Fiver returns...makes a comment about ASDB

"Fiver" returns again and left a comment in my previous blog "Untold history of DPN, it almost collapsed!" about the crisis at Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind. Fiver appears to have the inside scoop of what's going on and what's being planned. "Fiver" commented before in my blogs such as "An Incorruptible ASDB?" in May of 2013 and an earlier one back in 2010 under "I am Fiver! speaks again..."  only this time Fiver left behind what appears to be legitimate tidbits about ASDB:

The PKZ and KG "Klans" are currently in the process of taking over the Arizona School for the Deaf/Blind through Nancy Amann and her minions. These "Klans" are not unlike Nazi organizations concerning their quest for power, wealth and perpetuation of a militant "Deaf" ideology. It is no coincidence that those close to the 1988 Gallaudet Rioters end up in influential positions and become extremely wealthy. This "Deaf" movement employs an evil hand and mind, shows no mercy or compassion not their own kind, showing no tolerance for any other view. In view of the parallels to organized crime and the seriousness of harms inflicted upon society, this group deserves scrutiny from the FBI as a criminal racketeering enterprise that has utilized insider information, extortion and intimidation to consolidate power and wealth.

Nancy Amann is Nancy Hlibok before she got married. She is a PKZ. She is also the sister of Greg Hlibok who is a Kappa Gamma brother. Last week the people at ASDB protested for the removal of Superintendent Robert Hill. And now from Fiver's account, if legitimate at all, the person says that some of the radicals are planning to take over the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind. I'd say it's a tall order to try since Gov. Jan Brewers appointed new names to the ASDB Board of Directors earlier this year in May.

Each term for the eight gubernatorial appointments has expired; the ninth seat is filled by the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s designee. With Governor Brewer appointing five new members, the other three will continue to serve for the time being as holdover appointments.

New Board members include:
1) Dr. Kathy Jankowski: former Dean, Laurent Clerk National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University
2) Taralynn Petrites: Lead Faculty, American Sign Language and Interpreter Training, Pima Community College
3) Elaine Baldridge: former Director of Children’s Services, Foundation for Blind Children
4) Michael Gordon: Executive Director, Southern Arizona Association for the Visually Impaired
5) Dr. Mark Syms: Otologist, Arizona Ear Center

The three holdover appointments include Sherri Collins who represents the Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Orlenda Roberts who acts as the Board’s school district employee who works with sensory-impaired pupils; and Michael Williams, who serves as a public member.

Fiver, convince me some more that there is a planned take-over of ASDB.

Supt. Robert Hill's Letter to Teachers at ASDB

Below is a letter from Supt. Robert Hill from the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind. Some people are calling this a "threatening" letter never mind the fact that teachers at ASDB are expected to display professional behaviors while on campus because ASDB belong to the public, not to the teachers. This letter is a simple reminder to those who insist otherwise. There is a difference when it comes to protesting on and off-campus. The letter noted that various levels of protesting were done on campus over the course of several weeks. Note the highlighted yellow below.

 

TO: All Schools Staff
FROM: Robert Hill, Superintendent
DATE: May 9, 2013
RE: Conduct Expectations in the ASDB Workplace and Schools
Over the past several weeks our schools have been involved in multiple levels of protests on and off campuses. While employees may voluntarily choose to participate in protests and related activities off campuses during non-work hours, employees are expected to maintain conduct during the school day and on campuses that promotes an environment conducive to learning, focuses on the approved curriculum, minimizes disruption, and ensures a safe and productive environment for staff and students. This communication is to remind all employees of specific policies in this regard.  

Board Policy GBEB, Staff Conduct: All employees of the Schools are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with effective and orderly education and to protect students and Schools property. No employee shall, by action or inaction, disrupt any Schools activity or encourage any such disruption. All employees shall at all times attempt to maintain order, abide by the policies, rules, and regulations of the Schools, and carry out all applicable orders issued by the Superintendent. Potential consequences to employees of the Schools who violate these rules may include, but are not limited to:  

• Removal from Schools grounds.
• Both civil and criminal sanctions, which may include, but are not limited to, criminal proceedings under Title 13, Chapter 29, of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
• Reprimand.
• Suspension.
• Dismissal. 

