RED FLAG – AB 2072 Stakeholder Panel

Heye all

i blogged this before seeing the LATEST AB 2072 version (Aug 20, 2010)

so in this version the “includiing, but not limited to ASL,” is all striken out – GREAT.  Thanks Ann_C and Shel for sending me the latest version link

AB 2072 Aug 20 version

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100820_amended_sen_v92.html

me so happy about that revision.

so ignore the below if u want to (except the bottom part as some of that is still valid as they have inserted 2 more stakeholder panelists (total 15 now)

————————————

RED FLAG – AB 2072 Stake Holder Panel got modified in the latest version of the bill (see the August 17, 2010 version)

see the RED highlights below marking all the newly added  “including, but not limited to, ASL” after each mention of the Visual Language representatives

NOW ask yourselves WHY WHY WHY after the auditory-oral stakeholders it does NOT say “including, but not limited to, spoken English”

this would ensure that the representatives for the auditory-oral panel seats should not be limited to oral / aural only folks but would include – all the signed systems (SEE, PSE, MCE, Cued speech are really systems – not languages- to support SPEECH and thus are part of the auditory-oral representatives).

it would also ensure that they NOT be limited to folks who are only familiar with spoken English but also familiar with OTHER spoken languages like Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese etc

why are they trying to minimize and LIMIT ASL representation yet preserve auditory-oral ONLY when in fact auditory-oral approaches often go hand and hand with Cued speech or SEE to supplement speech with some visual CODES (not language).

I’m fine with the visual language rep. not being limited to ASL if the intent and purpose is to ensure that OTHER natural and real signed languages are not excluded (i.e. French Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language, Vietnamese Sign Language etc) but Candy (Gina) over at Mike (kokonut’s place) said that she can assure us the “not limited to ASL” is there to weasel in signed systems under Visual Language – when in fact signed systems represent English to aid with audition and oracy so off u go to the auditory-oral representatives.

im sure they dont want to be LIMITING to oral / aural ONLY optionLESS option

geez the more i look the more i see

NOTE: i have underlined where the auditory-oral representatives are listed below so you can see how in the latest spin of AB 2072 they are still preserved, defended, and championed to be oral / aural English ONLY

unbiased – huh?

Why do i keep thinking they be thinking we is Deaf and Dumb

we can read folks – we got our reading glasses on and our boots

we know what the sponsors of AB 2072 keep pushing for – CHOICES that MANDATE and OMIT and EXCLUDE and they will call it an “option”

From AB 2072

(A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses
auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.
(B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses visual
language, including, but not limited to, ASL,
appointed by the
Governor.
(C) An educator of the deaf in an auditory-oral educational
setting, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(D) An educator of the deaf in a visual language, including, but
not limited to, ASL
education setting, appointed by the Senate
Committee on Rules.
(E) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses
auditory-oral communication methods, appointed by the Governor.
(F) A parent representative of a child who primarily uses visual
language, including, but not limited to, ASL,
appointed by the
Governor.
(G) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services
primarily auditory-oral learners, appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
(H) A representative of a nonprofit organization that services
primarily visual language, including, but not limited to, ASL
learners, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(I) A researcher engaged in the study of auditory-oral
communication for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing,
appointed by the Governor.
(J) A researcher engaged in the study of visual language,
including, but not limited to, ASL,
and communication modalities
for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, appointed by the
Governor.

(K) The Secretary for Education, who whall be an ex officio member.
Newly added folks that bring the tipping point in the auditory-oral majority favor – unbiased HA
(K) An audiologist who specializes in evaluating and treating
infants, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.
(L) A physician who specializes in pediatric otolaryngology,
appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(M) The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her
designee, who shall be an ex officio member.

