California Dept of Education Position Statement on Language Access

California Department of Education has recently posted on May 3rd (final paper on March 4) a position statement on language access of deaf and hard of hearing children in California.

In support of California EC 56000.5, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, this document provides clarification for the CDEs position supporting the right of children to have access to a complete language, visual or spoken, as appropriate, from birth.

Note the "or" in "visual or spoken" which means that deaf children has the right to have access to spoken language, visual language, or both rather than just on visual language alone.  It's interesting that they didn't say sign language but visual language instead (see the yellow highlight below).

There's more.

Believes that children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing have the right to receive appropriate services that will provide them with exposure to fully accessible natural languages – American Sign Language (ASL), and spoken English (or other spoken language).

Accepts and respects all languages.

Accepts and respects all communication tools (i.e., Cued Speech, Signing Exact English, Conceptually Accurate Signed English, Sign Supported Speech, Simultaneous Communication).

Accepts and respects all educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children (i.e., ASL/English Bilingual, Listening and Spoken Language, and Total Communication).

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the language opportunities available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the communication tools available to them.

Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are born Deaf or Hard of Hearing to receive comprehensive information about the educational approaches in the education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing children.

Recognize the "accepts and respects all languages" and the communication tools?

Remember when president Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point on what ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.

Remember AB2072?

Yeah.

Anonymous Matt

Below is my response to "Matt," an unknown commenter, in which we had a lively discussion in a previous blog, "Death of Deafhood?" I decided to put my response here since it would be too long to respond in a comment box that already limits a certain number of words allowed.


Matt: 1.) It was never his journey. It was a research conducted by Paddy (he was an oralist, btw.) in both the states and UK.

Mike: It was a thesis of his, I know. He related his own experiences through his own research on "finding deafhood" and to be used as a "guide" for others to use. In fact, in his Acknowledgement page he said and I quote, "My persnal journey in search of self and Deafhood has been assisted or supported by so many people....."; "Every word of this text and my life has been infused by some special sources largely hidden from view...."'; and "And so the 25-year journey arrives at this plateau." Doing research was his own journey of discovery. He also peppers a lot of his personal experiences such as explaining, "Being orally mainstreamed to a secondary school level of English literacy, I am situated outside this experience. English remains my first language. Twenty-six years of BSL use hsa brought me 'inside' to some degree, but mastering every...."; and "My account is focused mainly on the UK..." Again, I am aware it's a research/thesis of his regarding the understanding of deafness and self, and the journey about it. I have already said that "deafhood" is simply a concept. A philosopical musing of his imbedded in his research based on his own observations...others and his.



Matt: 2.) Yes, the term "Deafhood" wasn't around back then, but the feeling definitely was. Take the class to understand more.

Mike: No thanks. Until people actually walk the walk and include everybody with hearing loss, only then would I reconsider.  Their past actions betray them.  Inclusivity was never in their vocabulary because it would undoubtedly betray their agenda.



Matt: 3.) It's really really obvious right now that you have zero idea of what Deafhood is, and their participants are. The statement of yours - the one that says that Deafhood divides the community - couldn't be any further from the truth. Not saying this to throw a jab, but to make it really clear.

Mike: Matt, before I go further, why the anonymity on using your first name, if that is your real name? Secondly, "deafhood" is simply a concept. I have covered this many times over the years in my blogging since 2006 when "deafhood" first surfaced. Maybe what you may not realize is the self-hypocrisy at work within a community?

I never said "deafhood" divides the community. Rather, it's the people who insist on belonging in a closed society as I have explained numerous times in my blogs over the years. It's the people who insist on political correctness. It's the people who try to move the goal post. It's the people who claimed "deafhood" helped them "understand" yet attack those who have other opinions or disagrees with their assertions or opinions. I have said many times in my blog, it's much easier to simply respect deaf/hh people for who they are and not about what they are. This is much better than politicizing "deafhood" and obsessing so deeply about the inequality of life that each of us has experienced on different levels and scales. I'd say, please, walk the walk first. If you believe it so deeply in the gospel of "deafhood" why the anonymity?



Matt: Right now you're judging it by a glimpse of the book cover. I suggest you take the workshop. I guarantee you that there will be a diverse group of people in that room with you. There were a few of oralists in the class I took. After the class was done, we felt closer to one other.