Administrative Regulation GBEB-R, Staff Conduct: No employee while on or using Schools property, otherwise acting as an agent, or working in an official capacity for the Schools shall engage in:  

Failure to comply with lawful direction of Schools officials, security officers, or any other law-enforcement officer, or failure to identify oneself to such officials or officers when lawfully requested to do so.
Any conduct that may obstruct, disrupt, or interfere with teaching, research, service, administrative, or disciplinary functions of the Schools, or any other activity sponsored or approved by the Board.
Maintain order in a manner consistent with Schools policies and regulations.
Dress and maintain a general appearance that reflects their position and does not detract from the educational program of the school.  

Board Policy GBEA, Staff Ethics: All employees of the Schools are expected to maintain high standards in their school relationships...The employees acknowledge that the Schools belong to the public they serve for the purpose of providing educational opportunities to all. However, every employee assumes responsibility for providing leadership in the school and community. This responsibility requires the employee to maintain standards of exemplary conduct. It must be recognized that the employee’s actions will be viewed and appraised by the community, associates, and students. The Schools employees:   

Make the well-being of students the fundamental value of all decision making and actions.    

Maintain just, courteous, and proper relationships with students, parents, staff members, and others.  

Fulfill job responsibilities with honesty and integrity.  

Refrain from using school contacts and privileges to promote partisan politics, sectarian religious views, or propaganda of any kind.  

Avoid using position for personal gain through political, social, religious, economic, or other influence.   

The specific expectation is that all employees conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times as they carry out their duties and responsibilities. Conduct that negatively impacts staff and student morale and productivity, and that disrupts the work environment and the educational programming for students is strictly prohibited.   

Employees are asked to be mindful of conduct that may be found to violate ASDB policies, including but not limited to the following:    

Active or passive encouragement of students to refuse to comply with directions of any school official.  

Active or passive encouragement of students to be out of classrooms for non- instructional or non-curriculum purposes (e.g., protesting, making protest signs/posters, allowing students to wear masks or T-shirts with inappropriate comments, etc.).  

Obvious or subtle bullying, intimidation, and discourteous treatment of others who may not share the same opinions or views. 

More obvious bullying and intimidating tactics may involve the display of signage, buttons, stickers, T-shirts with inappropriate comments, etc., in the workplace and/or in the schools. 

More subtle bullying and intimidating tactics may involve an orchestrated effort to wear the same color T-shirts on the same day as an attempt to identify those who are for or against a specific point of view.  

There are approximately two weeks of school remaining with many activities happening on both campuses including graduations. It is imperative that we make these last days of the school year meaningful and safe for all involved. Your cooperation is critical to fulfilling our commitment to students and to closing this year on a positive note. I ask you to continue to lead by example and remember that our primary focus is the students.  

Thank you for your continued dedication to ASDB.

The letter notes one example, which I assumed has happened, on the wearing of same color T-shirts on the same day as a show of protest which is also a way to identify teachers or staff who don't wear the same color T-shirt. Clearly a case of intimidation and bullying tactics. It's one thing to protest off campus or file grievances but it's another to try all kinds of protests, intimidation and bullying on campus over the course of several weeks.  Wholly unprofessional in my opinion. Even worse would be to get students to help with the protesting while on campus. I frown on this one because kids are easily made impressionable and are likely more gullible, especially on complex issues as this one involving both sides which is why an investigation is required.  And I welcome that.

An incorruptible ASDB?

