shel90

And we will never know until the child starts expressing him or herself and it is usually by around 5 when language deficients are recognized if there is an expert capable of it around. Then, it is like..oh this child is not doing well in a spoken environment, this child needs ASL but the problem is that the child has to learn ASL at the age of 5 to establish a strong foundation when he/she should be passing the readiness milestones so have to hold the readiness milestones for a couple of more years until the child's language is fully establish and by then the child is 7 or 8 , then can teach them reading and writing.

That puts a lot of children at risks and I prefer to establish safeguards. That is all I want.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

sirena rossa

Shel, of course i would never imply that ur mom was more supportive with u but not ur brother. (i hope u didn't take offense to my statement, that was never my intention I just brought that up as a POSSIBLE factor? in ur case, it wasn't one. but maybe in some others it is? I don't know.
It could actually be a case of improper HAs for some ppl. For me, i need pretty strong amplification. Maybe in some cases the kid's hearing aids were actually just satisfactory rather than fantastic? And the audiologist wasnt very experienced? I have seen quite a few who were horrendous and shouldnt be working as one! lol.

shel90

[QUOTE=sirena rossa;1112541]Shel, of course i would never imply that ur mom was more supportive with u but not ur brother. (i hope u didn't take offense to my statement, that was never my intention I just brought that up as a POSSIBLE factor? in ur case, it wasn't one. but maybe in some others it is? I don't know.
It could actually be a case of improper HAs for some ppl. For me, i need pretty strong amplification. Maybe in some cases the kid's hearing aids were actually just satisfactory rather than fantastic? And the audiologist wasnt very experienced? I have seen quite a few who were horrendous and shouldnt be working as one! lol.[/QUOTE)

No, u didnt say that..I was applying your logic because if I was going to use it, then that was what it would have meant.

My brother and I were both born with the same bilateral dB loss...he was fitted with HAs at a much younger age than I was.

We both went to the same oral preschool program. Had the same teachers..same approaches used on us.

We had the same audi but she wasnt responsible for our language development process...just making sure we were fitted with the right HAs.

Despite being in a comprehensive and intensive oral-only program, my brother couldnt develop any oral skills at all but the specialists told my mom to wait and see (the wait and see approach) and he was enrolled at the same public school I was fully oral. Fortunately for my brother, someone at my school saw his struggles and spoke up..called an IEP meeting and suggested to my mom that he should go to the deaf school. My mom was apprehensive cuz of the stigma attached to ASL and Deaf schools but she went for it. Within a few years, my brother blossomed but was late in learning how to read and write since he needed the time for his language foundation to be established first since it wasnt during his first 5 years of his life.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

samanthasmom

Isn't that the point of a bibi education? One size does not fit all, this way they can get the best of both...

sirena rossa

But the SAME type of logic applies if this deaf child is fitted with a CI or HA. then a foundation in spoken language needs to be established as well, otherwise what was the point in getting a CI/HA.
It just seems like that a lot (and i dont mean just ppl in this forum - i mean people IN GENERAL, both hearing and deaf and HoH) of people think its better to begin with JUST ASL first.
So, if u ask me, regarding the situation of a deaf child with hearing aids or a cochlear implant the best bet is to either 1) begin with Spoken Language first. or 2) use a Bi/Bi or TC approach first.

shel90

Right..

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

shel90

And by using your logic...too bad for those who werent able to develop oral skills? Where are their rights? Why should their rights to full access to language be denied just for the "wait and see " approach?

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

Daredevel7

And by using your logic, too bad for those with good oral skills who could have developed earlier? Where are THEIR rights?

And Im still waiting to see what the "wait and see" approach is....

samanthasmom

Umm, wait and see if oral only takes...?

Daredevel7

Yes but according to Shel90 and Jillio, the wait and see approach takes years? Or at least thats the impression I got.

shel90

I am a successful oral deaf person but I know that ASL would have made my life a lot easier cuz since learning ASL, I was able to find happiness, self-advocacy, acceptance of myself, and full access to communication/language. My life improved 200%, 300%, 400%, and beyond since learning ASL.

