Is oral deaf education really a threat?

[AlleyCat]

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.

I absolutely understand what you're saying. It's the same issue I took with my parents. My preschool teachers, and K-2 teachers felt I was doing "way to well" to stay in a program with any accommodations. My parents listened to that, and that is why I got transferred to a mainstreamed, regular elementary school with no accommodations until 5th grade. And I'm profoundly deaf. Go figure ...

I think the difference, however, is between what you have described how well Li-Li functions with her CIs versus my HAs. I don't dispute in the slightest that she has better speech discrimination and other testing scores than I do. I take no resentment at that -- after all, if she can gain the most out of her CIs, then she certainly should.

So I think this is where the misunderstanding lies -- even with HAs, I was at best functionally deaf. I could not get enough speech discrimination. I could not understand teachers. I needed an ASL interpreter. If Li-Li is able to accomplish all that on her own, why do we call her functionally deaf? That's what I have trouble with -- it's just the terminology that I do. I would love to see a better choice of words used, if that makes sense..

 

[GrendelQ]

If Li-Li is able to accomplish all that on her own, why do we call her functionally deaf? That's what I have trouble with -- it's just the terminology that I do. I would love to see a better choice of words used, if that makes sense..

Let me ask something in a different way. Do you think our educational system should require that every child who is a candidate for a technological accommodation to take that path and to employ that accommodation continuously to receive an education based on those accommodated abilities? So, basically, do you think every deaf child who is a candidate should be required to receive and use a cochlear implant and obtain educational services based on the resulting classification as "functionally hearing."

I ask, because that's pretty much what people are arguing: that because my child can hear at a certain level in a booth with a technological accommodation, this should be the sole means by which she should receive her education, without the opportunity that she currently has to learn in two ways, with access to sound and without. As a deaf child, she can shift with ease into a voices-off environment, with her CIs off, without any gap in her learning experience.

 

[AlleyCat]

Let me ask something in a different way. Do you think our educational system should require that every child who is a candidate for a technological accommodation to take that path and to employ that accommodation continuously to receive an education based on those accommodated abilities? So, basically, do you think every deaf child who is a candidate should be required to receive and use a cochlear implant and obtain educational services based on the resulting classification as "functionally hearing."

I ask, because that's pretty much what people are arguing: that because my child can hear at a certain level in a booth with a technological accommodation, this should be the sole means by which she should receive her education, without the opportunity that she currently has to learn in two ways, with access to sound and without. As a deaf child, she can shift with ease into a voices-off environment, with her CIs off, without any gap in her learning experience.

First, let me ask you: who is calling her functionally deaf or functionally hearing? Is it you, or is it the school system? And which?

 

[GrendelQ]

First, let me ask you: who is calling her functionally deaf or functionally hearing? Is it you, or is it the school system? And which?

I classify her as profoundly deaf, as do her doctors, and her school district. And all accommodations and school placements are made with this in mind. Several on this forum have argued that she should not be considered deaf, but instead should be classified by her hearing ability in a booth with CIs on, which is at typical hearing levels: using the term "functionally hearing" or "functionally HOH". I disagree with the use of this term.

 

[shel90]

I classify her as profoundly deaf, as do her doctors, and her school district. And all accommodations and school placements are made with this in mind. Several on this forum have argued that she should not be considered deaf, but instead should be classified by her hearing ability in a booth with CIs on, which is at typical hearing levels: using the term "functionally hearing" or "functionally HOH". I disagree with the use of this term.

As an educator who works in the field of deaf ed, I have to agree because that is how we identify our students with CIs.


That's why I was so against with Fj's definition of children with CIs as "hearing". I had arguments with her about it.

 

[AlleyCat]

And before I reply because I'm reading this remotely, how old is she again? 5? I just want to give the best answer possible.

 

[GrendelQ]

And before I reply because I'm reading this remotely, how old is she again? 5? I just want to give the best answer possible.

