why has the NAD said they did the language deprivation legislation when they have not shared this legislation with the public. The Alice Cogswell bill is going no where and does NOT address language deprivation - in fact it allows FOR language deprivation to take place. Why has the NAD done nearly NOTHING on this important 2012 motion and then dismissed the MDADs call for the NAD to be censured and for the language deprivation legislation to be completed by 2014? This was a 2012 Kentucky NAD conference approved URGENT MATTER. it was proposed as a priority but via some back and front door politiking by the chief proposer - Kelby Brick and the NAD - it was shifted from a Priority to a direct action item for the NAD office (adiminstration ie CEO and co) and what came of it - little bit of lip service and the claim that it is DONE yet we have seen nothing they can NOT be referring to the Alice Cogswell bill because that was proposed and in action while NAD CEO and President and chair of NAD was saying that the language deprivation ad hoc committee was yet to be formed (as recent as spring 2014) we Deaf not Dumb, NAD new.nad.org/atlanta/proposed-priorities 2014-GA-RES-001 Resolution Title: Censure and Continuation of Language Deprivation Bill Rationale: Whereas the Delegates to the 2012 NAD Conference passed a mandate proposed by four past NAD presidents and three past NAD executives, among others, requiring the NAD to set up a Headquarters Ad-Hoc Committee to look into developing model state and federal legislation to prevent language deprivation. Whereas this mandate required the formation of a headquarters Ad-Hoc committee reporting to the CEO comprised of individuals with expertise in various relevant areas including legal, educational and socio- and neuro-linguistic development to look into the possibility of making liable actions that causes harm to Deaf children as a result of the deprivation of American Sign Language and develop model state and federal legislation for such liability. Whereas this mandate required the committee to look into developing model state and federal legislation that would require medical and audiology personnel to refer deaf infants/children and their families to American Sign Language instruction and education prior to undertaking any medical procedure that may presume to provide hearing. Whereas this mandate required that the committee develop a strategy for the adoption of these legislation including identifying which states may be most favorable as early adopters of those legislation. Whereas this mandate requires a full report including the first draft of a model legislation to be completed by December 1, 2013. Whereas it appears that, as of May 1, 2014, no such Headquarters Ad-Hoc Committee was ever formed and whereas no full report including the draft of a model legislation has ever been written nor released, Let it be resolved that the Delegates use this opportunity to Censure the NAD Board and the NAD Leadership for their deliberate ignorance of the specific steps, process and deadlines adopted at the 2012 Conference, Let it be further resolved that the 2012 Mandate be passed once again as a 2014 Mandate with the same procedures, requirements and a deadline of the report and model legislation by May 1, 2015. Past attempts through the educational system to ensure that Deaf children are not isolated and linguistically deprived have experienced extremely limited success. Alternative approaches needs to be fully explored. This motion is timely because the United Nations developed and adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to advance equality further throughout the world. The CRPD makes repeated specific references to the deaf community and sign language in its text. The rationale and justification for the 2012 proposal comes from the abstract of Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches; Harm Reduction Journal 2012, 9:16 which specifically states: Children acquire language without instruction as long as they are regularly and meaningfully engaged with an accessible human language. Today, 80% of children born deaf in the developed world are implanted with cochlear devices that allow some of them access to sound in their early years, which helps them to develop speech. However, through early childhood, brain plasticity changes and children who have not acquired a first language in the early years might never be completely fluent in any language. If they miss this critical period for exposure to a natural language, their subsequent development of the cognitive activities that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped, such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation. An alternative to speech-exclusive approaches to language acquisition exists in the use of sign languages such as American Sign Language (ASL), where acquiring a sign language is subject to the same time constraints of spoken language development. Unfortunately, so far, these alternatives are caught up in an either – or dilemma, leading to a highly polarized conflict about which system families should choose for their children, with little tolerance for alternatives by either side of the debate and widespread misinformation about the evidence and implications for or against either approach. The success rate with cochlear implants is highly variable. This issue is still debated, and as far as we know, there are no reliable predictors for success with implants. Yet families are often advised not to expose their child to sign language. Here absolute positions based on ideology create pressures for parents that might jeopardize the real developmental needs of deaf children. What we do know is that cochlear implants do not offer accessible language to many deaf children. By the time it is clear that the deaf child is not acquiring spoken language with cochlear devices, it might already be past the critical period, and the child runs the risk of becoming linguistically deprived. Linguistic deprivation constitutes multiple personal harms as well as harms to society (in terms of costs to our medical systems and in loss of potential productive societal participation). Because Headquarters have the legal staff and interns along with necessary key relationships with those having needed expertise, the committee should report to the CEO. It is wholly unacceptable that no such headquarters committee was formed with the requested diversity outlined in the motion and it is further wholly unacceptable that no model legislation has been released to the public. Hence a censure is appropriate. Fiscal Impact: Minimal. The ad hoc committee will be mostly made up of volunteers. NAD staff expertise on the committee would be most helpful and staff’s time will have the biggest fiscal impact. The committee may also benefit from the research expertise of one of the law student interns that the NAD often has. The CEO may lend NAD staff and interns to the committee as he sees fit. Author: Meredith Dodt, David Letkiewicz, and Allison Weiner on behalf of MDAD Seconded by: Charm Smith on behalf of MDAD Board of Directors Input: The NAD Board acknowledges that the timeline was not met, but is pleased to report that the priority was achieved. Headquarters Input: The NAD Headquarters reports that the NAD has met this priority, pursuant to the 2012 mandate. While the timeline set by the 2012 mandate was not met, no mandate or priority should impose a deadline as all mandates and priorities are expected to be completed within the two year span between conferences if possible. Past experience has shown that some mandates and priorities take longer than expected or can never be achieved. However, this mandate was completed within the two-year period. Shortcuts Register Hotel & Travel Online Forum Exhibits Presenters RID FAQ
Posted on: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:43:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015