Interesting note...I took a GRE test for my teaching certification in 1998 before I became fully fluent in ASL..scored average for reading and writing and took it again in 2004 and my reading and writing scores tripled! I think ASL helped with my literacy skills as well as an adult.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

samanthasmom

My daughter was diagnosed severe/profound at birth. HAs at 3 mos with INTENSIVE speech therapy. First implant at 15 months (earliest we could get it approved at the time) Mainstreamed in pre-school at 2.5 years of age. Oral only. She was recently implanted on right side - July. As yet has not bridged gap from hearing age to chronological. Who would have guessed?! Had we not been told that ASL would delay her speech and we had done both, who knows what the outcome would be...Point is, we were dissuaded from ASL. Is that right? The same time frame - huge push to teach hearing kids to sign for faster language acquisition...?

shel90

My point exactly and I see countless of children in the same shoes as your daughter. It seems like your daughter and the others paid the price for the few successes? I dont think it is right and it would be kinda egostical in some way. "Oh, some were successful, so let's continue the "wait and see" approach. "

I just dont agree with it.

__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous

Daredevel7

Great that ASL worked for you and your brother. Oral English worked for me. I'm all for Bi-Bi approach, AS LONG the deaf child does not refuse to learning how to speak because ASL is easier. Obviously, I want each child to be able to reach his/her full potential.

I have this friend who came to me because she heard about my job and wanted to talk to a deaf person OTHER than her own deaf friends. This friend is from the same speech therapist I had. She learned to speak and was mainstreamed like me. She did well in high school (all hearing). Then she went to college and met other deaf people and decided to learn ASL to take advantage of the interpreters and to be able to communicate with her deaf friends. Sounds great! However, she started to realize that her deaf friends are warning her "If you do too well in college, you won't be able to get a disability check." They had such low faith in themselves in terms of getting a job after college due to a lack of oral skills, so they had to depend on getting a disability check. I am worried about people like this. They had the language and other skills to go to college, but..... obviously they couldn't go further than college because of a lack of oral skills.

samanthasmom

How about from a different perspective? What if I continue to push my child..correct every sentence, every time she speeks..etc. One day she wakes up and looks at me and says enough!! Takes the implants off and never wants to try again?!

Point is (and I really am not trying to argue) I feel like trying to fit her small square butt in this round hole is doing nothing for her psyche..kind of like those people with no faith in themselves that can only sign (only referring to the ones mentioned in YOUR post, don't kill me on this point plz).

So, why not start them off on a level playing field. Give them both. If hearing kids can learn sign and not suffer linguistically, why think that deaf kids will? Just askin...

rockdrummer

Nobody wants to put children at risk. To me, safeguards in this context would include options because from what I have seen, one size doesn't fit all when it comes to educating deaf kids.

Daredevel7

The problem is that hearing kids learning sign is SO much easier than deaf kids learning speech. I have absolutely NO problem with a level playing field, in fact I support it. Give them all the tools. Im just asking... how can we ensure that the child will not become the type of person I mentioned earlier? Relying so much on ASL that speech is just too hard? I feel that people are treating Bi Bi as if it is simply learning 2 languages at the same time. I'm saying it's NOT. Its not the same as learning English and Spanish at the same time because they both are EQUALLY hard to learn. Learning ASL and learning to speak are not equal to a deaf child, that much I am sure of.

Daredevel7

Also, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to convince anyone that oral skills are the best. I want people to convince ME that Bi Bi approach is the best for the majority. While I believe that one size does not fit all, I also believe that a majority of deaf people will have best success with one general method.

samanthasmom

I was told the same, even believed it in the beginning. Do not misunderstand me here, for some it DOES work. However, I DO believe that being deaf one relies more on visual cues. Some more than others, obviously. My daughter being one of those.

So, I of course want her to have oral skills (hence the CIs), but with someone this visual we would have done her a greater service giving her sign at an early age. No doubt in my mind that we would not be where we are right now...Hind sight is 20/20, right?!

Don't get me wrong, her oral skills are...ok. It is a constant struggle for her tho. Again, I am not trying to say where she is would be considered the norm. But why give sign to hearing kids to help them with language and not deaf? It is a visual language after all. That is what my deaf child relies on, her vision..

rockdrummer

Can you elaborate please. Which general method do you believe would yield the best success for the majority?

sirena rossa

That reminds me of a friend of mine, she has a Severe hearing loss (so a bit better than mine) she was raised 100% oral, and really has a nice voice and excellent speech skills! Well, in high school or maybe it was beginning of college she took an ASL class, she enjoyed it, etc. And then she started signing a bit more than usual instead of speaking, and as a result began starting to slip with with her speech skills. Even her speech therapist commented a lot on it, and even said: "Gina* u have SUCH a lovely voice. please don't lose it. u do so excellently with it!" - i was told this by her speech therapist herself (No, we didn't have the same therapist).

*names have been changed to protect ID.

sirena rossa

samanthasmom - i have a question for u, about ur daughter. Does she rely a lot on lip-reading?

