James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org (James Womack) (04/11/91)
Index Number: 14753
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
The intent of PL94-142 was different (not meant to mean automatic
mainstreaming of deaf kids), but the impact of placing deaf children
in mainstream programs was serious in terms of accessibility to
language learning, language use and socialization.
If a child is profoundly deaf, perhaps it is best to not
mainstream that child. A child's language needs need to be looked at.
If the child does not sign well or at all, perhaps it is best not to
mainstream that child.
AGAIN SPACE AND TIME IS A FACTOR. THE IDEA IS THAT AN ALREADY SEVERELY
COMMUNICATIVELY-RESTRICTED CHILD IS HAVING HIS/HER RIGHTS VIOLATED BY
PLACING THE CHILD IN A PROGRAM THAT IGNORES THE NEED TO DEVELOP A
FIRST LANGUAGE ON WHICH TO BUILD ACADEMICS. YOU ARE ACTUALLY DENYING
THEM ACCESS TO MASTERING A LANGUAGE. IN EFFECT, MAINSTREAMING SUCH
CHILDREN IS FURTHER HANDICAPPING THEM, AND PLACING THEM IN THE MOST
RESTRICTED ENVIRONMENT RATHER THAN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT.
THE LAW IS ACTUALLY BEING BROKEN IN THIS CASE.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS, BY REFUSING TO
ALLOW ASL AS A FIRST LANGUAGE FOR DEAF KIDS ARE BREAKING THE SAME LAWS
AS MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS AND PERPETUATING THE LOW EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF
DEAF STUDENTS AS A RESULT.
DR. DAVIS PROCEEDS TO DISCUSS THE BEA, LAWS, RESEARCH ETC. THAT
UPHOLDS HIS STATEMENTS. I CONTINUE TO TRY TO OBTAIN THE ASCII FILE SO
I CAN UPLOAD THE DOCUMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY LATER ON.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!14!James.Womack
Internet: James.Womack@f14.n300.z1.fidonet.org