Folks Visual LANGUAGE means ASL or other foreign signed languages

it does not mean coded systems that represent English – those systems are part of the auditory-oral representatives

also – it ain’t lost on me how they say “not limited to ASL” when for centuries folks have been saying to educate Deaf children using a natural signed language is limiting and that being Deaf is a limiting condition

“options”

“limit”

“stakeholders”

“visual language”

wow – im getting me a real fine education in politiks and word playing

And shall we consider the current configuration of membership on the stakeholders panel, eh?

why did the pathological folks get thrown in to throw off the balance of things?  What happened to the ICED Vancouver 2010 New Era agreement that said – oral / aural ONLY education ain’t cool and denying Deaf folks access to a full natural and accessible language ain’t cool and Deaf folks have a right to be seen as a cultural and linguistic minority – well how can that be seen when the audiologist is saying the baby has failed before s/he even can sit up or see beyond blurs (what is this predestination – dont ya all know what happens with looking glass self and self-fulfilling prophecy) and how ICED 2010 Vancouver New Era said – DEAF Natural Signed Language folks should be involved in decision making in matters that directly relate to Deaf folks

why is AB 2072 CONSTANTLY changing and spinning to confine and restrict and limit while PRETENDING to be so inclusive, responsive, and just?

why?

peace

patti


Advertisements

9 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Trackback: AB 2072 – why it chucks « PEOPLE OF THE EYE -…first, last, and all the time” – g. veditz 1910
  2. Don G.
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 02:11:51

    I just noticed that new version, myself. Notice Oral Deaf IS specifically mandated for participation on the panel, while ASL Deaf is never ONCE mandated on the panel? Why not, if they want to be fair, have an Oral Deaf mandated, an ASL Deaf mandated, and a “other visual communication mode” Deaf mandated? That would be a bit more balanced.

    As it is, it is theoretically possible that there could be NO ASL-using Deaf on the panel at all!

  3. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 02:35:18

    Heye Don

    the Aug 20 version which is the latest greatest rendition has:
    B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses ASL,
    appointed by the Governor.

    peace

    patti

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100820_amended_sen_v92.html

  4. deafa
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 03:56:23

    I read the bill, and it just seem like they are look at deaf from a medical perspective. I don’t know why, but it just does. I guess it is because it say they will review every two years and revise if it is necessary (like new technologies, I supposed). I hope these people will take deaf culture study and history before they make their decision on this bill. Because we certainly need the gov’t to protect deaf people from the gov’t itself.

    I don’t think I like the fact that they will appoint people by the governor. Because one can only hope the govornor is more bi-bi friendly (anyone deaf and HOH can be ASL user and still be against bi-bi) . I think it should be required stakeholders to take a course on deaf culture and history (it’s important because our history will show how we had to fight for our rights) .

  5. deafa
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 04:54:42

    Anyone deaf can be auditory-oral… I grew up as one 🙂

  6. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 11:25:49

    heye deafa

    u got ur thinking cap on ; )

    yep many of us could take that seat on the advisory stakeholders panel me think:
    (A) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses
    auditory-oral language, appointed by the Governor.

    cuz it don’t say must be their primary language etc same true for the ASL seat

    (B) An adult who is deaf or hard of hearing, and who uses ASL,
    appointed by the Governor.

    it is interesting to note that the latest additions to the stakeholders panel does say primary language though
    (K) Two adults who are deaf or hard of hearing, and who primarily
    use other visual communication modalities, appointed by the Governor.

    hmmmm

    i know u were just joking – and u did make me smile

    im a serious pill this a.m. maybe best i go for a walk in the woods now so i lighten me step

    peace

    patti

  7. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 11:52:07

    deafa –

    u have definitely got ur thinking cap on chap

    definitely

    thank u

    me guess of why u have that “medical perspective” feeling is cuz:……. drum rolll folks

    it is ever present

    it is the nature of being a wee wee wee minority amongst the “others” – they have a hard time “getting it”

    but…. the good news is that some MAJOR progress has been made with this bill and it is starting to SHINE – some good stuff is starting to leak out and look pretty in this little bureaucratic piece of paper

    largely because of all the good souls on the ground putting their feet to the pavement, donning their yellow shirts and saying “we are here. hEAR us roar. nothing about us without us.” and the radical notion that “its good to be D E A F”

    for me the “medical perspective” in the bill are:
    – must see an audiologist
    – pamphlet will allow for the promotion of EXCLUSIONARY approaches – “options” that actively prohibit a fully natural and accessible language for Deaf infants and their families (linguicism)
    – “options” that are based on the belief to hear and behave like hearing people is superior to being Deaf (audism)

    that is REAL problematic with me that a state government would legislate that

    if instead the bill said –

    babe and parents to go to an bilingual (or dual language) expert to get the pamphlet – COOL

