want to hear your opinions about cochlear implant

posts from hell said:
you're missing the point... the consistency makes me tired, really.
Click to expand...

posts from hell said:
you're missing the point... the consistency makes me tired, really.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so your point is that I shouldn't push back when people dump on bi-bi schools because you and some others don't think of them as real schools for the deaf. Fine. But let's take it back to the initial responses to the OP:

  • People object to them primarily because CIs are linked to 'oralism.'
  • The educational environment that provides ASL immersion is a bi-bi school -- which, despite the perspective of the Deaf crowd you speak on behalf of, is seen by most new parents of deaf children as a 'school for the deaf'.
  • The Deaf here promote the idea that schools for the deaf are where deaf who 'fail' out of other programs are placed -- but not the non-ASL schools, which don't count.
  • Why on earth would any parent place a child in what they see as a deaf school, immersed in ASL? If I didn't know better from my own experience, based on the discussion here, I certainly wouldn't want my child surrounded by failure, perceived as failing.

I've tried to counter what I see in each of these as misconceptions, and yet I get pushed back at every turn. What I don't get the point of is why you are effectively making an argument for CIs plus oralism? :roll:
 
Word of advice..better let Buffalo return and to clarify instead of making her post our responsibility to try to explain to you.

Yes, oralism is strongly pused behind the CI view by most in the medical view. Am I wrong?
 
shel90 said:
I am not against CIs themselves but against the views that are associated with them. Like CIs give deaf people more opportunities, or better lives. I really despite that view from the medical community. It disgusts me.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. I notice hearing parents -if not all- with CI children tend to be pro oral and anti ASL.
 
shel90 said:
Word of advice..better let Buffalo return and to clarify instead of making her post our responsibility to try to explain to you.

Yes, oralism is strongly pused behind the CI view by most in the medical view. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I've not encountered that.
 
deafskeptic said:
I'm the same way. I notice hearing parents -if not all- with CI children tend to be pro oral and anti ASL.
Click to expand...

I think we have many examples on AD alone of hearing parents who are not anti-ASL -- I've never seen any parent, hearing or deaf, on this forum who is anti-ASL. Except for a handful of people involved in AVT, I've rarely encountered anti-ASL views, and even those are not so much anti-ASL but more baffled by the amount of time and effort required that they felt could be better put to other non-training-oriented activities with the child, even if just spending time together.
 
GrendelQ said:
Yeah, so your point is that I shouldn't push back when people dump on bi-bi schools because you and some others don't think of them as real schools for the deaf. Fine. But let's take it back to the initial responses to the OP:

  • People object to them primarily because CIs are linked to 'oralism.'
  • The educational environment that provides ASL immersion is a bi-bi school -- which, despite the perspective of the Deaf crowd you speak on behalf of, is seen by most new parents of deaf children as a 'school for the deaf'.
  • The Deaf here promote the idea that schools for the deaf are where deaf who 'fail' out of other programs are placed -- but not the non-ASL schools, which don't count.
  • Why on earth would any parent place a child in what they see as a deaf school, immersed in ASL? If I didn't know better from my own experience, based on the discussion here, I certainly wouldn't want my child surrounded by failure, perceived as failing.

I've tried to counter what I see in each of these as misconceptions, and yet I get pushed back at every turn. What I don't get the point of is why you are effectively making an argument for CIs plus oralism? :roll:
Click to expand...
Nope... wasn't the point.
 
