Hello , I am Tamera Gaudet- Doody, ROAR Chair. Our ROAR’s unscripted response letter is for you, Sheri Farinha and Julie Rems Smario, National LEAD-K leaders. Thank you for your patience in waiting for our reply. Here is our response to your vlog. 2) Melt's transcript Hi everyone. One word comes to mind that I feel is a must to share with you. That word is COLLECTIVISM. What is collectivism? An example is 3 or 10 important people in a closed meeting where they are selective who to include in that meeting. After discussing an issue, (whatever that is) and reaching some kind of decision or agreement, the general expectation of those in the closed meeting is to expect everyone to follow their decision. Now that’s absurd as this is not what collectivism is about! An actual example of collectivism is when there was an issue and EVERYONE participated in an ongoing dialogue about that issue until all arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. Years ago I made a public vlog that I was so excited about and asked our community to set up a political organization for the Deaf and that if they did, I would be willing to donate to it. After a bit of time, Deaf people from all over this country started paying close attention to legislative bills. Some of these bills were passed, some died, and some were pending. Now ROAR is responding to a video from the two Co-Chairs of the LEAD-K National Team, dated February 2nd. There are 3 reasons why ROAR exists and they are 1) LeadK’s lack of transparency, 2) no clear support of ASL and English by them, and 3) LeadK’s shocking agreement with AGBell! The goal of ROAR is to protect future Deaf Children to ensure that they acquire language quickly and easily. If LEAD-K and ROAR can work together and hammer out common goals, we can achieve a lot. Now, please take the time to watch the rest of this video. You will see the remaining collective responses from individuals for LEAD-K. Thank you. 3) Steve's transcript Hey LEADK leaders, I just want to say few words. First of all, let me ask you about your horrible experience in schooling and upbringing. I'm wondering whether you have ever experienced abuse at an oral school or any school? We did. Many of us did. AGBell has influence over oral schools and they have abused deaf students all over. Destroyed their lives. It's a fact. Oral education is not the best solution. Never was and never will be. I know you speak well, yes. Many of us don't and some can't even speak well enough to be understood. Audism is happening all over. Something to think about when you talk about collaborating with AGBell that triggers deaf people. Not good. 4) Leslie"s transcript The LEAD-K team said that we misunderstood. No, we did not misunderstand and we still resist because of three reasons: First, the first model bill was fine and then you met with AGBell to have the bill revised. Why would you do that? Secondly, you decided with AGBELL, to add the communication modes. Thirdly, you made an agreement with AGBell to work together. I resist and I absolutely did not misunderstand you! Thank you 5) Tamera's transcript Now about transparency. You mentioned that you were transparent. In the beginning, yes, but towards the end, that changed. Let me remind you of several examples that occurred. When the original LEAD-K bill came out, there was no ASL version of the bill for Deaf people to have complete access to the details in their language. With the second revised bill where you included AGBell, you did not post it for the public to review until 1-2 weeks later. This is not what I consider to be full transparency with ample time for review. There were several controversies and fights between LEAD-K and AGBELL that were handled through letters. However, when you attended a meeting with AGBell , you had a this revised bill without including the input of the Deaf community at large. You did it without our consent! We did not find out until the summit of which I was present. You call this being transparent? You absolutely were not.! We were not even aware that an AGbell representative was going to be at the summit because it was not even mentioned on the agenda. When LEAD-K and an AGBell representative made an announcement of what you called a historic agreement, I cringed! It did not only impact me big time but it also impacted many of us in the Deaf community. That definitely was just not transparent as you claim and the collaboration in the eyes of many Deaf guarantees failure. 6) MaryRose's transcript As a former chairperson for LEAD-K in Va, I have a message for Sheri. You had announced about the agreement with the National AG Bell Institute without letting us know. I am very disappointed. You could have discussed this together with us and get our input. You did not! I am VERY disappointed. Thank you! 7) Kim's first transcript Hello. In response to Sheri about the Options: It’s not clear. Sheri stated that in the bill, ASL and English, or Both, or one of the languages including a spoken language are listed as opposed to options. Huh? Why did Sheri say that? Sheri also said the bill would allow parents to decide which communication mode they wish to choose for their child. Later it appeared that Sheri decided to reframe the bill to use ASL and English, or both, or one of languages. But in the LEAD-K bill listed on the website, Sheri wrote, “Our goal is language acquisition regardless of the language used, whether ASL or English or both.” Her statement conflicts with the language of the bill on the website. Be truthful what you mean here! 8) Kim second transcript You decided for us?? You decided to end our fight! Women fought to vote for years and won. Black people fought for years to end the slavery and won. And for you, Sheri, to say the bill would be “dead in the water”, you decided?!? You cut our fight without our consent! 9) Kim’s third transcript That means fighting for Deaf Babies’ rights! Hey, ASL is Deaf Babies’ human rights! You dismissed that! What that means is that parents’ choice comes before human rights! 10) Nancy's transcript Win win, How? When hearing parents see that they have the option to choose either ASL OR English along with the communication modes, the tendency is for them to choose English and the modes. The reason is because it is convenient for them to use a language they already familiar with.