Mike: No. I have researched this. Discussed with those who did take those workshops. Some were culturally deaf from deaf families. The problem is that in America (rather than the UK) certain groups of people took the concept of "deafhood" and politicized it every which way possible in the name of political correctness for their deaf culture. Some believe there's an agenda afoot.  My view is, as I have said many times in my blogs over the years on "deafhood," that a person's journey is deeply personal and private. Each of our own journey is unique from the time we are born to the time we die. There are some overlaps on our experiences, sure, but we do not travel the same journey as with the next person. Our paths simply intersects at various points in time and see things the same way but it doesn't mean both journeys are the same from beginning to end. Simply put.



Matt: Deafhood is basically about the fact every Deaf person shares one thing in common - deafness. You cannot deny that.

Mike: I never denied that. Please show me where I have said that. I challenge you to find somewhere in my 2000+ plus blog entries that I denied that we do not share a common trait and that is hearing loss (as opposed to your "Deaf").  Use my blog's search feature to find what you are claiming. Good luck.

The problem here is when people try and politicize "deafhood" to fit their own agenda. Which is why "Deafhood? No thanks" FB came about. It's better to simply respect people for who they are rather than on what they are (i.e. Deaf/deaf/hard of hearing). The focus should not be about our disabilities (i.e. our deafness) but as a human being who go through our own unique journey. Seriously, Matt, I have covered this many times since 2006. If you like "deafhood" and it makes you feel happy and secure then knock yourself out. As for me, no thanks.



Matt: Deafhood Foundation has made it clear that they're still in their formative stages and is willing to hear suggestions on how to make things better. Your question is valid, the one with why there is no interpreter provided. Butch Zein, the instructor, actually mentioned that in our class and they're working on it - thought you'd like to know that tidbit.

Mike: Certainly, they're in their formative stages. I have provided a challenge in my blogs several times for them and that is to walk the walk regarding inclusivity of anyone who has a hearing loss and whether they know ASL or not, or are AGBell members, HLAA members, strict oralists, SEE users, CUERs, and so forth to discuss this "deafhood journey" of yours. And ensure that they receive the same communication access as the next person who may or may not know sign language. They have not done that nor will they do it whole scale because they have deeply politicized the whole deaf culture thing intermingling with cochlear implant issues, language development, educational settings, oral trainings, audiologists, the medical field and terminologies, and so on. In short, they made themselves completely incompatible with the rest of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million people with hearing loss). Or from your viewpoint you could say that the 98% made themselves completely incompatible with the 2% of the people who are culturally deaf. It'd be a farce to fully expect they all will embrace your new goal moving post the new term "Deaf" to mean them, too. It'd be just as horrifying for you if they expect you will accept the word "hearing impaired." Sorry. It simply will not work as long as people continue to politicize the whole concept of deaf culture to fit their own agenda, whatever they may be.



Matt: And re: my usage of Deaf for everyone. You have mentioned in the past that you love the English language. The beauty of languages: they have the ability to evolve over time. Words change meanings. You may be right, Deaf has it's own meanings. I've made my definition clear - and I hope it changes the definition for everyone. I do not want people to feel that they're a lesser Deaf person by putting the d label on them. If they want to label theirselves as deaf, that's fine with me. It's not my job to decide for them.

Mike: Consider that not all of the 98% of the hearing loss population (36 million) will accept the new word "Deaf" to mean them, too. Especially when it's already been defined to mean culturally deaf people only.  It simply won't work expecting the masses will agree to the new term. This is all about serving their own agenda regarding their deaf culture, ASL, deaf education, and language development. We saw that hideous development during the AB2072 debacle. That's "deafhood" for you instead of considering a more open society concept.



Matt: This will be my last response re this topic. I really hope you take the opportunity to take the class one day. I guarantee you will take something with you from the class.

Mike: I have no interest because they have shown not to "walk the walk" and prefer to keep to their own status quo.  Like I said, if you like using the feel good "deafhood" term and feel secure about it, then by no means do not stop on account of me. Go ahead and spread your "gospel."  But remember, Pres. Hurtwitz re-iterated the key point that ICED issued a global call to "accept and respect all languages and all forms of communication" in the education of deaf and hard of hearing people.  "Deafhood" is an ideological concept born of a culturally deaf person specifically and targeted to mostly a limited culturally deaf audience. So, therein lies the conundrum.

Transgressing the hate and negativity

It was interesting to watch Ryan Comerson's uncaptioned video "Transgressing the Object: The Laboratory" about, ironically, education (i.e. pedagogy). I say ironically because his video wasn't captioned and noting he was only willing to reach out to the potential 0.05 percent of the U.S. population in his effort to "educate" people by sharing his opinions to those who may be interested on such issues. And by reaching out to the interested group which would drop the potential number down to perhaps 0.01 percent (0.0001) of the U.S population, namely the many in the Deaf community. 

