Some children who are born deaf recover from their deafness

Sheila said:
I admit that. Different situations, different outcomes/methods.

I have heard many stories of hearing parents with hearing families who have a D/deaf child. The hearing families REFUSE to learn sign or let their child learn sign. In some stories, the child is profoundly deaf, 5 years old, and only have a vocabulary (in spoken english) of 100 words. Hearing aids are obviously not the answer for this child. There are other ones who know sign and can talk and wear HA, that's fine too. I guess what I was protesting before was denying the child the right path when it is obvious that the one already chosen was the wrong one.
Click to expand...

Cool and for what it's worth I agree what you are saying about language. I hate to see a deaf child with limited vocablary at the ages of 5 and I am personally sold on the idea of starting sign language as soon as the child is diagnosed and while they are waiting for their CIs so that a foundation of language can be built on. Also, if for some reason the CI or hearing aid doesn't work out, then there hasn't been any disruption in language acquisition.
 
R2D2 said:
Cool and for what it's worth I agree what you are saying about language. I hate to see a deaf child with limited vocablary at the ages of 5 and I am personally sold on the idea of starting sign language as soon as the child is diagnosed and while they are waiting for their CIs so that a foundation of language can be built on. Also, if for some reason the CI or hearing aid doesn't work out, then there hasn't been any disruption in language acquisition.
Click to expand...

:thumb: AAAAND we have reached common ground. :lol:

You think others will follow examples?
 
As such, visual processing is a strength for them the way auditory processing is a strength for hearing kids. Why do we continue to insist that it is not necessary to use that strength. We take the weakness in auditory function and try to correct it by using the weakness. Would it not make much more sense to use those strengths they have already developed and use that remarkable ability to adapt to their environment and use it to improve the weak area?
Click to expand...
AWESOME AWESOME post! Rick, I have been tested CONSISTANTLY as being an aural learner. I also test high in terms of vocabulary. In terms of spoken language I am pretty much wicked high (even for a hearing person) BUT, despite my language level being high, it still did not serve to really equalize me. That is b/c the input that I get from hearing aids is imperfect and flawed. I could do really well. As a matter of fact my senoir year of high school, I didn't wear my aids and still did VERY well (made honor roll for the first time ever in my academic career!) But, even with me being a VERY strong listener learner, I still feel that I could have done a HECK of a lot better if I'd also had access to Sign.
 
deafdyke said:
........... I also test high in terms of vocabulary. In terms of spoken language I am pretty much wicked high (even for a hearing person) BUT, despite my language level being high, it still did not serve to really equalize me. That is b/c the input that I get from hearing aids is imperfect and flawed. I could do really well. As a matter of fact my senoir year of high school, I didn't wear my aids and still did VERY well (made honor roll for the first time ever in my academic career!) But, even with me being a VERY strong listener learner, I still feel that I could have done a HECK of a lot better if I'd also had access to Sign.
Click to expand...
You keep going on about your high test scores... fine, and explain how you could have done better had you had access to sign.
You could also do better if you would improve on your HA's.... (Ask Boult, Neecy etc.)

So, instead of focusing on creating better communication by adding another mode, you can also improve the mode of communication you are using right now...
(BTW... why haven't you learned sign by now, if it would help you do a HECK of a lot better.) With your IQ / Scores learning sign should not be a problem..
 
deafdyke said:
You don't, but you have implied pretty much that oral only is some sort of glorious utopian method that magically assimulates dhh kids into the hearing world. You also take criticism of oral only as basicly a personal attack. I know too that the orgnaization of AG Bell is a little more libral about methodology, even from ten years ago. But, they still can be VERY audist about how hearing and talking means "freedom"....they seem obessed with the fact that Sign users use 'terps. "Oh wittle Smashly uses all those hearing gadgets you see in Harris Communications, but it doesn't matter that she does b/c she's not dependant on a 'terp!"
Please.....we are not against oral skills. We are against oral-ONLY, if it's not the child's choice. If a child has a full toolbox of tools, and decides to use only speech.....................FAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They debate should be more about which language should be first. AG Bell needs to encourage speech skills, but they should also really promote Cued Speech and Sign and other things, instead of hyperfocusing on speech, speech, speech.
Excellent point R2D2.
I do think that implantation criteria should be a little stricter, as some people are seeing it as the LATEST trendy "gotta have" hearing technology. Also think that there should be a little more experimenting with alternative hearing devices. For the pop that has NO benifit from hearing aids, IMPLANT them.....but also expose them to a dual language metholodology til they are old enough to decide what path they want to take.
Click to expand...