    pamphlet explains – we the state of california recommend that parents provide their Deaf infants with a fully natural accessible language (ASL) and English

    pamphlet can still list out and explain pros and cons of:
    ASL & English

    English systems (but do NOT list Oral / Aural “option” programs because they actively prohibit and exclude ASL – if cued speech, pse, tc, SEE also have policies and practices of banning ASL from the services and classrooms then they should be given the boot from the pamphlet also)

    but in no way shape or form should the STATE govt pamphlet convey that to go an ONLY anything (only ASL or only english (oral, see, cued…) is RECOMMENDED

    then me friend we will have the truth and true options

    ta da

    pretty dang simple eh?

    re: ur concerns on the selection and make up of the “stakeholders” panel – yep it is a see-see kinda thing

    im kinda puzzled as to how 4 new seats were added in just a few days
    1 – audiologist
    1 – ear, nose, and throat doctor
    2 – Two adults who are deaf or hard of hearing, and who primarily
    use other visual communication modalities, appointed by the Governor.

    kinda odd how those say PRIMARILY USE – where as the auditory-oral and the ASL seats dont say “primarily”

    im guessing that the 2 slated for the “other visual communication modalities” is because there is:
    oral/aural DEAF person
    oral/aural educator
    oral / aural parent whose child uses oral/aural as their primary language
    oral/aural non-profit rep
    oral/aural researcher

    ASL DEAF person
    ASL educator
    ASL parent whose child uses ASL as their primary language
    ASL non-profit rep
    ASL researcher

    i wish the ASL reps were recognized to be bi-bi (ASL and English)

    i wish the auditory-oral (oral/aural) reps were recognized to include (with or without visual communication modalities)

    re: ur question on the revising in 2 years – i would hope it would be to assess how well the law is working and not to be about technologies

    we r talking language and cognitive development – not medical / pathological stuff

    there does seem to be an awful lot of legislated / required / mandated screening, testing, evaluating and treating opportunities in this bill while the actual language plans r “optional”

    re: our HISTORY WILL SHOW

    bingo

    i think this a.m. u r brilliant

    that there statement, deafa, is what the ICED 2010 Vancouver New Era called all the nations of the world to do – to REMEMBER OUR HISTORY as it relates to ICED 1880 Milan resolutions that declared the incontestable superiority of oral / aural onlyism

    ICED 2010 New Era now says that was very UNCOOL an detrimental and we must make sure NEVER AGAIN

    this is why i oppose the listing of any “option” that excludes a natural and fully accessible signed language for Deaf folks

    peace

    patti

  8. Shel
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 15:43:55

    One thing occurred to me… re: ASL Deaf persons…

    Anyone could walk in and tell the powers that be (including governor) that they know ASL, and use it primarily, when in fact they use communication modes like PSE, but THINK it’s ASL. What are the safeguards against that? Assessments? If there’s none, we could easily end up with NO genuine ASL person on the panel.

    Hypothetically speaking… a bit farfetched, I know, but bear with me in this:

    Suppose this panel is half Anglophones and half speak Spanish, but supposing those who are in the position of appointing Spanish-speaking people have no way of knowing if the Spanish they’re hearing is actual fluent Spanish, or actually a creolized version of Spanish and another language (bastardized version that no self-respecting Spanish-speakers would claim to be Spanish.) There’s no assessment tools used to ascertain it’s actual Spanish. What happens? The Spanish side is seriously undermined.

    Same thing with ASL. We have ASL-PI (ASL Proficiency Interview) to assess the interviewee’s ASL proficiency. Level 4.0 is considered fluent, native, while Level 1 is considered neophyte level.

    Safeguards… where are they in that bill?

  9. handeyes
    Aug 22, 2010 @ 17:21:04

    Hi Shel –
    good questions

    me HOPE is that the state govt of CA will be eager to ensure that the advisory stakeholders panel is just and good and would understand the value in having a person who really “speaks” the language they are supposed to be representing and not a farce.

    Now the state of CA elected officials probably r not qualified to judge this but they have been in contact with some mighty good folks who can help them know what is what. So the governor, Arnold S, would be mighty foolish if he appointed a representative who was semi-lingual in ASL – they would see an outcry that would make them wish they were Deaf too – me think.

    Peace

    Patti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: