Is oral deaf education really a threat?

[AlleyCat]

Wirelessly posted

Ok, well then if you have some unresolvable need to call my deaf daughter "functionally hearing," so be it. Maybe that will spontaneously happen.

Not an unresolvable need. I take this only from how you have described her speech discrimination scores to be nearly perfect hearing. If, for you, that still makes her functionally deaf, that's fine. I will shut up now.

 

[shel90]

She tests at "functionally hearing" levels, not HOH, not mild or moderate. But I can tell you as her mother that she doesn't hear the way a typically hearing child does, so I think it's misleading to label her as either hearing or mild/moderate HOH based on those tests. Her doctors don't, her teachers don't. They consider her functionally deaf, but with access to sounds via CIs.

Her accommodations needed are different from a mild or moderate hearing child. She's a deaf child. When her CIs are turned on, coils are in firmly place, and there are no barriers to the sound, she has access to sound at the levels a hearing child would have. If someone is talking and she brushes her hair aside, moving the coil a centimeter to the left, she hears nothing. If her ski helmet moves the coil a centimeter to the side she goes from hearing me giving instruction 100 yards away to hearing nothing. She can hear conversations from the playground out a closed window as clearly as the teacher at the board, but if her batteries die in the middle of class, she hears nothing. It's very different from a 30db shift in degree of hearing when you take off a hearing aid. It's a 90+db shift. Her learning environment has to take into consideration that if she has a cold, if her equipment breaks, if the wind blows a certain way she can be participating with a 100db hearing loss. I agree with SR171Soars, that access to sound via CI is temporary and tenuous, it's not a permanent altering of a child's hearing state.

You know that I think the CI successfully provides my daughter with access to sound, but I think it is as important to understand the limitations: this tool does not make her hearing, nor does it make her mild or moderately HOH. She's deaf, with a tool that she picks up and uses to hear, and puts away when done.

I think I get what you are saying. It does make sense.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Grendel, it really does seem to be sematics. I mean unilateral dhh kids are classified as functionally hoh as well, even though they have one hearing ear.
Maybe a better term for Li -Li might be Hoh. (note the capital H) She hears as a functionally hoh kid, but can also switch in and out from being functionally hoh to functionally deaf. Make sense? Hoh is a term you would use when a kid uses either HA or CI really well (beyond deaf levels) but they're not hearing. Hoh kids don't hear like hearing kids.

e enrollments in the early intervention programs and preschools are what is really booming. CID for example is serving ten times as many in EI and preschool than their primary department.

the whole point is to have their language age appropriate by age 3 or 5 at the very latest.

smaller enrollments as the children age is a sign of success. If the kids are still far behind at age 12, they have been failed.

True, but on the other hand it could be b/c they're better at identifying kids who may actually NEED ASL or other methodologies.....and I wouldn't say that a kid who was in a program for primary has failed. Perhaps they were in the mainstream (including mainstream oral program) and started doing not so well, and their parents knew about the Deaf School placement, and transferred them. Not all hearing parents know about Deaf Schools.

i'm not saying that a child in a deaf school at 12 has been failed. I'm saying that a child with a severe language delay at 12 has been.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

But faire joure, they are still very small. Except for Sunshine Cottage, (about a hundred kids) and they are TINY.The enrollement represents the school as a WHOLE!!!! Back in the old days at oral schools you'd have tons of dhh kids. Hearing loss is a low incidence disabilty yes....but still...
Also, some kids may have returned after not being able to hack it in the mainstream, rather then being in the program for their entire career.

again, you are missing what i am saying.

for example, i know that CID is serving more than 100 kids via EI. At age three, only the children who are delayed still are eligible for preschool, that number is less than half. So, 60 kids have been released because they are mainstreamed. Then, at kindergarten, the same deal. This time, they are down to 15. That means that now, 85 kids are age appropriate. The numbers get smaller because they are doing their jobs.

obviously there isn't a huge influx of older kids or they would still have programs for them.

 

[deafbajagal]

This thread is making me functionally crazy.

I think I'm actually confused from this thread. lol.

Next.

 

[deafdyke]

for example, i know that CID is serving more than 100 kids via EI. At age three, only the children who are delayed still are eligible for preschool, that number is less than half. So, 60 kids have been released because they are mainstreamed. Then, at kindergarten, th

That does not surprise me. You're not automaticly eligable for enrollment at an oral school b/c you're oral deaf. Oral deaf schools serve as remediation centers, rather then schools by themselves......that is kind of sad, as I do think that oral dhh Schools (meaning academic schools) should be an option. They have a set up like that in the UK with Mary Hare.
They tend to serve kids who are severely delayed.....Were you aware that the St. Louis schools still have a Dhh ed program? That means they are still serving dhh kids.
Also, in that EI caseload are prolly a lot of hoh kids. Not just profound or severe kids.

