Feelings on Cochlear implants

Shel...

I was lucky that my mom wanted me to learn the oral way, but she didn't want to opress? me by having me just learn one method... so she had me start with cued speech and oral... *most of the cued speech i've long forgotten* and when I was in school.. I had a wonderful teacher who taught me sign language.. but I used oral at home.. because I choose not to sign with family due to the fact I wanted to strengthen my oral skills...

But nowadays, I'm considering the CI... I haven't made up my mind... because I"m wondering about the fact that hearing aids or whatever have never worked for me.. So I wonder if CI will really work if nothing else has...
 
BearBeauty said:
Shel...

I was lucky that my mom wanted me to learn the oral way, but she didn't want to opress? me by having me just learn one method... so she had me start with cued speech and oral... *most of the cued speech i've long forgotten* and when I was in school.. I had a wonderful teacher who taught me sign language.. but I used oral at home.. because I choose not to sign with family due to the fact I wanted to strengthen my oral skills...

But nowadays, I'm considering the CI... I haven't made up my mind... because I"m wondering about the fact that hearing aids or whatever have never worked for me.. So I wonder if CI will really work if nothing else has...
Click to expand...

As for my family issues, they put my brother in the oral only approach but it didnt work for him so he relies on ASL only. Due to that, I think my family should have learned some basic signs when he was little rather having me interpret for him all the time.

That's good that u want to strengthen your oral skills. I do not really care for mine cuz it gave people the false sense that I could hear better than I really do since I can speak so well. That usually led to a lot of misunderstandings and frustrations of trying to explain to hearing people I really can not hear well and I need them to face me or repeat themselves. I am less and less motivated to use my oral skills due to knowing that I have to strain to lipread whenever people are talking. That was the big turn off for me.

Good luck in your decision on getting CIs. :)
 
Shel, and Bear..............right now the debate is over which language should be the dhh kids' first language. There's nothing wrong with opting for speech first, and THEN gradually introducing Sign early on.
 
deafdyke said:
Shel, and Bear..............right now the debate is over which language should be the dhh kids' first language. There's nothing wrong with opting for speech first, and THEN gradually introducing Sign early on.
Click to expand...

Ok that's fine but suppose the child isnt picking up on speech skills and the more the child doesnt pick up on speech skills without being exposed to ASL, the more time lost on language development?

I am all for speech skills but my primary concern is making sure that those little babies are still getting full access to language so why not do both at the same time? Like with my heairng son now..he is learning ASL and spoken English now and is picking up on both so fast. Why not the same for deaf kids espeically knowing that deaf children cant pick up on language from the environment and are at risk for language delays.

There is so much talk about that at my school cuz of NCLB (NO Child Left Behind Act). We have to get our deaf students' reading and writing skills all caught up but I want some of the responsibility to lie with the so-called experts who tell the parents to expose the child to spoken language only to ensure that they benefit from their CIs. If that doesnt work then the child has lost years of language development and then the schools have to take up the slack and hard work to ensure those kids" reading and writing levels are at their age appropriate levels.

Come on...this is getting ridiculous. I am not against CIS but I am tired of the idea of exposing the children to spoken language without ASL to test if it works or not. I am just tired of children being "dumped" at our school cuz they were unable to keep up with their hearing counterparts and then the deaf schools get all of the blame for some of our students graduating with a 4th grade reading and writing levels.
 
shel90 said:
...
Come on...this is getting ridiculous. I am not against CIS but I am tired of the idea of exposing the children to spoken language without ASL to test if it works or not. I am just tired of children being "dumped" at our school cuz they were unable to keep up with their hearing counterparts and then the deaf schools get all of the blame for some of our students graduating with a 4th grade reading and writing levels.
Click to expand...

Just curious as I'm sure it has been mentioned either by you or Jillio? Take the kids who start off with ASL...how are they doing in comparison with typical hearing kids when they graduate?
 
sr171soars said:
Just curious as I'm sure it has been mentioned either by you or Jillio? Take the kids who start off with ASL...how are they doing in comparison with typical hearing kids when they graduate?
Click to expand...

Last year, only 4 children at my school passed the state standardized tests (that is given out to all children with no cognitive disabilities) and all 4 were from deaf families. Pretty obvious, huh?

