CAD and the AB 455 California Bill

The AB 455 bill is looking more like a bill that needs to be thrown out because it lacks an official definition for the term "Deaf" seen here in the bill. Unless the bill can provide an official definition to the term "Deaf" then perhaps the bill can be saved rather than scrapped.

But there's a problem.

The confusion could be blamed on zealots who wanted to change the definition of the word "Deaf" with the capitalized "D" to mean all inclusive of those with a hearing loss from mild to profound, whether they know sign language or not.  In fact, you have people like Dr. Genie Gertz, Ella Mae Lentz, and  others who are in the same boat and would even agree with what Dr. Grushkin 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.

And compare that to the official definition of "Deaf" according to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) who invented the capitalized, big D, word explains the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:

We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society. We distinguish them from, for example, those who find themselves losing their hearing because of illness, trauma or age; although these people share the condition of not hearing, they do not have access to the knowledge, beliefs, and practices that make up the culture of Deaf people.

In short, the term "Deaf" has always been defined as people who are culturally deaf and signs in ASL. That already defined word has already entered into the collective conscious minds of people for almost three decades. But people have a nasty habitat on putting the term "Deaf" into a bill or a bylaw without providing an official definition as a clarification.

California Association of the Deaf bylaws is another good example who used the term "Deaf" peppered throughout but no definition explaining the meaning "Deaf." Yet also, their bylaws make no reference to the term "hard of hearing," either. They didn't write down "Deaf and hard of hearing" in their bylaws like the AB 455 bill did but used only the  "Deaf" term instead. In other words they made the term "Deaf" to mean all inclusive those with a hearing loss from mild to profound rather than to mean only for culturally deaf people.

 At the very bottom of the bylaws CAD has a definition of the term "Deaf":

"Deaf is a term that includes all the individuals: born deaf, deafened in early, sometimes late childhood, for whom American Sign Language and Deaf community/culture collectively represent their primary experience and existence regardless of hearing disability they have.”

Was that an official definition of "Deaf" from CAD? Curiously so in their most recently updated bylaws as of August of 2011 they presented no definition for the term "Deaf" in various forms such as "Deaf community," "Deaf individuals," and the single term "Deaf."

Over the last three decades Deaf (culturally deaf) people have made a point that they "own" the word "Deaf" and for it to mean explicitly one thing, a deaf culture group that uses ASL. They have always agreed with Padden and Humphries' definition of that term.

Deaf with a capital D is a cultural term, rather than an audiological one. As defined by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988), Deaf refers ‘to a particular group of deaf people who share a language—American Sign Language (ASL)—and a culture.”

Hence, it's understandable seeing the confusion of the bill's language writing in "Deaf and hard of hearing" into the bill when earlier it was written as "deaf and hard of hearing."  Exactly what is the official definition of the term "Deaf" seen in the AB 455 bill?

Well? What is it?

I'm waiting.

UPDATE: Of course, this is something that Tara Congdon failed to realize in her "investigative" reporting on CNN that the bill lacked any definition for the term "Deaf" which might become the unexpected monkey wrench. We'll wait and see, and get a more definitive report elsewhere whether the bill might present a problem or not.

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.