I'm all fired up, and not in a good way. I just had one of the most aggravating telemarketing calls ever. I'm so ticked off that I have to blog about it.
I just got off the phone with this woman who was calling on behalf of some society that helps blind children (I'm not sure what she said the name of the group was) and she wanted to sell me some products "packaged by blind children." They were products like low-energy/high-efficiency light bulbs and heavy-duty trash bags. I politely said, "No, thank you, I'm not interested at this time." And this woman kept asking me to buy these products and I kept politely refusing. So then she decided to guilt-trip me and that's when things got interesting.
She asked me if I was aware of the conditions of these children's lives and I said, "Yes, I am, I work with special needs children everyday."
"So," she proceeded, "you know that these children have disabilities and need our support?"
"I do," I succinctly answered.
"So why won't you help these children?"
"I do help them, I work with special needs children everyday."
"Well, you know our products are sold on the honor system, so you would not need to pay for them now. In fact, our lowest priced product is a set of scented candles for $20."
"No, thank you."
"So, you are unwilling to help these children?" (Meanwhile, every time I turn her down, she becomes more and more snide).
"It's not that I'm unwilling, I help children with special needs everyday. I'm just not interested in purchasing your products."
(And this is what really set me off): "Well, I hope in the future you can find some kindness in your heart to help these blind children."
(In a calmly controlled voice), "I work with special needs children everyday and I'm perfectly aware of their home situations. For you to assume that I'm some kind of cold-hearted person because I won't purchase your products, is totally off-base."
The conversation ended soon thereafter.
I was, and still am, very angry with this woman and the ridiculous guilt-trip she was trying to lay on me. Umm, no. In case I haven't mentioned it, I work with children who have special needs everyday. It's my job. Part of my job is to ensure that these students learn functional skills so that they can become productive members of society and not have to rely on some stupid woman selling overpriced products over the phone to give them a handout. You know, if I wasn't interested and passionate about working with those children, I wouldn't be doing what I do...everyday.
Whatever, just call me Ebenezer Scrooge.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Grand Scheme of Things
I am a member of a little understood, often misunderstood, profession: the education of deaf children. I've been interpreting for deaf children in the education setting for over three years now and it still never ceases to amaze me when teachers or other professionals say or do things that run contrary to the goal of educating said deaf children. I know they mean well, and they haven't been trained and/or educated on deafness and issues related to hearing loss, but sometimes I just want to tell them to stop and just think logically about deafness and the impact it could have on a child's education. Or sometimes, the teachers will be so intent on the little things that they lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture being these kids gaining some kind of an understanding of the world around them and becoming independent.
Case in point: Monday in language arts the teacher was talking about the seven continents. I don't remember the reason behind this discussion (we were in language arts, not social studies) but the teacher kept singing this ridiculous song about the continents to try to get the students to memorize all seven. Now, censure me if you will, but I did not interpret the song; instead I employed the ASL technique of listing and I presented the continents several times in list form. At the end of this rigmarole of the teacher singing the song about eight times (and me listing the continents about thirty times), the teacher turned to me and asked if I thought that the student heard any of the song.
****Side Note: I cannot tell you how many times teachers have turned to me in the middle of class and asked me if so-and-so student has heard them. And about 99.975% of the time I will say, "No." That's my rote answer; the real answer is much more involved than a simple "no." Keep in mind that we're in the middle of class, a time when teaching/learning/thought processing, etc., is supposed to be occurring. Teachers ask me stuff all the time in the middle of class and I'm never quite sure how I'm supposed to respond. Like, am I supposed to drop my hands and answer them? Or am I supposed to try to interpret what the teacher just asked me and then reply using some janky form of SimCom (simultaneous communication=talking and signing at the same time and is literally impossible to do)? On days when I'm feeling particularly peckish, I just interpret the question straight and let the moment hang there, uncomfortably, until I finally turn and answer. I also hate it when teachers tell me not to interpret something, but I'm getting away from myself, that's a topic for another day. Anyway, back to the question of whether or not the student can hear the teacher...