Jillio stated that research has proved that deaf children from deaf families who have been exposed to ASL since birth (in other words had full access to language both directly and indirectly) are able to perform on their age appropriate levels academically. When I was at grad school at Gally, I did read those studies. That was what changed my way of thinking that ASL being a detriment to the deaf children's literacy development. It totally blew my mind cuz growing up, I thought the oral only approach was the only way deaf children could learn to read and write.

After seeing that in real life, it just makes perfect sense cuz the child would have a strong L1 language or even in two languages when they start first grade making them ready to learn a new language or tackle on printed concepts. Without a strong L1 language in the first place, how do u expect a 5 year old be ready to start reading?

We don't expect 1 year olds to learn how to read and write (if have normal development) but many of those kids r coming to our school with a language level of a 1 or 2 year old cuz they missed out so much so they need at least 3 more years to build their L1 language before they r ready to make that transition to reading and writing and by that time that happens, they r in 4th grade and at least 3 to 4 years behind. No, those children do not have any mental retardation or diagnosed congitive disabilities like Addhd or LD.

What's the justification for that?

Thios is making me angry just thinking about it so I am gonna stop before I start blowing steam and start offending people here.
 
"Why not the same for deaf kids espeically knowing that deaf children cant pick up on language from the environment and are at risk for language delays"

So, with that said, is it justifiable to not teach sign to a deaf child that CAN pick up on environmental language? Just wondering.
 
So, with that said, is it justifiable to not teach sign to a deaf child that CAN pick up on environmental language? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
No, b/c you didn't mention how well they can pick up enviromental language!
Just b/c some "superstars" can function really well with spoken English one on one, it doesn't mean that it's perfect for every sittuion. I'm an advocate of equpiting the dhh kid with a full toolbox............meaning, speech, Sign, Cued Speech etc. There's no tool that's "perfect" for all sittuions. If a dhh kid is introduced to Sign or another method, and rejects it................that's fine!
 
DD, you and I disagree on several topics, but you knwo we are on the same page with the whole tool box thing. I was just wondering. Different people perceive things in different ways. The way the statement was written, it seemed too me that this may be ok by her. Im pretty sure I knwo the answer, I was just curious.
 
Lillys dad said:
Oh yeah, I almost forgot..... I smell a troll.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are u calling me a troll? If so, that means u think I am bringing up all those issues just for the fun of it or what?

I see and take this issue seriously cuz why r many deaf children are not able to suceed in the oral only programs and then the parents r scrabling to put them in an signing environment when they r older to make up for lost time? What is the justification in that? That is my whole point. By then,the damage has been done unless they have that inner desire and overcome all the obstacles of developing a full language at a much older age and then having to learn how to read and write at an older age.

U say that it is justificable to not teach a child sign if they can pick up on "environmental" language. Guess it is ok to take that risk to see if the child is able to pick up language thru their environment or not.

I am talking about young children and exposing them to both so as they get older, if they don't want sign language and prefer oral, fine but at least they will have a strong L1 language to begin with.

I don't condone taking a classful of deaf/hoh children and teach them thru spoken language only and then to find out in 5 years, half of them werent able to keep up while the other half are able to keep up, oh those lucky ones! It is like saying to those who couldn't keep up "sorry..too bad u couldn't pick up on language thru the spoken form and too bad that u r falling years and years behind but now u can learn ASL and good luck trying to catch up". I know people don't really say that but isn't what we r doing to these kids? At least by exposing all kids to both, we won't have half of the class without a strong L1 language.
 
Oh yes by the way Lilly's Dad , have you see this thread *Deaf Germany VIDEO (subitities) * in Pictures and Video ?

:mrgreen:
 
CutePommie said:
Oh yes by the way Lilly's Dad , have you see this thread *Deaf Germany VIDEO (subitities) * in Pictures and Video ?

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I just watched it...oooh it was hilarous! I sent it to my friends and family.
 
but you knwo we are on the same page with the whole tool box thing.
Click to expand...
That's good.............and I mean I am VERY hardcore about supporting parents who have decided to give their dhh kid an oral education, as part of a whole toolbox approach. After all, most of the oral sucesses out there are grads of the oral programs. It just really irritates me in this day and age, that some parents think that they can make the choice about whether or not one tool is enough. Like a lot of the pro oral stuff makes it sound like its a perfect method with no downsides...........but yet, it really doesn't mention a lot of the downsides.
 
shel90 said:
Last year, only 4 children at my school passed the state standardized tests (that is given out to all children with no cognitive disabilities) and all 4 were from deaf families. Pretty obvious, huh?

