Interesting Comments from Steve Noyce

A new article is out from The Salt Lake Tribune. It can be found here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51268716-76/deaf-language-noyce-parents.html.csp?page=1

It has some interesting comments from Steve Noyce in it. He says: “I don’t have any problem with people being an advocate for American Sign Language,” ... “I wish those who advocate for ASL wouldn’t have a problem with those who advocate for listening-and-spoken language. My role is to support very strongly both programs equally.” First of all, I think this statement clearly shows that he considers himself someone who is advocating for the LSL path. The last part is true, that his role is to support both equally, but clearly, since he wishes those who advocate for ASL did not have such a problem with those who advocate LSL (Steve Noyce), he does not strongly support both. This is all I have been asking for from the beginning, is someone who is more moderate as our superintendent. He or she should not have strong feelings one way or the other, but instead should truly support the choices for parents. Steve Noyce also says that he hopes that the two tracks will empower parents, but in reality they take that power away from parents. I can't speak for everyone, but I sure felt empowered as i was told by USDB after we chose ASL that we would no longer receive the auditory and speech therapy Eliza needed. I felt even more empowered as I heard from USDB employees that because we had chosen ASL for our daughter, she would not be considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. You're right, Noyce, this two track system is very empowering. What was the most empowering was how I sent emails to Noyce and Day Mullings, and got no responses. Made me feel like king of the world. Let's be honest, if you are choosing LSL, the new two track system is very empowering, but if you want a bilingual, bicultural approach, the new system is anything but empowering. I support any plan where all parents are truly empowered.

According to part C of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which governs early intervention, it discusses the Individualized Family Service Plan. This is where, at the beginning, the family meets with USDB, in this case, and sets up services based on what is available, based on the needs and concerns of the family. This means it should vary from individual to individual, and should not be a choice of two predetermined paths. That is not individualized at all. I felt like this was closer to what we had when Johnny and Eliza were first identified, but then last year I had to pick from two different paths for Eliza, neither of which I felt met her individual needs. We were assured by Day Mullings in a town hall meeting that it was the ASL/ENGLISH path. What we were not told was that if we picked it, the English part does not start at all until pre-school. So, after a year of listening and auditory therapy, our daughter had no services for listening or spoken English. She would end up having a break from this for almost 18 months, meaning she would probably regress in her oral skills, and she would have to make up even more ground when she started pre-school. Which brings up an interesting point. Steve Noyce mentioned that teachers in PIP are trained in oracy, just like in the pre-school and k-12 programs. I can tell you that our ASL specialist is very good about having an "ASL" day and a "talking" day, but this does not compare to the therapy that is available to Johnny at JMS. The same therapy that was available to Eliza, but is not now. The oracy available at JMS is amazing, but it is absolutely not available to children in PIP. In fact, like us, other parents we have talked to have informed us that they have been told they shouldn't pick the ASL path if they are considering cochlear implantation for their kids. Like us, they have been told that oral and auditory services are not available through JMS at all. So while Steve Noyce is saying in the newspaper that "oracy" is available in the infant program, as well as the k-12 program, his employees are telling parents the opposite. Our experience has shown that speech and listening services are in fact not available to ASL kids in PIP, and the oracy that is available at JMS has more to do with Jill Radford than Steve Noyce.

I am happy that there is a new orientation program for PIP. My wife sat on the committee which designed this orientation process. I was shocked, however, to read that this was established by Steve Noyce, and that he also was the one who made sure there were two representatives, one ASL and one LSL. I guess it was shocking to me because this was suggested in the committee meetings over and over to ensure the parents would receive unbiased information. However, Day Mullings made sure to mention that Superintendent Noyce would not allow there to be two, it would only be one, and all of her suggestions were LSL- either specialists or deaf adults who were LSL. I remember being frustrated along with my wife because after the committee meetings were over, this was how it was going to be: One orientation specialist, LSL. Then we met with Jennifer Howell, who was at the time the associate superintendent. She informed us that she had finally gotten it approved for two deaf adults, one ASL and one LSL. I fail to see how Steve Noyce set up that program the way it is now, when he wanted it to be one specialist who was LSL.

The stats in the article were also interesting. They mention that 74% of infants in PIP are in the LSL path and 15 % are in the ASL path, while 10% are undecided. I would love to talk to some of these parents that have chosen the oral path, just to find out what they would have chosen if there had been a true bilingual/bicultural path available. I am not questioning the validity of their choice, but I wonder how many of them chose oral because they were told if they chose ASL they would not receive any of the oral services. Like all parents of children who are deaf or hard of hearing, I yearn to communicate with my child, like any parent really. It would be hard if someone told me that if I chose the ASL path, I would not be able to communicate with my child, that they would never learn to speak or listen, I would be cut off from them. If I was told this, and was told that the only way they could get any of these services was to pick the LSL path, and I only had three months to choose, I would have picked the LSL path. We were lucky because we had more time, and we were able to get to know our kids first. We also knew that JMS was not "voice-off" all the time, so we felt like we would be ok choosing ASL for our daughter. I wonder if other parents would have chosen bilingual/bicultural if that option were there, if they had an option other than just ASL or just LSL.

My mother read the article. She called me right away, and being someone not as familiar with everything, she said she got the impression that the LSL path was just amazing, that these cochlear implants were amazing, and if she didn't know better, Steve Noyce was great for really pushing this LSL. In other words, she felt he was doing a really good job campaigning for LSL. Sure sounds like someone who strongly supports both sides equally.