First of all, depending on the student, yes, he/she can hear you. But I can't just say that to the teacher; teachers generally don't understand hearing and listening and comprehension. Hearing is not listening, listening is not comprehension. Also, hearing is not discrimination, meaning yes, the student hears noise and sounds, but he doesn't know what any of those sounds are. The ability to discriminate speech sounds can be quite difficult. Basically, some of the students who have some hearing ability hear Charlie Brown's teacher when you, the teacher, speaks. Now, you and I know what that sounds like. Yes, we can hear it, but does it have meaning?
Second, factor in all of the other noise in the classroom, which is more than just the students talking and making noise. EVERYTHING makes noise: writing, turning pages, moving one's chair, dropping a pencil, the heat register, etc. Interestingly, even though hearing people don't have the ability to NOT hear something (we can't turn our ears off, like deaf people can close their eyes), we're pretty good at tuning things out. But hearing aids amplify everything, not just the speech sounds. I've heard simulations of what hearing through amplification is like and it's difficult to pick out what is being said.
Third, I am not in that student's head. I can look at said student's audiogram and tell you what I think he can perceive, but as to what the student actually hears and then actually understands, I can't tell you. I don't know.
Those three points are what I really want to answer when teachers ask me if the student can hear them, but when we're in the middle of class I don't have time to expound on all of the finer points of listening and hearing, so I just say, "No."
****Side Note over, let's get back to my story.
Anyway, the language arts teacher asked me if the deaf student heard any of her song naming the continents. I, as I've just explained, said, "No." And then the teacher went on to express disappointment that said student had to miss out on it (believe me, kid, you weren't missing anything) and wondered if there wasn't some way that we could convey the rhythm of the song to him. I was flabbergasted by this teacher. And this is a teacher who is on the higher end of "getting it" when it comes to deafness. I just felt like we took a huge step backwards in our progress. And I felt like scratching my eyes out (but not really because then I couldn't do my job...well, I guess I could still voice-to-sign interpret, but learning new vocabulary would be super difficult). Normally, I wouldn't react so strongly to a statement like that, but this teacher was so earnest in her desire to get this kid to learn this song. Forget the fact that due to my stellar interpreting, utilizing the ASL linguistic feature of listing, this student now knows the seven continents, thus receiving the same understanding that the hearing students have.
I just wonder where the teachers' priorities are sometimes. Is it important for this boy to learn a silly song about the continents in language arts class? This boy reads at a first grade level but he's in the sixth grade. This boy struggles with multiple-meaning words. This boy has difficulty answering direct questions. He cannot always tell you the cause and effect of things. He will sign a beautiful answer to me but when it comes time to actually write the answer on his paper, he cannot. And you, language arts teacher, are worried that he didn't get to hear your song about the continents?
Case in point: Monday in language arts the teacher was talking about the seven continents. I don't remember the reason behind this discussion (we were in language arts, not social studies) but the teacher kept singing this ridiculous song about the continents to try to get the students to memorize all seven. Now, censure me if you will, but I did not interpret the song; instead I employed the ASL technique of listing and I presented the continents several times in list form. At the end of this rigmarole of the teacher singing the song about eight times (and me listing the continents about thirty times), the teacher turned to me and asked if I thought that the student heard any of the song.
****Side Note: I cannot tell you how many times teachers have turned to me in the middle of class and asked me if so-and-so student has heard them. And about 99.975% of the time I will say, "No." That's my rote answer; the real answer is much more involved than a simple "no." Keep in mind that we're in the middle of class, a time when teaching/learning/thought processing, etc., is supposed to be occurring. Teachers ask me stuff all the time in the middle of class and I'm never quite sure how I'm supposed to respond. Like, am I supposed to drop my hands and answer them? Or am I supposed to try to interpret what the teacher just asked me and then reply using some janky form of SimCom (simultaneous communication=talking and signing at the same time and is literally impossible to do)? On days when I'm feeling particularly peckish, I just interpret the question straight and let the moment hang there, uncomfortably, until I finally turn and answer. I also hate it when teachers tell me not to interpret something, but I'm getting away from myself, that's a topic for another day. Anyway, back to the question of whether or not the student can hear the teacher...