11) Antines’ transcript I wonder… Where is your LOVE and PASSION for Deaf Babies? Doing what is best for Deaf Babies will be a huge WIN for the child! Deaf Babies would end up having the best journey! So you think politically, that in order to WIN and get a bill passed through legislation, the language in the bill must include choices such as the "OR/OR"? I disagree! If you really CARE about Deaf Children and want to show your love for them, then SUPPORT ASL! POLITICS belongs to a hard skulled head, not a compassionate heart. Therefore, this is NOT a WIN! 12) Kim’s Win/Win with AGBell? Does that mean it is ok to deprive Deaf babies of a language?? 13) Melt's second transcript: Yes and make no mistake when I say I support DATA 100%. I will explain why I support it in another vlog. Now let’s talk about LEAD-K. There are two reasons why I am not satisfied with the LEAD-K’s data. There is also one legitimate question, which is a fair question, that I have and will share later. Now the first reason I mentioned earlier is that most of us, including me personally, do not understand LEAD-K’s data because there is no detailed roadmap with outcomes that is easy to trace or read. It’s complicated. The second reason is I am skeptical of LEAD-K’s data due to their agreement with the AGBell association. Here is a question about the diagram that shows all the details along with the outcomes which I will describe for you now based on my understanding and what I see. Imagine drawing a rectangle that represents a “CHILD”. Since this child is a new baby, this baby is going to take the Newborn Hearing Screening test. After this child is identified as Deaf, draw a downward line from rectangle (CHILD) to what would be the next step and in shape of another rectangle, called, “PARENTS”. Now after the parents are informed of the child’s deafness and receives resources for language acquisition, draw another downward line from the rectangle (PARENTS) and create 4 or 5 smaller rectangles with each representing one of the following: ASL, Cued Speech, Oralism, and each of the other English options. If the parents choose ASL, they may join the IFSP program where services for the child would begin during the 0-6 months period, then another from 6 months to 12 months, and with a third one from 12 months to 18 months for language assessment. If the child fails to meet certain expectations in each group, what would be the next step? It would go to the left. If the child is successful and meets certain expectations of that age group, then the line would go to the right. That line should reach the rectangle on OUTCOMES where the long term and short-term goals are outlined. This ASL based diagram applies to the parents’ choice of, for example, Cued Speech and goes all the way until the 18-month language assessment. If that child fails to meet the goals in that group, then the next step would go to the left. If the child is successful, the child proceeds to the right, all the way to the rectangle of OUTCOMES. Each step can be repeated for the choice the parents pick whatever that is… oral and/or whatever English option chosen. The rectangle of OUTCOMES is like you said in clear ASL that “Building the data is in our favor”. This could lead to building the foundation of ASL since all of these choices would end up there. What I would like is for the people of AGBELL to read a diagram that we create and approve of it in a public statement to us. Now here is the legitimate question that I brought up earlier, which I stated is a fair question: Can this be accomplished? 14) Jenny’s transcript You mentioned that SB220 was a “big success”. Did you explain the history of your work with those people? The truth is you worked with the oral/school options under AGB’s philosophy. You and your team compromised on educational services for the Deaf and submitted that bill. While it passed unanimously, do you actually consider SB220 to be a huge success? I have a few questions. 1. Why were you collaborating with the audists? 2. Why didn’t you work on an opportunity to have the Deaf Community co-sponsor the bill in the first place? 3. Why didn’t you work with the Deaf Community instead of partnering with AGBELL? I hope you will be able to tell us why? It seems as if you thought the bill would be a perfect solution for the language access of Deaf children, whether in ASL, or spoken English, or any other English options. Were you really thinking that LeadK’s model bill would be the bill of perfection? That is what I wonder and am concerned about.