 

[deafdyke]

and you're thinking mainstream= pretty much minimal accomondations hoh style approach.
No. The point of the private oral schools seems to be to get rid of SEVERE hugely significent spoken language, and turn it into something that a public oral deaf program can handle a bit more easily.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

and you're thinking mainstream= pretty much minimal accomondations hoh style approach.
No. The point of the private oral schools seems to be to get rid of SEVERE hugely significent spoken language, and turn it into something that a public oral deaf program can handle a bit more easily.

actually, oral schools will not mainstream until the child is functioning at THEIR appropriate level (so if the child has a high IQ, functioning at the 75th percentile, while still "normal" would be considered still delayed).

also, the idea that they do not have academic programs would be laughable, but unfortunatly, you are serious. All the private oral schools that we have worked with and visited have had very high academic standards. I have observed them, seen the work being done by the students and they are very good schools.

 

[jillio]

Why are you so eager to insist that my child is not functionally deaf regardless of what her doctors, her educators and I say? Why don't you walk over to her during the half of each schoolday she is 'voices-off', when her CIs are turned off, and 'test' her yourself if you don't believe she's really deaf.

If your child is "functionally deaf" then she does not hear as well with her CI as you claim she does. Functional levels only apply to when the devise is on and working properly.

You can't have it both ways. There is a difference between literal levels and functional levels, and they are important in the arena of receiving needed accommodaions.

You really need to back off the emotional and personal responses. It clouds your ability to understand what I am saying, and it makes your responses petty and innapropriate.

 

[jillio]

She's literally deaf. We all know that. Without her CI's, she can hear no more than the rest of us who have a high DB loss.

Functionally -- if her speech discrimination and everything is what you have said it to be, she's not "functionally" deaf.

Thank you. This is not a difficult concept, and anyone who has had to fight for accommodation understands the difference, as well as how much the difference comes into play in getting the accommodations one needs.

I suspect the poster is only arguing the fact because I said it. This is getting downright ridiculous.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



So, even though her state, school, doctors classify her as profoundly deaf, there's a special classification that goes by how she tests aided and you want me to refer to her as functionally hearing rather than deaf? And this is new designation is employed how and where? And why?

That would be "functionally hoh". And you can refer to her anyway you choose. She is your child. Just bear in mind that the way you refer to her will impact the ease with which she is granted accommodation.

And, yes, there is a whole other classification. Those of us that have been advocating in the educational arena and the workplace are well aware of it, and the way it impacts decisions. That is why I brought it up. It is information you obviously did not have that could prove to be very useful to you as the years go by. But rather than accepting that, you choose to argue and discount that which could benefit your daughter just because you have a wild hair up your azz where I am concerned.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



actually, oral schools will not mainstream until the child is functioning at THEIR appropriate level (so if the child has a high IQ, functioning at the 75th percentile, while still "normal" would be considered still delayed).

also, the idea that they do not have academic programs would be laughable, but unfortunatly, you are serious. All the private oral schools that we have worked with and visited have had very high academic standards. I have observed them, seen the work being done by the students and they are very good schools.

BS. Oral schools have to mainstream when their grade level has been reached. You sure don't see them sending kids to a k-12 deaf bi-bi program. Their goal is to mainstream, and the guideline is generally by the 4th grade. Not surprising, as that is the age that the issues begin to manifest. Get them out of the oral program before the problems become apparent, then the oral program can't be blamed.:roll:

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I hear you. That would not be the best way to go about it. One really can't tell if that child could pull it off or not. I myself had speech therapy through middle school. I didn't need any other accommodation other than the fact the teacher needed to be aware that my hearing (with a HA) wasn't perfect.

You were one of the ones that blossomed with minimal accommodation. I truly wish there were more like you. Unfortunately, the reality is that you and students of today that can achieve academically with minimal accommodation are extremely rare.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

the enrollments in the early intervention programs and preschools are what is really booming. CID for example is serving ten times as many in EI and preschool than their primary department.

the whole point is to have their language age appropriate by age 3 or 5 at the very latest.

smaller enrollments as the children age is a sign of success. If the kids are still far behind at age 12, they have been failed.

Children do not fail. The programs fail them.