"You don't, but you have implied pretty much that oral only is some sort of glorious utopian method that magically assimulates dhh kids into the hearing world."

dd,


Thank you for admitting that I have never made those statements. However, now your fallback position is that while I did not make those statements, when I tell parents to make a well informed and reasoned decision that is in their child's best interests, I "implied" something. However, since I know the time, effort and devotion that we put into raising our child, I know that while it was one of the best experiences of our lives, and the best decision for our daughter, the results did not "magically" happen.

So, please show me an example of one of my posts that you say implies the above, that the oral method "magically assimilates dhh kids into the hearing world". Just one will do.


"You also take criticism of oral only as basicly a personal attack."

No, I take personal attacks as personal attacks. Look at just posts 230, 231 and 242 on this thread as well as 50 from the "Why" thread. Can you honestly say that they are not personal attacks and not just against me as a person but as a parent and my relationship with my daughter. Also, why attack my child at all? Ask yourself, what kind of person sinks to that level? I know what kind.

With respect to critiicism of the oral only approach, honestly, ask yourself, what stake do I have in the oral only approach at this point? We used it and my daughter benefited tremendously from it. But she is now grown and no matter what anyone says about it, they cannot not take away from her success. I have no personal need to either defend or support it. In fact, as far as I am concerned their comments about my decision or the results my daughter has received are not relevent. If no one else ever chose to use that method again, it has no effect on her or the benefits she receives from it.



"I do think that implantation criteria should be a little stricter, as some people are seeing it as the LATEST trendy "gotta have" hearing technology."

Never met or heard of any parent who elected to have their child undergo the ci surgery do so for such a superficial reason as because it was "trendy". I really think that your statement is a perfect example of what you often do: stake out an extreme position, make a statement that has "shock value" and then apply it as a generalization to a whole group of people.

I think you do a disservice to the many parents, myself included, who carefully deliberated, and is some cases, agonized over their decision and frankly, I also think you do a disservice to yourself because you lessen your credibility.


Rick
 
fine, and explain how you could have done better had you had access to sign.
You could also do better if you would improve on your HA's.... (Ask Boult, Neecy etc.)

So, instead of focusing on creating better communication by adding another mode, you can also improve the mode of communication you are using right now...
(BTW... why haven't you learned sign by now, if it would help you do a HECK of a lot better.) With your IQ / Scores learning sign should not be a problem..
Click to expand...
That's easy. It would have capitalized on my strenghs as a deaf person. I did do well spoken language-wise, but academicly and friendship/relationship wise I did not do that well. FYI, I am not eligable at ALL for CI. My hearing aids work very well and are pretty much top of the line.(My current ones, I can even hear without speechreading........that's amazing considering that I can have spoken conversations without even making a sound with speechreading) I can't go much further. Besides dependance on technology is not the answer. People who are taught to depend on technolgy can't function very well WITHOUT the technology. Like for example, blind kids who are taught to use books on tape to "read." That doesn't help too much in situtions where there's no book on tape, but there's Braille or large print available. Also, it's VERY common for oral only people to complain that there's no accomondations comparable to a 'terp available for them. So why not load up on the tools available so that the person affected by the disabilty can choose which tools they find helpful?
I do know Sign........I am simply not fluent in it yet.
Besides, look at it this way. Dhh kids who are taught ASL AND spoken language skills are BILINGAL. They have the advantage of being fluent in TWO languages......imagine if Deaf orgs promoted Sign fluency that way. AG Bell may promote oral only as "freedom in listening and talking", and Sign fluency as "dependance on a 'terp, but dhh kids who have oral skills and who are Sign fluent, are BILINGAL, and reap all the rewards of being bilingal.
 
deafdyke said:
That's easy. It would have capitalized on my strenghs as a deaf person. I did do well spoken language-wise, but academicly and friendship/relationship wise I did not do that well. FYI, I am not eligable at ALL for CI. My hearing aids work very well and are pretty much top of the line.(My current ones, I can even hear without speechreading........that's amazing considering that I can have spoken conversations without even making a sound with speechreading) I can't go much further. Besides dependance on technology is not the answer. People who are taught to depend on technolgy can't function very well WITHOUT the technology. Like for example, blind kids who are taught to use books on tape to "read." That doesn't help too much in situtions where there's no book on tape, but there's Braille or large print available. Also, it's VERY common for oral only people to complain that there's no accomondations comparable to a 'terp available for them. So why not load up on the tools available so that the person affected by the disabilty can choose which tools they find helpful?
I do know Sign........I am simply not fluent in it yet.
Besides, look at it this way. Dhh kids who are taught ASL AND spoken language skills are BILINGAL. They have the advantage of being fluent in TWO languages......imagine if Deaf orgs promoted Sign fluency that way. AG Bell may promote oral only as "freedom in listening and talking", and Sign fluency as "dependance on a 'terp, but dhh kids who have oral skills and who are Sign fluent, are BILINGAL, and reap all the rewards of being bilingal.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