Turning 5 next month, she's been at a bi-bi school for the deaf for more than 2 years, spending part of each day in an acoustic access class of peers (a handful of children with CIs), with roughly half of each day spent voices-off in an ASL immersive environment with a broader set of deaf peers and instructors. She's bilingual, ASL was her primary language, she uses either English or ASL depending upon her environment/the language of those she's interacting with.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

I classify her as profoundly deaf, as do her doctors, and her school district. And all accommodations and school placements are made with this in mind. Several on this forum have argued that she should not be considered deaf, but instead should be classified by her hearing ability in a booth with CIs on, which is at typical hearing levels: using the term "functionally hearing" or "functionally HOH". I disagree with the use of this term.

As an educator who works in the field of deaf ed, I have to agree because that is how we identify our students with CIs.


That's why I was so against with Fj's definition of children with CIs as "hearing". I had arguments with her about it.

i have no idea who you are talking about but it sure as heck isn't me!! I do NOT think deaf kids with CIs are hearing, they are deaf. That can hear, but they are deaf.

if you search the forum you and easily see that i have never said anything of that sort. Please do not spread misinformation about me simply because you disagree with me on some issues. I hope you will retract that and clear it up.

 

[GrendelQ]

Wirelessly posted



i have no idea who you are talking about but it sure as heck isn't me!! I do NOT think deaf kids with CIs are hearing, they are deaf. That can hear, but they are deaf.

if you search the forum you and easily see that i have never said anything of that sort. Please do not spread misinformation about me simply because you disagree with me on some issues. I hope you will retract that and clear it up.

I've seen you post that pretty emphatically.

 

[deafdyke]

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.

ooooo...good point. And most school districts would say "if she's hoh, then she can get by with minimal accomondations approach" Since it's been the policy of most sped systems to minimal accomondate hoh kids.

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."

Oh very true. But there ARE severe kids who are simlair to Li Li...not to mention auditory nereopathy kids too. And you're supposing that hoh= oral and minimal accomondation approach...Not always, and I think that may be changing. I know of an Early Intervention group in PA, made up of dhh kids of toddler going into preschool age. The parents of hoh kids want their kids to go to WPSD and the parents of deaf kids want them to go to DePaul! I think you're basing that on the old "uses a hearing aid well" sort of thinking which is what experts use to decide who's gonna get which services.

lso, 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

Um when did I say that they don't have academic programs? They do.....but the thing is...they are private schools so they can work on the really tough cases and make them easier for deaf programs in the mainstream to deal with. It's the public school vs private sped school. Private sped schools serve kids that mainstream programs can't serve very well. That is why you can get funding for a private sped placement through a public school. If the public school could serve the dhh kids through their oral deaf program (and there ARE oral deaf programs available) then they would without having to deal with the expense of sending them off to a very expensive oral private program.
And yes, right on jillo!!!! They want to mainstream as soon as possible so that they can be all " Yay! We've got sucessful dhh mainstreamed kids, so they don't have to deal with the added difficulties of later grades. Trust us faire joure.....it's not surprising they are doing decently early on.....but just wait a few years.

 

[deafdyke]

And faire joure...you think that getting services through a deaf School or program is hard? I really do think that your issues with trying to get good services had to do with a) Utah Schools for the deaf and Blind is not exactly a traditional disabled state school set up. It's mostly self contained classroom style or still finding its niche (in the case of your charter school that became a part of your state's School for the Deaf) and didn't have experianced speech therapists. Had you experianced a better set up (eg Maryland school, Govenor Baxter, ASD all kinds of Deaf schools) , you prolly would be RAVING about bi bi programs! Try fighting for dhh or blind/low vision or whatever "classic disabilty" accomondations at a mainstream school, that generally only has Resource Room style special ed or minimal accomondations for a solotaire kid. There is a REASON why there are still sizable Deaf Schools and dhh formal programs and dhh camps. I can pretty much say that many of the parents of the older solotaire mainstreamed kids are secretly asking themselves " Why cant there be a school for dhh kids, without having to go through this mainstream crap."
ALSO, if oral kids are doing so well in the mainstream, then how come their acheivement levels are so low? Students with disablities in the mainstream are at high risk for low achiement. Very few of them score high on acheivement tests for example.

 

[AlleyCat]

I classify her as profoundly deaf, as do her doctors, and her school district. And all accommodations and school placements are made with this in mind. Several on this forum have argued that she should not be considered deaf, but instead should be classified by her hearing ability in a booth with CIs on, which is at typical hearing levels: using the term "functionally hearing" or "functionally HOH". I disagree with the use of this term.