Jillio stated that research has proved that deaf children from deaf families who have been exposed to ASL since birth (in other words had full access to language both directly and indirectly) are able to perform on their age appropriate levels academically. When I was at grad school at Gally, I did read those studies. That was what changed my way of thinking that ASL being a detriment to the deaf children's literacy development. It totally blew my mind cuz growing up, I thought the oral only approach was the only way deaf children could learn to read and write.

After seeing that in real life, it just makes perfect sense cuz the child would have a strong L1 language or even in two languages when they start first grade making them ready to learn a new language or tackle on printed concepts. Without a strong L1 language in the first place, how do u expect a 5 year old be ready to start reading?

We don't expect 1 year olds to learn how to read and write (if have normal development) but many of those kids r coming to our school with a language level of a 1 or 2 year old cuz they missed out so much so they need at least 3 more years to build their L1 language before they r ready to make that transition to reading and writing and by that time that happens, they r in 4th grade and at least 3 to 4 years behind. No, those children do not have any mental retardation or diagnosed congitive disabilities like Addhd or LD.

What's the justification for that?

Thios is making me angry just thinking about it so I am gonna stop before I start blowing steam and start offending people here.
Click to expand...

None. I can understand and empathize with your feelings. Teachers see things that others often don't see and it is difficult when nobody seems to be listening.
 
Lillys dad said:
Hell, alogn the lines of a child resenting the parents is concerned, no matter what we do as parents, there will be somkething they resent. Thats just a fact of life. Kids resent the parents.
Remember a couple of things here, If has been proven, without a doubt, that the sooner a child is implanted, the better % of success a child will have with it. By waiting until the child is old enough/mature enough to make this decision, the child well be well past the "critical age" of speech development. For those that do not know, research sayd that the window for developing effective oral connunication is around 3 years old. As a parent, do you give your child the choice on whether or not they do thier homework, go to school, study, do chores? I certainly hope not. By you making these decisions for your child, you are giving them a gradual increase in becoming a responsible adult, with a decent chance at handling what life throws at them.
Hell, most kids arent responsible enough to decide what they should eat for dinner, let alone make a decision of if they should undergo surgery, and intensive speech therapy.
Click to expand...

Just to expand, the critical time for a child to acquire language to native fluency is birth to 3 years. After that, any language skills they aquire will not be considered native, nor will that language be acquired in the natural unstructured, observational method that children exposed to a language from birth will acquire language. That can be sign, or oral language. Children after the age of three most certainly can acquire a spoken language, but for deaf children, fluency depends upon whether or not they acquired a native language during the critical period.
 
shel90 said:
U and Bearbeauty r so lucky to grow up with the best of both worlds. :)

As for audiologist...my school hired a deaf audiologist who has CIs and we all love her cuz she is such a great role model for both worlds. Parents look to her as the speech or oral model who values ASL as an important language that deaf children need. People in the deaf community love her cuz she can give the parents of newly diagnosed babies her "deaf" perspective and be able to show the parents that it is ok to do both rather than using the oral only approach.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's terrific!
 
You know, I think that we are all getting caught up on the word "teach". Hearing children are not taught their native oral language skills. They acquire them through constant environmental exposure. A child raised in a deaf family acquires sign in the same way. If a deaf child of hearing parents is simply exposed to native signers, or even late learning parents who sign, they will acquire language in a very natural way, and they will descern pragmatics, semantics, and grammar from usage. A language only must be taught, in the classic sense of the world, when the environment does not support natural acquisition. This is why I am so much an advocate for hearing parents of deaf children exposing them to native signing adults via the Deaf community as early as they can. In this way, they learn sign as a natural acquisition process, not as a a teaching exercise.
 
jillio said:
Just to expand, the critical time for a child to acquire language to native fluency is birth to 3 years. After that, any language skills they aquire will not be considered native, nor will that language be acquired in the natural unstructured, observational method that children exposed to a language from birth will acquire language. That can be sign, or oral language. Children after the age of three most certainly can acquire a spoken language, but for deaf children, fluency depends upon whether or not they acquired a native language during the critical period.
Click to expand...

I agree and in addition to that, speech itself is not a language. There is this huge misconception out there that speech is a language. I think that's when deaf education fails a lot of deaf/hoh children.
 
Back
Top