Back to topic.

Each person's experience is different. My upbringing was based on positive reinforcement and support from my parents that helped make the optimistic person today. I believe there are always something better or something good that will come out of our own experiences and learn when things do not work as expected. I've also learned to be patient because results take time, even if it means taking a lifetime to see the end result.

Growing up I've never liked people with pessimistic attitudes. I noticed when people behave like that, they generally feel insecure about themselves and tend to lash out at people succumbing to their own emotions and use words as their weapons.  Sometimes subconsciously find ways to drag other people down to their level thinking "If I'm feeling negative, others should, too." The key lay in growing up in a good household with a good positive, parental support system in place. Sure there were negative experiences but the key is that positive experiences outweigh the negative helping to instill those optimistic attitudes. It is also good to be the non-conformist peppered with independent and critical thinking skills. Having said that, I'm not discounting those whose own experiences were much different from mine that could have been much more drastic. I'm just pointing out that laying a good positive foundation is key for a more optimistic approach in life instead of living the life as a "drama queen" at every stage of his or her life passing out ad hominems like candies on Halloween night. Whenever I see that happens, it makes me wonder on just how happy or satisfied they are with their life.  Even to the point of screeching "Where is OUR money going?" having the audacity and pure ego to think all money donated to deafness organizations ought to be going to "Deaf-centered" organizations because it's "OUR" money. Oh, really? Not saying that Commerson is that person or doing that. He has the right to opine in his own way with some valid points but the problem is the heavy wet blanket conspiracy to lay blame at everything that moves instead of acknowledging and holding accountable some of their own actions. The conspiratorial flag can be seen waving prominently in the first paragraph of his part II article when he wrote a mouthful:

The white supremacist audist capitalist patriarchy education-as-a-banking system hegemony has long since incapacitated our children.

I understand the need to buck the system once in awhile but I just have a different approach and see things differently rather than laying it on thick such pessimistic attitudes laced with the "woe-is-me" approaches. That's just me. I like positive boot-strappers who strive for inclusiveness. But I think what Commerson was trying to say in one part of his video is the need to challenge the educational system by giving greater power to over to students and encourage them to develop their own critical thinking skills.  A need to develop and think for themselves. Sure, and I agree. I asked a LOT of questions when I was a kid at school and never once did teachers stop me from asking those questions. We were encouraged to do so. People need to ask questions and think for themselves rather than pay homage in a prostrate position bowing to people without thinking (i.e. gullible). Today, that's exactly what I'm doing now in my blog by thinking for myself using the power of critical thinking. However, the problem seems to be he is essentially blaming everything as the source of the problem without going into details as to why, which ones, and how exactly but in glossed over generalities.

Ryan Commerson used a quote from Paulo Freire, who wrote "Pedagogy of the Oppressed":

“One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Such a program constitutes cultural invasion, good intentions notwithstanding.”

I find it quite ironic when Freire noted that one cannot expect positive results from an education or political action program in terms of hegemony because whenever people reach a certain level of power and control they may find themselves doing the same thing to other people when given the chance. We see hegemony in all walks of life, including some in the Deaf community as a subset of a larger culture on practicing oppression. The key is to have a more open society approach than a closed one because technology continues to increasingly close the communication gaps between deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people.

With my own independent, critical thinking approach I see differently the views on a variety of sensitive topics on deafness which has earned me much scorn from some Deaf people only because I'm the guy who usually throws a monkey wrench into their way of thinking. Instead of agreeing to disagree do they resort to openly call me names thinking its a winning argument. I've been shown pictures of the double bird shots with the crossed eye looks aimed at me on their own blogsite only to have it quickly taken down which was an indication that their arguments were purely based on emotion rather than approaching it from the view as a hearty debate.

I've said several years ago at the beginning of my blog in 2004 moving forward that technology would be the key to help close that communication gap with hearing people and provide alternative approaches to those who may have a different look on what deaf/hh people are capable of. I repeated my technology mantra during my verbal speech (see my video at time stamp from 1:25 to 1:42 with ASL interpreter) at Gallaudet University's vlog/blog conference in early 2007 and how technology could help easily spread and preserve sign language. I still believe it's true today that technology is key to our own separate individual successes such as CART, implantable hearing aids, cochlear implants, digital hearing aids, face to face communication technologies, video phone on laptops, video phone on cell phones, email, blogs, vlogs, remote interpreters, speech to text capabilities on smart phones for non-texters,  ASL interpreters (relay calls) via smart phones, more CC shows, easier capability to add subtitles to your own videos, speech to text recognition on videos (e.g. YouTube), including more FM induction loops in public places, and many more down the road not yet seen developed or incorporated widely. I'm the ever so optimistic person with never a dour moment. In order to educate people, one must remain positive. The moment you go dour and go negative by making it personal is the moment when judgement gets clouded.