Incorruptible? Depends on which side we're talking about at the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind.  This won't be known exactly how until the investigation is over. But some of the corruption is now coming to light based on a blog I wrote over two years ago about a mysterious anonymous commenter with a pseudonym "Fiver" appears to have merits at this point.  This anonymous person made some bold claims about publicly funded deaf schools and how it's time state lawmakers need to look into those schools for impropriety. The protests at ASDB may have simply been an impulse reaction in the effort to protect their "Queen Bee" and their supposed agenda that has been secretly building from within the confines of ASDB the indoctrinating deaf and hard of hearing students may finally be showing their colors. All these protestations sound very much like a case of biting the hands that feed you which may spell trouble in the end once the investigation is over. But I digress. We'll have to wait and see although I'm not sure if this would actually be the case but various comments (here and here) that I have come across about the ASDB fiasco seems to corroborate Fiver's claims which leaves me wondering at this point.

Remember this one? "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." Especially when they have some support from the Government. Deafhood is not merely a movement, it's a hideous, dangerous and counter-productive ideology. Many of the people associated with Deafhood are mere followers, they really have no idea just how destructive this movement/ideology is. This "thing" has destroyed and altered terribly the lives of many already, usually those who cannot stand against them and succumb. Among them are young children whose parents unwittingly commit them to deaf schools where those pushing Deaf Culture and Deafhood assimilate them into "Deaf Culture" as a source of raw recruits for future members. Deaf Culture is dying, yet they're trying to revive it. These children are shut out of the usage of speech and hearing as much as they can possibly be, without raising suspicions and creating a conflict with state authorities. Deafhood has expanded it's control of state schools for the deaf and enforces it's Deaf Culture and ASL-only doctrine as the only mode of communication. I have witnessed the repudiation of "SIMCOM" or "Total Communication" where any staff member using this means faced discipline and termination. NO speech is allowed, ASL only! Turn off your voice! The parents of these children unwittingly placed within those cultures have no idea what their child is being subjected to. The Deaf deny them that right to know, going so far as to use speech during parental visits, but speech ends as soon as the parents are gone!

State lawmakers need to investigate what is going on within government funded schools. These schools do not belong to the Deaf! These schools are publicly funded schools for all of society and have been hijacked.

I am going to stop here but will be posting more in the future. My pseudonym for this forum: Fiver. I fully expect the Deafhood "leadership" to start looking for me now, as I am within their ranks, the most dangerous threat to their plans.

I am: Fiver! 

This anonymous person "Fiver" raised some important questions from me now that I look back. Exactly what roles or influences have these "Deafhood" leaders had over Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind, if any? Or any deaf schools for that matter. What are the connections, if any?  Can anyone corroborate Fiver's claims in the above? Is there an official policy at ASDB outlining their "ASL-only" policy and that using your (oral) voice is not permitted or allowed?  Are parents (both deaf and hearing) being fully informed on what takes place at school with their son or daughter in class?

According to the ASDB 2012 Performance Audit Report:

ASDB’s mission is to work with parents, school districts, and others to enable children with a vision or hearing loss to develop their abilities, strive to achieve academic excellence, and develop skills to help them become productive and responsible members of society. This mission aligns with ASDB’s statutory responsibility to provide educational services, including instruction in a direct communication environment, so that deaf, hard-of-hearing, and visually impaired students may become self-sustaining and useful citizens.

Direct communication environment involves both ASL and aural-oral training/exposure for students who wear cochlear implants (what about hearing aids?) according to the audit report.  If teachers from within the ASDB are actively trying to suppress any speech and hearing development as much as they can then, according to Fiver, they are violating state law. As Fiver said, "Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school." Suppressing speech and hearing development from students who have the capability is a part of the process ensuring that they become economically viable once they leave safe bubble world of ASDB.

Deaf staff bullying others at ASDB?

Where is this "I am - Fiver!" when you need her or him around (see near bottom of page)?

If this bullying actually happened then this would be the first known example of Deaf teachers or staff bullying others in the effort to get him or her in trouble by making up nonsense stuff. The practice of instilling fear into those who have alternative opinions or beliefs when it comes to deaf education, mode of communication and language development. Here's one hard of hearing staff or teacher at the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind, who may have worked there at one time, recalled his time the going ons while working at ASDB as seen in the comment section of the Arizona Daily Star reporting on the  explosive ASDB story.