I agree with the dependency on technology. I must have my hearing aides to function in the hearing world so without knowing sign language, I was completely dependent on them. Now that I have learned it, my hearing aides are now a tool in some situations but not for all situations like before.
 
when I tell parents to make a well informed and reasoned decision that is in their child's best interests, I "implied" something. However, since I know the time, effort and devotion that we put into raising our child, I know that while it was one of the best experiences of our lives, and the best decision for our daughter, the results did not "magically" happen.

So, please show me an example of one of my posts that you say implies the above, that the oral method "magically assimilates dhh kids into the hearing world". Just one will do.
Click to expand...
That's easy. ALL of your posts imply that it's so wonderful that your child is not dependant on a 'terp. You also imply that those who did not have such a positive experiance simply didn't work hard enough.
If I recall correctly, you implanted your daughter after she'd been hearing for a few months right? The research clearly indicates that kids who had hearing at one time, tend to do the best with CI. You guys did do hard work, and I'm not negating that at all, but its just luck that your first choice for methodology and school placement really worked out (I bet you'd be SHOCKED as heck at the attitude at my mainstream school, that b/c I was receiving sped services, I was just one of those "Ummmm who's President Clinton?" types) You have NO idea how lucky you were. It could have EASILY been the other way, that your daughter picked up oral skills, but didn't do amazingly well. Hey, even some oral kids have to return to or attend an oral school for the deaf after they've gotten the EI, b/c of how crappy the sitution is in mainstream schools.
"
You also take criticism of oral only as basicly a personal attack."

No, I take personal attacks as personal attacks. Look at just posts 230, 231 and 242 on this thread as well as 50 from the "Why" thread. Can you honestly say that they are not personal attacks and not just against me as a person but as a parent and my relationship with my daughter. Also, why attack my child at all? Ask yourself, what kind of person sinks to that level? I know what kind.
Click to expand...
No, you seem to be "Oh this person's criticizing the oral only method." That means they are criticicizing the way I brought up my daughter."
It's great that your experiance was so positive, but Shel and I are living proof that it can be a negative experiance. (and bear in mind that both Shel and I are "oral sucesses") You really have no idea how much you lucked out in terms of the methodology and the schooling placement and the friendship working out as a really positive thing. That tends to be kind of rare. You have no idear how much a lot of parents are burnt out from fighting for their kids.



With respect to critiicism of the oral only approach, honestly, ask yourself, what stake do I have in the oral only approach at this point? We used it and my daughter benefited tremendously from it. But she is now grown and no matter what anyone says about it, they cannot not take away from her success. I have no personal need to either defend or support it. In fact, as far as I am concerned their comments about my decision or the results my daughter has received are not relevent. If no one else ever chose to use that method again, it has no effect on her or the benefits she receives from it.
Click to expand...
Good point, but you do seem rather defensive. Sort of like the way the administration of a certain uberconservative Christian college "plants" favorable reviews in response to major criticism levied by former students.



Never met or heard of any parent who elected to have their child undergo the ci surgery do so for such a superficial reason as because it was "trendy". I really think that your statement is a perfect example of what you often do: stake out an extreme position, make a statement that has "shock value" and then apply it as a generalization to a whole group of people.
Click to expand...
Maybe I used the wrong term. Yes, many people do have a hard time deciding whether or not to implant. I don't negate those experiances. I am VERY hardcore pro-informed choice in the area of implantation. However I do think there are some parents of kids, as well as some adults who decide on implantation b/c of all the hype about "how well you can hear with it."
I remember a few years ago, there was a mom of two sons who could hear really well with their hearing aids (profound loss if I recall correctly) but who got them implanted b/c they seemed better then hearing aids. I also know of people who can hear 80% with aids, but who really really want to get implanted.
There is a pretty large percentage of people who really have no choice but to opt for implantation.......but there's also a percentage of decent hearing aid users who don't even have recruitment or severe tintituas (a very legit reason for implantation when the loss isn't too bad)who've bought into the hype of new technology. I do remember this happening back when digital aids became big..........there were people who were buying into the hype of digital aids...........hell, there are probaly still a lot of people who are buying into the hype of digital aids.
 
deafdyke said:
That's easy. ALL of your posts imply that it's so wonderful that your child is not dependant on a 'terp. You also imply that those who did not have such a positive experiance simply didn't work hard enough."