I've always believed that the best voice to show to the world is simply to show the end result of what we're capable of rather than resort to attacking individuals, companies, or organizations and make it personal. Leaders need to lead and be accommodating to others and hold to a higher ethical standard when it comes to accountability instead of hiding behind the facade of "leading from behind" that serves only as crutch and an excuse.

F*ck you, Deaf Community!

Here's an interesting thread that has the title "**** you, Deaf 'Community' " from a hearing father about her four year old deaf daughter. This is an opportunity to read the viewpoints of mostly hearing people on their perceptions and understanding about the Deaf community and its culture, Gallaudet University, schoolings, ASL, sign language, oral/aural approaches, cochlear implant, and education when it comes to deaf and hard of hearing children and their parents. Granted, the views presented in that thread may not be representative of the hearing group as a whole but it certainly does give us some additional insights on their views of the whole Deafness thing in a more or less honest fashion.

Having said that, this is something to think about when it comes to communication choices in light of the upcoming California AB 2072 bill. Candy has a good bead on this as well. The AB 20727 bill states that:

Parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss shall also be provided written or electronic information on American Sign Language (ASL), Total Communication, Cued Speech, and Listening and Spoken Language communication options for children with hearing loss, including, but not limited to, information about deaf and hard-of-hearing organizations, agencies and early intervention centers, and educational programs.

No conspiracy theory.

No mystery to this bill.

Just a straight up requirement that parents be given information for a wide selection of communication and educational choices be made available to them after the discovery of their newborn or infant with a hearing loss.

The irony is this. There are certain groups of Deaf people who seem to be undergoing an effort to derail this bill. And instead promote that ASL must be the first option for any parents of a deaf or hard of hearing child. Thusly leaving out any real choices for parents to decide. Nevermind the fact that this bill would make a requirement that these parents be given the necessary information so they could make a proper and informed decision on communication and educational options. An option that could involve one communication method or more.

Back to the "F*ck you" thread. This father explained in her first post on what he and his wife had to do based on information available at the time to help her deaf daughter.

We gave our daughter cochlear implants when she was an infant. We made this long and difficult decision based on the research that was available to us, based on the educational resources available in our area, based on the nature of her deafness, and, yes, based on our own biases and desires. She had her surgeries before she was old enough to make the choice for herself, because to wait so long means to give her hearing long after her developing brain can make the best use of it. It is a well-known and long-researched phenomenon that pre-lingual implantation leads to vastly improved speech and hearing skills. But you call it child abuse. You call it cosmetic surgery on an infant, and more than once you called me a monster for it. It is not child abuse, to make complicated decisions about your kids without their input - it's called parenting. Nor is it cosmetic to give my kid a developmental boost. So: f*ck you for heaping accusations of pre-lingual cosmetic surgery child abuse on me.

Our family is learning ASL, and have been since we learned our daughter was profoundly deaf. We will use sign as a second language, indefinitely. My wife is in school to become an interpreter. Nor do we believe in a purely oralist tradition; we acknowledge the importance of communication between deaf people without assistance. We get it, ok? We're committed. But because we gave our daughter cochlear implants, you automatically believe that we're out to destroy ASL, to destroy Deaf culture. You never listen to our reasoning, because what do we know? We're motivated by a desire to mingle in both worlds, and yet we're constantly scoffed at by the Deafies on principle. So: f*** you for your pernicious false dichotomies.

This AB 2072 bill will help alleviate the uncertainty for parents of a deaf/hh child in making an informed decision for the first time. But for groups to purposely derail this bill for the sake of demanding that ASL be given first priority and requirement for parents to follow are certainly not about parental choice but about control. Doing that could very well certainly earn the Deaf community many more "f**** you's" from hearing parents of deaf and hard of hearing children.

Give the parents the opportunity to make an informed decision for their deaf/hh child. Give them the respect and understanding they deserve. And understand that whatever informed decision they make, they still deserve our respect and support. It doesn't matter if you don't like their informed decision, they deserve our respect. Walking all over them and taking away their choices aren't the answer.