Hello , I am Tamera Gaudet- Doody, ROAR Chair. Our ROAR’s unscripted response letter is for you, Sheri Farinha and Julie Rems Smario, National LEAD-K leaders. Thank you for your patience in waiting for our reply. Here is our response to your vlog.
2) Melt's transcript
Hi everyone. One word comes to mind that I feel is a must to share with you. That word is COLLECTIVISM.
What is collectivism? An example is 3 or 10 important people in a closed meeting where they are selective who to include in that meeting. After discussing an issue, (whatever that is) and reaching some kind of decision or agreement, the general expectation of those in the closed meeting is to expect everyone to follow their decision. Now that’s absurd as this is not what collectivism is about! An actual example of collectivism is when there was an issue and EVERYONE participated in an ongoing dialogue about that issue until all arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.
Years ago I made a public vlog that I was so excited about and asked our community to set up a political organization for the Deaf and that if they did, I would be willing to donate to it. After a bit of time, Deaf people from all over this country started paying close attention to legislative bills. Some of these bills were passed, some died, and some were pending.
Now ROAR is responding to a video from the two Co-Chairs of the LEAD-K National Team, dated February 2nd. There are 3 reasons why ROAR exists and they are 1) LeadK’s lack of transparency, 2) no clear support of ASL and English by them, and 3) LeadK’s shocking agreement with AGBell! The goal of ROAR is to protect future Deaf Children to ensure that they acquire language quickly and easily. If LEAD-K and ROAR can work together and hammer out common goals, we can achieve a lot. Now, please take the time to watch the rest of this video. You will see the remaining collective responses from individuals for LEAD-K.
Thank you.
3) Steve's transcript
Hey LEADK leaders, I just want to say few words. First of all, let me ask you about your horrible experience in schooling and upbringing. I'm wondering whether you have ever experienced abuse at an oral school or any school? We did. Many of us did. AGBell has influence over oral schools and they have abused deaf students all over. Destroyed their lives. It's a fact. Oral education is not the best solution. Never was and never will be. I know you speak well, yes. Many of us don't and some can't even speak well enough to be understood. Audism is happening all over. Something to think about when you talk about collaborating with AGBell that triggers deaf people. Not good.
4) Leslie"s transcript
The LEAD-K team said that we misunderstood. No, we did not misunderstand and we still resist because of three reasons:
First, the first model bill was fine and then you met with AGBell to have the bill revised. Why
would you do that?
Secondly, you decided with AGBELL, to add the communication modes.
Thirdly, you made an agreement with AGBell to work together. I resist and I absolutely did not misunderstand you!
Thank you
5) Tamera's transcript
Now about transparency. You mentioned that you were transparent. In the beginning, yes, but towards the end, that changed. Let me remind you of several examples that occurred. When the original LEAD-K bill came out, there was no ASL version of the bill for Deaf people to have complete access to the details in their language. With the second revised bill where you included AGBell, you did not post it for the public to review until 1-2 weeks later. This is not what I consider to be full transparency with ample time for review. There were several controversies and fights between LEAD-K and AGBELL that were handled through letters. However, when you attended a meeting with AGBell , you had a this revised bill without including the input of the Deaf community at large. You did it without our consent! We did not find out until the summit of which I was present. You call this being transparent? You absolutely were not.! We were not even aware that an AGbell representative was going to be at the summit because it was not even mentioned on the agenda. When LEAD-K and an AGBell representative made an announcement of what you called a historic agreement, I cringed! It did not only impact me big time but it also impacted many of us in the Deaf community. That definitely was just not transparent as you claim and the collaboration in the eyes of many Deaf guarantees failure.
6) MaryRose's transcript
As a former chairperson for LEAD-K in Va, I have a message for Sheri. You had announced about the agreement with the National AG Bell Institute without letting us know. I am very disappointed. You could have discussed this together with us and get our input. You did not! I am VERY disappointed. Thank you!
7) Kim's first transcript
Hello. In response to Sheri about the Options: It’s not clear. Sheri stated that in the bill, ASL and English, or Both, or one of the languages including a spoken language are listed as opposed to options. Huh? Why did Sheri say that? Sheri also said the bill would allow parents to decide which communication mode they wish to choose for their child. Later it appeared that Sheri decided to reframe the bill to use ASL and English, or both, or one of languages. But in the LEAD-K bill listed on the website, Sheri wrote, “Our goal is language acquisition regardless of the language used,
whether ASL or English or both.” Her statement conflicts with the language of the bill on the website. Be truthful what you mean here!