That is pure BS. You cannot find a single post so now you just parrot what another poster says. I guess it is pretty bad when you just have to lie and make up stuff in order to prove your point.




"... but its just luck that your first choice for methodology and school placement really worked out ..."

Luck had nothing to do with it, as much as you would like to believe that, hard work and love did!

"Hey, even some oral kids have to return to or attend an oral school for the deaf after they've gotten the EI, b/c of how crappy the sitution is in mainstream schools."


Got any hard numbers to back up that statement? I have only asked you for them numerous times.



No, you seem to be "Oh this person's criticizing the oral only method." That means they are criticicizing the way I brought up my daughter."


Read the posts. When someone refers to me by name and/or specific things that I have written then it is about me and not the methodolgy.


"...You really have no idea how much you lucked out..."

There you go playing the "luck" card again.


Must be something about cochlear implants, they seem to bring people, especially the kids who have them, such incredible luck!
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
You keep going on about your high test scores... fine, and explain how you could have done better had you had access to sign.
You could also do better if you would improve on your HA's.... (Ask Boult, Neecy etc.)

So, instead of focusing on creating better communication by adding another mode, you can also improve the mode of communication you are using right now...
(BTW... why haven't you learned sign by now, if it would help you do a HECK of a lot better.) With your IQ / Scores learning sign should not be a problem..
Click to expand...


All good points, what has stopped her from learning sign all these years?
After all, she is constantly telling everyone else that they should learn it.

Also, don't you find it strange that she claims she got all these great scores but did not know sign and did not even wear her HAs for years in school? Makes you wonder what was her hearing loss?

Or maybe she was just lucky?
Rick
 
rick48 said:
..........
Must be something about cochlear implants, they seem to bring people, especially the kids who have them, such incredible luck!
Click to expand...

Appearently it works better than a rabbits leg....


DD.... you still seem to put HA's and CI on the same line........ I think that's where you get off the "CI-"track..

Note:
Readers be aware.
I'm just a parent. What do I know.?
However... my daughter with bi-lateral CI. (yes WE decided) is doing great, so that must be luck. I thought it was hard work, but it only seems to be hard work because work has nothing to do with it. (in fact, work would actually cause problems....).
In addition, I'm a foreigner, so if I do not agree with you, I probably misinterpret what you wrote, and anything I write back is not really valid since it is at best at highschool level..
 
Cloggy, ancedote is not the singular of data. Second of all, CI kids are functionally hoh. Yes, its not right to compare them to kids from the '60's who got minimal benifit from HAs (say enviromental sounds or just vowels or single words) BUT, there have ALWAYS been kids with severe and profound losses who are functionally hoh. Some of us were those kids! I know the sound quality is different, yes........but CI kids are STILL pretty much hoh. God, even unilateral losses are classifed as hoh! Besides if CI kids hear like hearing then how come there's research out there on CI MEMs, that will make what implantees hear "more nautral/normal sounding?" How come there's that new implant that is supposed to be even better then CI? I know you're impressed by Lotte's aquastion of spoken language...........BUT there have ALWAYS ALWAYS been kids who have been able to pick up spoken language.
Second of all, it really is a combonation of work AND luck. I know families who have worked their butts off trying to get their kids orally trained.(eg good speech therapists, auditory verbal therapy etc) However, for whatever reason their kids couldn't master speech! You're implying that those families didn't work hard enough. Not at all. You should talk to some of the families for whom the oral approach wasn't totally sucessful..........and I'm not saying that it was "luck" as in the kind of luck that makes you get a winning lottery ticket. More like serindipidous luck. I mean you're really lucky to have had really good insurance, to be one of the first generation of implantee kids to be very sucessful, to not even have needed special services beyond prefential seating. You really have no idea how lucky you are that eveything fell into place for you! Even some kids whose parents sent them to oral schools or oral programs found that their kids weren't sucessful (and those families tend to be really VERY involved. Many of them MOVE to where the oral schools are)
Oh, and FYI rick, I did school unaided for ONE year. I have a moderately severe loss. It was pretty much the equalivant of my friend Kevin who is legally blind, going around without his glasses.
 