Working at ASDB not being in the in crowd, everyone watches you and reports silly crap to your supervisor. I know I was good at my job, but I allowed myself to be pushed out because going to work in a hostile work environment everyday is not healthy. Being watched and being called into your supervisors office everyday for petty stuff becomes old and tiring. I look back now and wish I would have went and talked to Robert Hill, but Nancy A. would have probably told the deaf community and I would have hell to pay.  

Bullying some of the teachers and/or staff as well as bullying hard of hearing students at ASDB? Have these incidents actually taken place at that school? If so, then it's a disturbing revelation.

Do you recall one anonymous commenter from two years ago under the pseudonym "I am Fiver!" who proclaimed to be "the most dangerous threat to their (Deafhood) plans" and discussed the idea of this so-called "assimilation" plan?

Shel has been the most vociferous with her attempts to rationalize these methods that are oppressive to those children with residual hearing and speech that can be developed. The “bi-bi” approach, or rather “movement” is operating under the guise of “teaching language and culture.” This implies that ASL and Deaf culture are only incidental to the teaching, when in fact, those concepts are the main goal. Auditory methods and speech articulation are suppressed under the rationale that it is necessary in order for these children to “assimilate” ASL to proficiency. There are many fallacies regarding this assumption. But just bear in mind that these people are profoundly affecting the lives of these children by altering the primary language to ASL and by exposure to a culture that has not been defined.

There is no theory or empirical evidence that ASL is a “bridge” to English language learning, even though this very premise has been claimed by many renowned (unnamed) educators of the deaf. In the past these advocates for “bi-bi,” ASL, etc. have alluded to, or insinuated that such a thing exists. But when pressed, they admit that there is no evidence. This has not stopped them, however. They are fervently working to manufacture “studies” and seeking out established language experts to validate their methods, by claiming parallels about how hearing persons learn foreign language. It is not the same! Learners of a second language have already acquired their primary language!

The goal of our schools, whether they are public schools for the hearing or public (state schools) for the deaf, the majority of states require that English must be taught as L1 (English=First Language). This is not happening in deaf schools where ASL is being taught as L1 (ASL=First Language). In such cases, this is clear violation of state law. Children must be taught English in order to function and be economically viable in the world, once they leave the school. I suppose, I do not know, but suppose, that they will rationalize their actions by saying that deaf require a visual language in order to communicate. All that they are doing is engraining these children into a language that is little known or used outside of deaf circles.

The minds of young children are “in the process” of being wired in early childhood. Although much of this “wiring” occurs in the first 2-3 years, it continues for many years after this “ideal window” for language development. Once a child is “wired” for a language of a certain type, that mode becomes life-long and unlikely to change. Proponents of the “bi-bi” movement know this, and are pressing forward with this misguided approach that will create a whole new generation of deaf individuals bereft of English language skills, recognizable speech, and enculturation into an extremely small minority “society” that has historically, and likely to remain a social and economic under-class in perpetuity.

Sounds like this "Fiver" person is somebody from the inside of ASDB or was on the inside or at another deaf school. At least the person appears to know a lot more details than he or she would care to share. Is this really about regaining a sure toehold on the whole indoctrination process the reason behind the constant bullying, if true, and the taping of a hard of a hearing student's mouth for talking in class, if true? Then perhaps once the investigation into these allegations on both sides at ASDB gets done it might shed some light on the veil of secrecy among the staff and the going on. Then again we might not get to the bottom of this. But one thing for sure, it won't be pretty once the investigation is over. 

To the teacher(s) of ASDB

Wow. If this is true and actually took place at the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind then the offending teacher(s) ought to be ashamed of this action and attitude. The story reported in the Tucson, Arizona Craigslist about how a hard of hearing student's mouth was physically taped shut because he was talking.