As far as the correlation you seem to be implying, you are going to have to support that with data.

 

[jillio]

I honestly think HOH is a term made up by audiologists to make going deaf feel better for people... that is all.

**nodding**

 

[dogmom]

I'd like to know more thoughts on the above.

 

[GrendelQ]

If your child is "functionally deaf" then she does not hear as well with her CI as you claim she does. Functional levels only apply to when the devise is on and working properly.

You can't have it both ways. There is a difference between literal levels and functional levels, and they are important in the arena of receiving needed accommodaions.

You really need to back off the emotional and personal responses. It clouds your ability to understand what I am saying, and it makes your responses petty and innapropriate.

Jillio, you surprise me. I certainly don't claim to know all there is to know about all deaf children, as you do, but I do know both my child's needs and the educational needs of children with CIs. I realize you aren't open to considering that perhaps someone whose child is deaf and has CIs and is currently navigating the process of accommodations might have a bit of information about how children are classified today that may have changed since your child was classified in school. My child is deaf, is classified as being profoundly deaf, and her needs are being addressed very differently from the way a hearing child's are, very different from the way a child with severe, moderate, or mild hearing loss's needs are. Her needs are not those of a child who you would describe as "functionally HOH." And if I came across any professional who would address my child's needs as being those of what you call a "functionally HOH" child, I'd know immediately that I was dealing with someone lacking the expertise required.

With CIs, you do "have it both ways" -- and that's both a benefit and a drawback. CIs don't magically make a child either hearing or "HOH". They provide access to sound by bypassing the usual hearing process. One of the biggest obstacles a deaf child with CIs faces is an amateur in the field who thinks the child will "hear" in the same way a hearing child hears or in the same way as what you keep calling a "functionally HOH" child.

This concept you keep pushing -- that children with CIs are "functionally HOH" and not deaf -- is nonsense.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



actually, oral schools will not mainstream until the child is functioning at THEIR appropriate level (so if the child has a high IQ, functioning at the 75th percentile, while still "normal" would be considered still delayed).

also, the idea that they do not have academic programs would be laughable, but unfortunatly, you are serious. All the private oral schools that we have worked with and visited have had very high academic standards. I have observed them, seen the work being done by the students and they are very good schools.

BS. Oral schools have to mainstream when their grade level has been reached. You sure don't see them sending kids to a k-12 deaf bi-bi program. Their goal is to mainstream, and the guideline is generally by the 4th grade. Not surprising, as that is the age that the issues begin to manifest. Get them out of the oral program before the problems become apparent, then the oral program can't be blamed.:roll:

and from what experience with oral schools are you making those conclusions? Have you worked closely with oral schools for a number of years recently?

and many if not most oral schools are private so they fully have control over when they choose to mainstream a child.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

the enrollments in the early intervention programs and preschools are what is really booming. CID for example is serving ten times as many in EI and preschool than their primary department.

the whole point is to have their language age appropriate by age 3 or 5 at the very latest.

smaller enrollments as the children age is a sign of success. If the kids are still far behind at age 12, they have been failed.

Children do not fail. The programs fail them.

As far as the correlation you seem to be implying, you are going to have to support that with data.

i clearly said that the child had been failed, not that the child failed, please read more carefully.

 

[GrendelQ]

Grendel, it really does seem to be sematics.

DD, the way you usually put it seems fine to me, you tend to say that kids with CIs often have similar needs to those who are HOH, and sometimes appear much like HOH kids. Nothing wrong with that, many do. But when it comes to classifying a child -- especially for educational purposes -- and driving accommodations and services and educational plans off that designation -- there's a very big difference.

If my daughter's test scores were used to classify her as "functionally hearing" or even "functionally mildly HOH", what likelihood do you think there'd be that her local school district would send her on a van for 2 hours each way to a school for the deaf based on what we propose as her need, as a deaf child, for an academic environment immersed in ASL, at an annual tuition rate that's going up to $75K plus $20K-25K when she turns 5 next month? What likelihood would there be of getting a full-time or even PT ASL-using TOD in her classroom, just for her, a child who can test at the same hearing levels of every other kid in the class -- in a booth? What need would there be for any adult ASL user in her academic environment? Why would there be any importance based on being with other deaf peers, in the deaf community if she's considered to be hearing or have a mild hearing loss?

Jillio's exhortation to classify her as "functionally hearing" or "functionally HOH" rather than what she is (a profoundly deaf child who uses CIs to access sound) is not in her best interests or educationally sound advice and shows a gap in understanding.