deafdyke said:
Cloggy, ancedote is not the singular of data. Second of all, CI kids are functionally hoh. Yes, its not right to compare them to kids from the '60's who got minimal benifit from HAs (say enviromental sounds or just vowels or single words) BUT, there have ALWAYS been kids with severe and profound losses who are functionally hoh. Some of us were those kids! I know the sound quality is different, yes........but CI kids are STILL pretty much hoh. God, even unilateral losses are classifed as hoh! Besides if CI kids hear like hearing then how come there's research out there on CI MEMs, that will make what implantees hear "more nautral/normal sounding?" How come there's that new implant that is supposed to be even better then CI? I know you're impressed by Lotte's aquastion of spoken language...........BUT there have ALWAYS ALWAYS been kids who have been able to pick up spoken language.
Second of all, it really is a combonation of work AND luck. I know families who have worked their butts off trying to get their kids orally trained.(eg good speech therapists, auditory verbal therapy etc) However, for whatever reason their kids couldn't master speech! You're implying that those families didn't work hard enough. Not at all. You should talk to some of the families for whom the oral approach wasn't totally sucessful..........and I'm not saying that it was "luck" as in the kind of luck that makes you get a winning lottery ticket. More like serindipidous luck. I mean you're really lucky to have had really good insurance, to be one of the first generation of implantee kids to be very sucessful, to not even have needed special services beyond prefential seating. You really have no idea how lucky you are that eveything fell into place for you! Even some kids whose parents sent them to oral schools or oral programs found that their kids weren't sucessful (and those families tend to be really VERY involved. Many of them MOVE to where the oral schools are)
Oh, and FYI rick, I did school unaided for ONE year. I have a moderately severe loss. It was pretty much the equalivant of my friend Kevin who is legally blind, going around without his glasses.
Click to expand...

I agree...My brother and I are perfect examples of that when it comes to oral success. My mom worked so hard with both of us but for some reason, everything fell in place for me but not for my brother. That's why we still are seeing many kids with CIs unable to master the spoken language despite working hard at speech therapy and whatnot. I call it "Hit and miss" so if that offends anyone or any of the parents here, I am sorry but that's how I really see it due to my own personal and professional experiences. Doesnt mean that I am saying CIs are worthless but just that like with HAs or even oral-only approach, it works for some and doesnt work for others. How can u argue with that?

Now, some people here argue that ASL is not for everyone. Really, I honestly dont see how no deaf or hoh OR even hearing children not learn ASL. It is visually accessible for everyone even for blind people if it is changed to a tactile form so when people say some kids dont benefit from sign language...how is that? I dont understand that...I can understand if the child grew up oral never learning signing and tried to learn it later but couldnt...that's different but I am talking about during the critical years of language development.
 
I spoke at last year's AG Bell conference in PA, and there were terps or CART (and for my talk, both terps AND CART) at every session I attended

Sheri

deafdyke said:
Oh and rick............you think my reasoning is bizare? That is b/c you really have bought into the goals lock stock and barrel of AG Bell. You cannot see that MAYBE just MAYBE their philosophies on things are wrong. There're well meaning. Yes, it's true that it's no longer unusual to see 'terps at AG Bell conferences, but on the other hand AG Bell is still very deep in an audist philosophy and the opinon that the hearing and speaking and mainstream world is the best thing in the world.
Click to expand...
 
LTHFAdvocate said:
I spoke at last year's AG Bell conference in PA, and there were terps or CART (and for my talk, both terps AND CART) at every session I attended

Sheri
Click to expand...

Lots of oral deaf use CART. As well as terps. Seems to be that they concede that making the auditory visual is a neccessity when receiving information is the issue. So what's the problem with sign? It make the information visable.
 
deafdyke said:
............audist philosophy and the opinon that the hearing and speaking and mainstream world is the best thing in the world.
Click to expand...
Isn't that tautology?

(Sorry - I guess I misinterpret what you said...)
 
Cloggy said:
Isn't that tautology?

(Sorry - I guess I misinterpret what you said...)
Click to expand...

That would be misinterpreted. Lots of deaf kids leave off the word endings, too, even when they are oral. Its cause English is not their native language, even though it may be their only language.
 
jillio said:
That would be misinterpreted. Lots of deaf kids leave off the word endings, too, even when they are oral. Its cause English is not their native language, even though it may be their only language.
Click to expand...

First time I heard of a first, only language is not a native language.
 
Back
Top