First of all, depending on the student, yes, he/she can hear you. But I can't just say that to the teacher; teachers generally don't understand hearing and listening and comprehension. Hearing is not listening, listening is not comprehension. Also, hearing is not discrimination, meaning yes, the student hears noise and sounds, but he doesn't know what any of those sounds are. The ability to discriminate speech sounds can be quite difficult. Basically, some of the students who have some hearing ability hear Charlie Brown's teacher when you, the teacher, speaks. Now, you and I know what that sounds like. Yes, we can hear it, but does it have meaning?
Second, factor in all of the other noise in the classroom, which is more than just the students talking and making noise. EVERYTHING makes noise: writing, turning pages, moving one's chair, dropping a pencil, the heat register, etc. Interestingly, even though hearing people don't have the ability to NOT hear something (we can't turn our ears off, like deaf people can close their eyes), we're pretty good at tuning things out. But hearing aids amplify everything, not just the speech sounds. I've heard simulations of what hearing through amplification is like and it's difficult to pick out what is being said.
Third, I am not in that student's head. I can look at said student's audiogram and tell you what I think he can perceive, but as to what the student actually hears and then actually understands, I can't tell you. I don't know.
Those three points are what I really want to answer when teachers ask me if the student can hear them, but when we're in the middle of class I don't have time to expound on all of the finer points of listening and hearing, so I just say, "No."
****Side Note over, let's get back to my story.
Anyway, the language arts teacher asked me if the deaf student heard any of her song naming the continents. I, as I've just explained, said, "No." And then the teacher went on to express disappointment that said student had to miss out on it (believe me, kid, you weren't missing anything) and wondered if there wasn't some way that we could convey the rhythm of the song to him. I was flabbergasted by this teacher. And this is a teacher who is on the higher end of "getting it" when it comes to deafness. I just felt like we took a huge step backwards in our progress. And I felt like scratching my eyes out (but not really because then I couldn't do my job...well, I guess I could still voice-to-sign interpret, but learning new vocabulary would be super difficult). Normally, I wouldn't react so strongly to a statement like that, but this teacher was so earnest in her desire to get this kid to learn this song. Forget the fact that due to my stellar interpreting, utilizing the ASL linguistic feature of listing, this student now knows the seven continents, thus receiving the same understanding that the hearing students have.
I just wonder where the teachers' priorities are sometimes. Is it important for this boy to learn a silly song about the continents in language arts class? This boy reads at a first grade level but he's in the sixth grade. This boy struggles with multiple-meaning words. This boy has difficulty answering direct questions. He cannot always tell you the cause and effect of things. He will sign a beautiful answer to me but when it comes time to actually write the answer on his paper, he cannot. And you, language arts teacher, are worried that he didn't get to hear your song about the continents?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Post-Election Thoughts
I haven't thought too much about the outcome of the election. The school levy I voted on failed, which is what I was hoping would happen. The casino issue also failed, again, what I wanted to happen. I don't have strong feelings about any of the actual candidates for whom I voted. Some of them won, some of them lost. I'm more of a wait and see kind of person. As in, okay, now Obama has been elected, let's see what he does.
One cool thing that happened at school the Wednesday after the election (we didn't have classes on that Tuesday) was a discussion I had with one of the deaf students about Obama. These deaf students who I work with are so cut off from so much information, I basically had a conversation about general presidential stuff. Like, the president serves for four years and then we vote again. The little boy didn't quite know what happened to a president after his term is done. He didn't realize that there are men who used to be president who are still alive. He was kind of equating all presidents with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, not realizing the connection between Presidents Washington and Bush (that the presidency is an ongoing office). Randomly, then, when I was discussing past presidents I had to explain that there is a difference between being dead and being killed. This little boy and I were supposed to be doing science homework, but sometimes conversations with the deaf students about real life occurrences take precedence.
