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. 

Use your voice, get detention at a Deaf school. In the first grade?

This is a true story here. Before I start let me point out that no one should be punished or scolded for using a preferred communication method whether it's signing, cued speech or use of one's voice at school used in a regular manner while in school (and not done out of spite to interfere or interrupt a classroom). But in this case we have a true story of a deaf mother whose deaf children were either scolded for using their voice or sent to detention in a Deaf school while in kindergarten and 1st grade.  This story happened some years ago, not too long ago and it may have been an isolated incident or perhaps a common one?  What is unclear today is whether punishments exist in some Deaf schools on students for not using ASL or for using their voice. Are those actions, punishment that is, acceptable at those age.....at any age?

I can say for sure that Indiana School for the Deaf uses "voice off" policy with pull-outs for speech therapy only (20 minutes 2x a week at maximum... not minimum.) My kids were scolded for using their voices, and my daughter was sent to the detention twice for using her voice. Opposite of oral deaf schools, as you'd say. So they went mainstreaming, to meet their communication needs, since they liked using their voices. Now, they are back at the bilingual Deaf school, in a different state now, yes, and so far it's not a totally 100% "DEAF" school, so it is good for now.

And it happened in kindergarter and 1st grade. The detention forced them to miss recess. A fun social activity for deaf/hh kids.

This deaf mother continues to explain:

Actually, I'd not mind for my kids to be told to use ASL. But for kindergarten and 1st grade kids... being sent to detention for using voice... I disagree with it...that's what happened to my daughter.

Well, it's over. The challenge is of course how to meet the deaf children who have aptitude to talk and listen... we can't leave them behind in deaf education. Often the solution would be mainstreaming them, which shows that deaf education needs to develop resources to meet their needs.

The question now becomes at what stage would this kind of punishment be acceptable or not? We all know the stories of the past (and even perhaps to today) of how deaf students were punished for signing.  Now, it seems that in some instances this situation has reversed where a deaf student is punished for using his or her voice. Obviously to this deaf mother it certainly shouldn't have taken place in kindergarten and 1st grade. What about in the 2nd grade? 4th grade? 8th grade? 10th grade?

Let's take two scenarios, one in an oral/aural school and another one in a Deaf school. Imagine a 1st grader in an oral/aural school gets detention for signing. Imagine the outrage. I agree. Now, imagine a 1st grader in a Deaf school gets detention for talking with his/her voice. Imagine the outrage. I agree. Though we'd have to ask why was there punishment involved before we can make a judgement.