Remember AB2072? That was three years ago when the brouhaha started.
Remember the veto of that bill and the reason why? Refresh your memory here. And how that bill could have created a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid option for language and communication access?
Remember how happy those culturally deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed by the governor of California?
Do you also remember in the AB2072 bill it referred to California's Department of Education as one of the multi-agency that support the Early Start Program? And how they would provide a packet of information on "Communicating with Your Child" with information about local, state and national resources and how the Dept. Health Care Services web site provides links to local, state, and national resources regarding deaf and hard of hearing children as stated in the bill ?
Remember in 2010 the year when AB2072 came out in California the Department of California did not have a position statement on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing? Do you realize that the CDE has now posted their position statement on their website two days ago?
Do you realize in their position statement what the Department supports in terms of language and communication access?
Remember how happy those deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed the one opportunity on creating a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid language option as a beginning foundation? How does that reconcile with the fact today that CDE now supports the right of deaf and hard of hearing children to have early access to a complete language, visual OR spoken, from birth? This mean CDE would support a deaf child with a cochlear implant or a hard of hearing child with a hearing aid to have early access to the spoken language only. Or that a child can visually sign in SEE. Even CUED speech would be a valid option. CDE position statement does not say they support early access to a complete visual language (i.e. ASL) which is what NorCal wanted in the first place. Instead, CDE supports early language access either visual OR spoken, OR both.
Here's the funny thing if not ironic by now was that in the beginning the Deaf Newborn Identification and Advocacy (DNIA) strongly recommended changing the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening program by putting the Early Start under the California Department of Education.
Nothing is said that ASL should be the language of choice for deaf or hard of hearing children but rather that the language could either be spoken OR visual, OR both as determined by their parents when they make their informed decision.
How does it feel to have a hole in your foot now that California Department of Education has solidified their position on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, and Early Start? Sounds like both CDE and DDS are very much in the same camp regarding their positions and philosophies for deaf and hard of hearing children.
Ain't that wonderful?
Remember the veto of that bill and the reason why? Refresh your memory here. And how that bill could have created a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid option for language and communication access?
Remember how happy those culturally deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed by the governor of California?
Do you also remember in the AB2072 bill it referred to California's Department of Education as one of the multi-agency that support the Early Start Program? And how they would provide a packet of information on "Communicating with Your Child" with information about local, state and national resources and how the Dept. Health Care Services web site provides links to local, state, and national resources regarding deaf and hard of hearing children as stated in the bill ?
Remember in 2010 the year when AB2072 came out in California the Department of California did not have a position statement on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing? Do you realize that the CDE has now posted their position statement on their website two days ago?
Do you realize in their position statement what the Department supports in terms of language and communication access?
Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the language(s) they will use in raising their children.and
Recognizes and respects the right of parents of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing to make informed decisions about the communication tool(s) they will use in raising their children.and more importantly on the choices,
Believes that parents should not be compelled to choose between spoken and signed language. They may choose to use both.Remember those who were against the AB2072 bill stated their reason why?
The opposition argues that the focus of this bill about "communication options" is misleading and picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition.Do you want to read California Department of Education's position statement on language access again on the parents' right to make an informed decision regarding their deaf or hard of hearing child on language choice and communication access?
Remember how happy those deaf protesters were when AB2072 was vetoed the one opportunity on creating a path to have a California law recognizing ASL as a valid language option as a beginning foundation? How does that reconcile with the fact today that CDE now supports the right of deaf and hard of hearing children to have early access to a complete language, visual OR spoken, from birth? This mean CDE would support a deaf child with a cochlear implant or a hard of hearing child with a hearing aid to have early access to the spoken language only. Or that a child can visually sign in SEE. Even CUED speech would be a valid option. CDE position statement does not say they support early access to a complete visual language (i.e. ASL) which is what NorCal wanted in the first place. Instead, CDE supports early language access either visual OR spoken, OR both.
Here's the funny thing if not ironic by now was that in the beginning the Deaf Newborn Identification and Advocacy (DNIA) strongly recommended changing the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening program by putting the Early Start under the California Department of Education.
Early Start should be under the state entity that is best fitted to provide oversight and coordinate early intervention services: The California Department of Education (CDE). The Department of Developmental Services (DDS) should not be involved at all, unless a child in a particular case is developmentally disabled.And
The CDE should be the entity responsible for designing an appropriate resource guide-handbook...The DNIA states that ASL should only be the first option from the start along with reading and writing English with an emphasis on shifting away from the ear and the spoken language (i.e. aurally and orally) and that they are to be secondary in a deaf or hard of hearing child's life. But the CDE,
Emphasizes that the purpose of Early Start for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing is to ensure that these children acquire age appropriate language skills to enable them to do well in school and career.
Nothing is said that ASL should be the language of choice for deaf or hard of hearing children but rather that the language could either be spoken OR visual, OR both as determined by their parents when they make their informed decision.
How does it feel to have a hole in your foot now that California Department of Education has solidified their position on language access for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, and Early Start? Sounds like both CDE and DDS are very much in the same camp regarding their positions and philosophies for deaf and hard of hearing children.
Ain't that wonderful?