One cool thing that happened at school the Wednesday after the election (we didn't have classes on that Tuesday) was a discussion I had with one of the deaf students about Obama. These deaf students who I work with are so cut off from so much information, I basically had a conversation about general presidential stuff. Like, the president serves for four years and then we vote again. The little boy didn't quite know what happened to a president after his term is done. He didn't realize that there are men who used to be president who are still alive. He was kind of equating all presidents with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, not realizing the connection between Presidents Washington and Bush (that the presidency is an ongoing office). Randomly, then, when I was discussing past presidents I had to explain that there is a difference between being dead and being killed. This little boy and I were supposed to be doing science homework, but sometimes conversations with the deaf students about real life occurrences take precedence.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Thoughts on Election Eve
Well, tomorrow's the big day...the day we've been waiting for for two years. I personally cannot wait for the elections to be over and done with and for my mailbox to not be inundated with propaganda. One of the downsides of not being affiliated with one party or the other is that I am sent endless amounts of campaign postcards and fliers. Yes, people, when you contribute to one party or one campaign or another, YOU are responsible for the ridiculous amounts of wasted natural resources that I find in my mailbox everyday. If anyone cares, for the record, I have received roughly triple the amount of mailings from the Obama campaign that I have from the McCain campaign. Often, I received multiple postcards and mailings from Senator Obama's campaign on the same day. I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be the more earth-friendly of the two major parties.
Well, of course, there are also several issues on the ballot this year. Here in Ohio, we have to vote on another casino issue, a payday lending issue, and of course there are massive amounts of school levies on our ballots. I've made no secret of my long-held contempt for school levies (see March's entry "I voted today!"). I should perhaps say that I'm not against certain school levies. I am against school levies that involve mills/millage/property values/property taxes. I suppose I would be in favor of a school district income tax, because I feel that an income tax is more fair than assessing taxes on properties. The county where Mom and Dad live just went through a big scandal when the auditor's office inappropriately assessed property values and I find that to be a perfect example of why property taxes are a hideous way of funding schools. Add to that the discrepancy that occurs between school districts in high value areas versus school districts in lower value areas, and the fact that the state supreme court has ruled Ohio's school funding system unconstitutional (they ruled on this TEN YEARS AGO), and you have several reasons why I hate school levies and refuse to support them.
The school district where I work is not voting on a levy this time around, but the district in which I live is. I already voted (early voting on Saturday) and I voted against it.
I also voted no on the casino issue. Some people may be surprised by this, knowing my affinity for sitting at the poker table for extended amounts of time, but I'm sick of groups coming into Ohio and trying to set up casino gambling. Do I think Ohio should have casinos? Yes and no. Yes, I would love if I could legally sit at a poker table in Ohio and take people's money. Yes, thousands of people cross the border to gamble in the West Virginia, Detroit, and Indiana riverboat casinos. Yes, opening casinos would mean jobs for thousands of Ohioans. Yes, profits from the gambling industry could be used to fund other state projects. Yes, a casino resort could liven up the economy for an area. No, I don't think casinos are a reliable way of earning money for state projects. No, minimum wage jobs are not going to replace the thousands of high-paying union factory jobs the state has lost. No, low income people should not be spending their limited resources in a casino. Yes, people become addicted to gambling and spend more money than they should (or even more money than they have). Yes, it's possible that a casino could lead to increased crime. Yes, casinos are tainted (but only minimally so if you're playing poker).