One of them being that hard of hearing students should not be permitted to talk - only sign in American Sign language - she did not care what parents thought. Even in the last couple of months, a current ASDB teacher taped a student's mouth during class-time for "speaking" as well as hit him with many students and staff witnessing this. It was reported, but due to her "ties" with Nancy and certain administrators, she still remains. The bullying continues on campus from certain deaf staff. Was this disclosed in the AZ star? NOPE.

For the sake of the school I surely hope this isn't true but if it is true then the teachers and administrators chose a poor course of action through the willful discrimination, abuse and neglect towards hard of hearing students who may have a preference to speak as it is their natural habit.  If those things actually took place by menacing, warning, or punishing deaf or hard of hearing students for talking in school then those teachers and administrators involved need to be fired.  Is there a school policy at ASDB of not allowing hard of hearing students to talk in school?  If so then it's possibly a poor policy to begin with, especially if punishment calls for taping a student's mouth shut or hitting students to get him/her to stop talking with their voice.

Deaf people 4th grade reading level? Real or a myth?

I was reading an article about a lawsuit in a Portland (Oregon) police case involving the "mishandling" of a deaf person when no interpreter was provided.  It is not the story I'm looking at but what people have commented. One person brought up the 4th grade reading level as a reason why so many culturally deaf people have poor English reading level skills. And that comment came from Chris Balduc, a former teacher of the Deaf and an advocate for the Deaf community in the Northwest.

As a Deaf man, former teacher of the Deaf and advocate for the Deaf community in the NW, I can confirm to you that many Deaf people graduate from high school with about a 4th grade reading level. ASL is their first language, which is quite different from English. English is difficult to master for them, given the communication barriers.

Many? How many? Sounds like a lot. Isn't Chris Balduc helping perpetuate the high school graduates' "4th grade reading level" myth? Maybe it's true? However, according to last year's ReDeafined Magazine article they've claimed to have "debunked" that myth.

According to Marc Marschark, the Director of the Center for Education Research Partnerships at NTID, the statistic appears in a 2000 study by Carol B Traxler, which purports that, after the analysis of SAT reading comprehension scores, the median (not the average) scores for deaf high schoolers were around the fourth grade level. And while the statistic is still a frightening one, it does mean that fifty percent of deaf high schoolers are reading above a fourth grade reading level.  Another thing to note is that this statistic is often leveraged as a way to speak out against certain methods of deaf education.  In reality, the scores were the same whether or not the student's primary mode of communication was ASL, SEE or speech, and regardless of whether he or she wore hearing aids, a cochlear implant or nothing. Check out Marschark's full interview with Hands and Voices on the subject here. 

The problem is that nothing was identified whether these deaf graduates came from regular high school, mainstreamed high school, oral-aurally supported schools, or school for the deaf with sign language as their mode of communication. 

But here's another monkey wrench thrown in

According to a performance audit on Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind showed dismal scores when compared to high school aged students having the equivalent 3rd or 4th grade educational level:

ASDB students’ MAP test scores showed that they start at a much lower level than national norms. Although limited growth occurred after 5th and 6th grades and continued into high school, it was not sufficient to bring students’ scores within reach of national norms. For example, by the 11th grade, ASDB students scored the same as the average 3rd-grade student would in reading and scored slightly below the average 4th-grade student in math.

How disappointing. So, perhaps the "4th grade reading level" isn't really a myth but a fact that many people tried to hide it?  What about the California STAR results that showed just as equally dismal the low scores? There are successes and failures on both ends. Getting into conspiracy theories do not help here, at least not with me. Deaf schools had their chances over the last two decades since DPN. For example, results in the California Standards Test (STAR) for deaf schools such as Riverside, Fremont have shown atrocious scores:

The underachievement of our state's deaf and hard-of-hearing students is of grave concern.

Only 8 percent of our deaf students and 15 percent of our hard-of-hearing students score proficient or advanced on the California Standards Test for English-language arts.

In math, only 10 percent of our deaf students and 18 percent of our hard-of-hearing students score proficient or advanced.

That was commented back in 2007. Has it changed today? You be the judge.