Daredevel7

I am not saying that this general method SHOULD be applied, I'm saying when doing case by case basis, I am sure one method would come out to be the most popular. My guess it would be Bi-Bi approach, or whichever approach exposes the deaf child to both sign language and oral speech. Now when it comes to which sign language (ASL/SEE), I can't make a guess here, since I don't know any sign language (other than deaf, boy, girl, happy, and sex in ASL, along with fingerspelling), so I don't have personal experience with that. I can only speak about oral speech from my experience.

sirena rossa

I agree with this. And I also think the fact that there are deaf people out there with the mentality of "If you do too well in college, you won't be able to get a disability check." is atrocious. It saddens me that they had such low faith in themselves in terms of getting a job after college due to a lack of oral skills, so they had to depend on getting a disability check. I, too, am worried about people like this.

rockdrummer

Thanks for the clarification. So you are a bi-bi advocate? Then your choice would clearly be to choose to start with ASL. Please correct me if I am wrong.

web730

That is correct. (post #469)
---------------------------------
Let me give you a simple concept....

Blind people's noses accelerated in order to make up of their sight loss... so it does the same for the deaf people's visual dependence accelerates making up for their hearing loss. This is the fact.

So it's simple reason why Deaf children should be taught ASL the first thing for the early intervention before anything like speech or hear but especially the language and literary skills etc.

Let's imagine yourself as a two years old deaf kiddo (#1 kiddo); you depend visual 100% just like all other deafies... Okay... yet you struggle whenever your parent or speech trainer giving you hard times to practice speech and hear but they never bother to sign to communicate with you in the first place.

So ask yourself as how can their method works this way as an early intervention? This method more than often distribute to the reason of delaying language and literary skills for those kind of deaf kids.

--------------

So now imagine yourself as #2 kiddo whose parents who know sign language and start signing (communicating) with you right away from your baby age till age 2 (going thru before preschool). There you would learn much more as how language and literary works then there you are ahead of other kid as described above (#1).

In this case if your parents want you (#2 kiddo) to learn speech and hear, then you receive HA or CI. You would have much less trouble learning how to speech and hear because your parents and/or the speech trainer could sign teaching you how to do it. Also that this kid wouldn't experience delaying his/her language and literary skills.

That's the huge difference here!

This sample is in fact very common with the majority out there.

---------------

So those, whoever disagreed with the ASL as the first language, must have not realized how it works and that ASL provides you an advantage at the early age.


It's much wiser to teach deaf child ASL first at his/her very early age before learn speech and hear if his/her parents want their kid to learn. No harm is done this way, really. Also it gives him/her an advantage to be ahead of many others at school later, eventually.

ASL works in both world whether he/she ends up at a mainstream or deaf school later on.

That is what few oral-only schools failed so many deaf students in the past because they prohibited sign language in the first place mainly because of their delaying language and literary skills. So sad!

__________________

Daredevel7

The best way I can explain what I believe:

Ideal - I would rather start off trying to teach the child orally (This is what I'd do to my own deaf child if I had one). And if the child does not have the capability, then do SL (I am saying SL right now because I haven't gotten enough information/experience to decide ASL vs SEE vs whatever). And make sure my child would eventually catch up in developing in all aspect, including speech.

Practical - However, based on some people's posts here (and it's happened to a family member of mine) forcing an incapable deaf child to do oral speech for a while can have repercussions and delays. So for a general method (if I HAD to pick one) it would be Bi Bi approach, because they would GAIN at LEAST one language out of the two as opposed to limited to one more difficult language that they may or may not master.

I do find oral skills important, especially after college. So there is a lot of time there to gain oral skills. I just hope the deaf people who started with ASL get a LOT of support to do oral skills. I am not convinced that this is happening.

Daredevel7

Can I ask how this works? How do you sign to someone telling them how to speak? Do they sign "Move your tongue like this"? I really do have a hard time grasping the concept of using sign to tell them how to speak. I understand associating a sign with a spoken word, but using signs for the act of speaking itself? Not sure how this works?

Jiro

OK people..... Looks like the culprit of this WHOLE problem and disagreement is that the term "deaf" is a broad word. Some programs such as ASL/BI-BI/Oral may or may not work for certain group depending on the degree of hearing damage.

Obviously - each of our hearing has different degree of damage. oralism may fare well for a child with partial/severe profound hearing or with HA/CI who can hear nearly everything. For other type damage where they are completely deaf - oralism will not obviously work.

Daredevel7

I was born with 85-95 dB loss in both ears. Is this not deaf enough? Don't say that oralism won't work PERIOD. Oralism most likely will NOT work for those who are severely profound. Therein lies the difference.