The main reason I've repeatedly voted no on casinos issues is that it's never been on the ballot as a simple, "Should the citizens of Ohio be allowed to build casinos?" It's always been set up for specific groups, i.e. Indian tribes (please, we live in Ohio, someone please show me where I could find a pure-blood Shawnee), racetracks already in existence in the state, or other casino-owners trying to establish a foothold in Ohio. I don't like the specificity and the restrictions of the ballot initiatives. If the state is going to allow gambling, fine, but let's not only allow for certain groups or in certain areas. When I read the ballot on Saturday, it was quite plain as to the specific location that this ONE casino could be built. No, casinos should be all or nothing. Not this mamby-pamby, only one casino is this one location.
Speaking of gambling, have I mentioned the stupid keno games that Governor Strickland pushed to be put into place? Keno is for old women sitting at the buffet in Vegas. Keno is not for bars in Ohio. Keno is not going to solve the school funding issue in Ohio. Keno is a ridiculous (and practically instantaneous) way for people to waste their money. I hate keno.
Well, of course, there are also several issues on the ballot this year. Here in Ohio, we have to vote on another casino issue, a payday lending issue, and of course there are massive amounts of school levies on our ballots. I've made no secret of my long-held contempt for school levies (see March's entry "I voted today!"). I should perhaps say that I'm not against certain school levies. I am against school levies that involve mills/millage/property values/property taxes. I suppose I would be in favor of a school district income tax, because I feel that an income tax is more fair than assessing taxes on properties. The county where Mom and Dad live just went through a big scandal when the auditor's office inappropriately assessed property values and I find that to be a perfect example of why property taxes are a hideous way of funding schools. Add to that the discrepancy that occurs between school districts in high value areas versus school districts in lower value areas, and the fact that the state supreme court has ruled Ohio's school funding system unconstitutional (they ruled on this TEN YEARS AGO), and you have several reasons why I hate school levies and refuse to support them.
The school district where I work is not voting on a levy this time around, but the district in which I live is. I already voted (early voting on Saturday) and I voted against it.
I also voted no on the casino issue. Some people may be surprised by this, knowing my affinity for sitting at the poker table for extended amounts of time, but I'm sick of groups coming into Ohio and trying to set up casino gambling. Do I think Ohio should have casinos? Yes and no. Yes, I would love if I could legally sit at a poker table in Ohio and take people's money. Yes, thousands of people cross the border to gamble in the West Virginia, Detroit, and Indiana riverboat casinos. Yes, opening casinos would mean jobs for thousands of Ohioans. Yes, profits from the gambling industry could be used to fund other state projects. Yes, a casino resort could liven up the economy for an area. No, I don't think casinos are a reliable way of earning money for state projects. No, minimum wage jobs are not going to replace the thousands of high-paying union factory jobs the state has lost. No, low income people should not be spending their limited resources in a casino. Yes, people become addicted to gambling and spend more money than they should (or even more money than they have). Yes, it's possible that a casino could lead to increased crime. Yes, casinos are tainted (but only minimally so if you're playing poker).
The main reason I've repeatedly voted no on casinos issues is that it's never been on the ballot as a simple, "Should the citizens of Ohio be allowed to build casinos?" It's always been set up for specific groups, i.e. Indian tribes (please, we live in Ohio, someone please show me where I could find a pure-blood Shawnee), racetracks already in existence in the state, or other casino-owners trying to establish a foothold in Ohio. I don't like the specificity and the restrictions of the ballot initiatives. If the state is going to allow gambling, fine, but let's not only allow for certain groups or in certain areas. When I read the ballot on Saturday, it was quite plain as to the specific location that this ONE casino could be built. No, casinos should be all or nothing. Not this mamby-pamby, only one casino is this one location.
Speaking of gambling, have I mentioned the stupid keno games that Governor Strickland pushed to be put into place? Keno is for old women sitting at the buffet in Vegas. Keno is not for bars in Ohio. Keno is not going to solve the school funding issue in Ohio. Keno is a ridiculous (and practically instantaneous) way for people to waste their money. I hate keno.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
