend to Tara to read what I wrote in Update III and the link in it. This is where one of the confusion regarding "Deaf" as it is written in the bill. The confusion is really the fault of zealots who wanted to change the definition of the word "Deaf" with the capitalized "D."

In fact, you have people like Dr. Gertz, Ella Mae Lentz, and even Dr. Grushkin who said, " I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews."

Hence, it's understandable the confusion in the bill's language in writing "Deaf and hard of hearing" when earlier it was written as "deaf and hard of hearing." What is the official definition of "Deaf" then? Hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-980536

Anonymous said...

You seem to contradict yourself with use of capitalized Black and Jewish ... you said capitalization doesn't mean cultural membership. So someone can be Deaf without being culturally Deaf or use ASL. And even thedeafcommunity.org is capitalizing Deaf to apply to all deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of language or mode. So what's the big deal about capitalization meaning cultural identification? Maybe we just need to move past this silly d/D thing since you and others apparently recognize that capitalization doesn't mean auto culture membership. Everybody can use d/D interchangeably since that's apparently what thedeafcommunity.org wants. So result, cultural concerns don't apply to this bill. The first part of the bill means the same whether its been changed or not because d/D is now interchangeable (or even as you suggest, D doesn't mean culturally Deaf/ASL). Problem solved.

And besides like I read in Tara's article and saw her and others say, the second part limits the standards to who already signs. So D/d is pointless now, and the test is only for those who already use ASL. I really don't see the problem here so now this sounds more like oralists interfering with bi-bi education to try to keep it down? Its ok for them to complain when they're uncomfortable with a bill but not OK for anybody else to complain when they're uncomfortable with a bill engineered by these oralists? Double standard.

Mike said...

Who are you responding to? Me or Don Grushkin who used "Black" and "Jews" in his own discussion? I don't use the word "Black" in capitalized letter "B" myself. I have not contradicted myself at all. I think you need to read a bit more carefully and understand who said what here.

I'd rather say "culturally deaf people" just to lessen the confusion. Babies are not born "Deaf." Sorry. It's up to the baby until he or she grows up get to choose the identity. Culturally deaf people do not get to pick who is "Deaf."