Turning 5 next month, she's been at a bi-bi school for the deaf for more than 2 years, spending part of each day in an acoustic access class of peers (a handful of children with CIs), with roughly half of each day spent voices-off in an ASL immersive environment with a broader set of deaf peers and instructors. She's bilingual, ASL was her primary language, she uses either English or ASL depending upon her environment/the language of those she's interacting with.

Sorry, I ended up taking a nap and never got back to the board last night. I think the classification of her being profoundly deaf is correct, as you have said. I think you and I will disagree on the functionally hearing part, though if she is doing so well with her CIs. If she is doing well at her school, is there someone there that's giving you a hard time about classification of her deafness? I think I have lost track of this, sorry. It's 4:30 a.m., the insomnia is back!

 

[GrendelQ]

Sorry, I ended up taking a nap and never got back to the board last night. I think the classification of her being profoundly deaf is correct, as you have said. I think you and I will disagree on the functionally hearing part, though if she is doing so well with her CIs. If she is doing well at her school, is there someone there that's giving you a hard time about classification of her deafness? I think I have lost track of this, sorry. It's 4:30 a.m., the insomnia is back!

I think she's deaf, she's classified for both medical and educatioal purposes as being profoundly deaf. It's only on this board that some think I'm wrong in considering her deaf and that children with CIs should be labeled as hearing or mild or moderate HOH (whatever the level she tests in a booth with CIs on) rather than as deaf children.

 

[BecLak]

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

I agree. I was labelled that all my life until recently, when as an adult, I read the audiogram for myself. It's a half way place between Hearing and Deaf, a no-man's land. Anyone who IDs as Deaf then don't go there. It is more for people who want to ID as 'hearing'.

One deaf friend asked me "Do you ID as HoH? or Deaf?" - "I said I am severely-deaf. I am well past the range of HOH"

 

[dogmom]

I have a mild hearing loss so ID as hoh. But also ID with Deaf cultural perspective and would prefer to sign more as opposed to speak since signing feels more natural to me and my speaking doesn't so easily. People can have trouble understanding me.

 

[AlleyCat]

I think she's deaf, she's classified for both medical and educatioal purposes as being profoundly deaf. It's only on this board that some think I'm wrong in considering her deaf and that children with CIs should be labeled as hearing or mild or moderate HOH (whatever the level she tests in a booth with CIs on) rather than as deaf children.

I don't think she should be labeled as hearing just because she has a CI. We both know she's profoundly deaf. I consider the scenario to be that Li-Li seems to be functionally hearing if she can do well without assistance. I still need assistance (e.g. interpreters for staff meetings at work, I don't use a phone the conventional way, etc.) so I consider myself functionally deaf. But, I don't think you should worry about the terminology. If she is getting everything she needs from home and school, that should be all that matters.

 

[deafdyke]

It's a half way place between Hearing and Deaf, a no-man's land. Anyone who IDs as Deaf then don't go there. It is more for people who want to ID as 'hearing'.

I dunno. I think that hoh as a label can mean not quite deaf and not quite hearing.
Maybe a good term might be deaf with hoh abilty.

 

[jillio]

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.

Yes, Grendel, you are absolutely the wisest, most well informed, perfect parent God ever put on this earth. Satisfied now?

Now please, can you stop interrupting discussions with your need to have everything addressed to you personally?

 

[GrendelQ]

Yes, Grendel, you are absolutely the wisest, most well informed, perfect parent God ever put on this earth. Satisfied now?

Now please, can you stop interrupting discussions with your need to have everything addressed to you personally?

Thought you had an issue with people telling others what they can and can't post?

You come out of the blue and argue with me for who-knows-what reason, contradicting me by insisting that my profoundly deaf daughter is not actually deaf and then complain that I interrupted the discussion? You really are being such a silly woman.

 

[deafdyke]

Grendel what do you think of my new term? I actually think you're coming at this from an "traditional educational" label perspective.
You're right.......good CI/HA severe-profound/profound user is different from a kid who's a good HA user but still has residual hearing, and can VERY easily aquire English as a first language.
And wasn't Li Li's first language sign? I think there's a whole bunch of labels out there...eg CI user, but more on a TC level vs CI user oral only vs all sorts of combonations.