8) Kim second transcript
You decided for us?? You decided to end our fight! Women fought to vote for years and won. Black people fought
for years to end the slavery and won. And for you, Sheri, to say the bill would be “dead in the water”, you decided?!?
You cut our fight without our consent!
9) Kim’s third transcript
That means fighting for Deaf Babies’ rights! Hey, ASL is Deaf Babies’ human rights! You dismissed that! What that
means is that parents’ choice comes before human rights!
10) Nancy's transcript
Win win, How? When hearing parents see that they have the option to choose either ASL OR English along with the communication modes, the tendency is for them to choose English and the modes. The reason is because it is convenient for them to use a language they already familiar with.
11) Antines’ transcript
I wonder… Where is your LOVE and PASSION for Deaf Babies? Doing what is best for Deaf Babies will be a huge WIN for the child! Deaf Babies would end up having the best journey! So you think politically, that in order to WIN and get a bill passed through legislation, the language in the bill must include choices such as the "OR/OR"? I disagree! If you really CARE about Deaf Children and want to show your love for them, then SUPPORT ASL! POLITICS belongs to a hard skulled head, not a compassionate heart. Therefore, this is NOT a WIN!
12) Kim’s
Win/Win with AGBell? Does that mean it is ok to deprive Deaf babies of a language??
13) Melt's second transcript:
Yes and make no mistake when I say I support DATA 100%. I will explain why I support it in another vlog. Now let’s talk about LEAD-K. There are two reasons why I am not satisfied with the LEAD-K’s data. There is also one legitimate question, which is a fair question, that I have and will share later. Now the first reason I mentioned earlier is that most of us, including me personally, do not understand LEAD-K’s data because there is no detailed roadmap with outcomes that is easy to trace or read. It’s complicated. The second reason is I am skeptical of LEAD-K’s data due to their agreement with the AGBell association.
Here is a question about the diagram that shows all the details along with the outcomes which I will describe for you now based on my understanding and what I see. Imagine drawing a rectangle that represents a “CHILD”. Since this child is a new baby, this baby is going to take the Newborn Hearing Screening test. After this child is identified as Deaf, draw a downward line from rectangle (CHILD) to what would be the next step and in shape of another rectangle, called, “PARENTS”. Now after the parents are informed of the child’s deafness and receives resources for language acquisition, draw another downward line from the rectangle (PARENTS) and create 4 or 5 smaller rectangles with each representing one of the following: ASL, Cued Speech, Oralism, and each of the other English options. If the parents choose ASL, they may join the IFSP program where services for the child would begin during the 0-6 months period, then another from 6 months to 12 months, and with a third one from 12 months to 18 months for language assessment. If the child fails to meet certain expectations in each group, what would be the next step? It would go to the left. If the child is successful and meets certain expectations of that age group, then the line would go to the right. That line should reach the rectangle on OUTCOMES where the long term and short-term goals are outlined. This ASL based diagram applies to the parents’ choice of, for example, Cued Speech and goes all the way until the 18-month language assessment. If that child fails to meet the goals in that group, then the next step would go to the left. If the child is successful, the child proceeds to the right, all the way to the rectangle of OUTCOMES. Each step can be repeated for the choice the parents pick whatever that is… oral and/or whatever English option chosen. The rectangle of OUTCOMES is like you said in clear ASL that “Building the data is in our favor”. This could lead to building the foundation of ASL since all of these choices would end up there. What I would like is for the people of AGBELL to read a diagram that we create and approve of it in a public statement to us. Now here is the legitimate question that I brought up earlier, which I stated is a fair question: Can this be accomplished?
14) Jenny’s transcript
You mentioned that SB220 was a “big success”. Did you explain the history of your work with those
people? The truth is you worked with the oral/school options under AGB’s philosophy. You and your team compromised on educational services for the Deaf and submitted that bill. While it passed unanimously, do you actually consider SB220 to be a huge success? I have a few questions. 1. Why were you collaborating with the audists? 2. Why didn’t you work on an opportunity to have the Deaf Community co-sponsor the bill in the first place? 3. Why didn’t you work with the Deaf Community instead of partnering with AGBELL? I hope you will be able to tell us why? It seems as if you thought the bill would be a perfect solution for the language access of Deaf children, whether in ASL, or spoken English, or any other English options. Were you really thinking that LeadK’s model bill would be the bill of perfection? That is what I wonder and am concerned about.