Besides, I strongly object to the idea that schools for the deaf are for children who have fallen behind.
Click to expand...
Grendel, traditionally Deaf Schools (since 1974 when mainstreaming became popular Deaf Schools were seen as for kids who couldn't hack it in the mainstream or who were oral failures. It's a part of the whole interepretaton of least restrictive enviroment.....up til recently LRE, meant mainstream. Some of them HAVE revamped so they're for kids who aren't nessarily in need of remediation, but that is new. TLC is a great example of that type of school. Actually, did you know that Clarke's middle school program used to be HUGE? Like it was very common for kids to attend Clarke in fourth grade after falling behind in the mainstream. It's changing yes.....
PFH, I'm a little confused as to why you don't see TLC as a Deaf School....it is.
And Clarke may not use ASL in the classrooms, BUT it does use ASL outside of the classroom/off campus. They're also very accepting of ASL and Deaf culture. It is not like the old days when Sign was completely and utterly demonized.
 
shel90 said:
There are deaf children who are on, above and below grade levels at Deaf schools. Just as there are deaf child who are sucessful and unsuccessful CI users.

The point I think Buffalo was making that if all children who are implanted at younger ages are going to function like hearing kids like baseballboy said, why are deaf schools or programs still seeeing an influx of CI users who have fallen behind in mianstreamed programs or still don't have speech skills. Who are illetrate with language delays and deficits. Those kids are the true victims.
Click to expand...

Shel90, you got it right. bbaseballboy123 thinks one shouldn't lose the chance of hearing in the first 18 years. I disagree because hearing aids work as well. If CI is the way to go, then no CI kids will ever been placed in a school for the Deaf. (Sorry Shel90) I learned a lot from listening to Shel90 because I have been out of school for the deaf for many years. I want the parents to do right by their deaf child by making sure that the child know ASL and the school for the deaf education is up to the snuff. I don't like it when the parents decided on CI and mainstreaming first before the child has a strong grasp of language.

Can a CI kid listen to background conversations? How about a conversation about 15 feet away? A deaf child can pick out a conversation 15 feet way or one closer by depending which is more interesting to the deaf child. A deaf child really need to be with other deaf kids for self-esteem, social interaction and non-school learning.
 
rick48 said:
Jamie,

Just so you get other perspectives. I am the parent of a profoundly deaf child who was implanted in 1989 before deciding on the implant we talked to many in the medical field and no one ever told us not to use ASL. Not any of the doctors and/or audiologsts ever made any negative statements to us about ASL.

The only negative comment we received from someone in the medical field came from the audiologist who conducted the hearing test that confirmed that our daughter was deaf. He told my wife not to listen to anyone who says profoundly deaf children can learn to speak and that we should immediately move to another state and enroll our child in a particular school for the Deaf. Thankfully, we did not follow his advice.


Rick
Click to expand...

They won't talk negative about ASL IF they don't bring up ASL. Did they ever mention ASL????
 
Buffalo said:
They won't talk negative about ASL IF they don't bring up ASL. Did they ever mention ASL????
Click to expand...

The CI clinic we contacted recommended we incorporate ASL into my daughter's life immediately -- months before we were approved for CIs (we had already begun doing so). After getting CIs, they provided a powerful recommendation to our local school district for out of district placement at a school for the deaf.
 
Buffalo said:
I disagree because hearing aids work as well.
Click to expand...

I'm glad hearing aids work well for you, but for those who get CIs, they don't.

My daughter is with other deaf children both at school and outside school -- her CIs do not present a barrier to interacting with deaf peers.
 
Buffalo said:
Shel90, you got it right. bbaseballboy123 thinks one shouldn't lose the chance of hearing in the first 18 years. I disagree because hearing aids work as well. If CI is the way to go, then no CI kids will ever been placed in a school for the Deaf. (Sorry Shel90) I learned a lot from listening to Shel90 because I have been out of school for the deaf for many years. I want the parents to do right by their deaf child by making sure that the child know ASL and the school for the deaf education is up to the snuff. I don't like it when the parents decided on CI and mainstreaming first before the child has a strong grasp of language.

Can a CI kid listen to background conversations? How about a conversation about 15 feet away? A deaf child can pick out a conversation 15 feet way or one closer by depending which is more interesting to the deaf child. A deaf child really need to be with other deaf kids for self-esteem, social interaction and non-school learning.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are now many young CI users at Deaf schools now. There are definitely parents out there who want ASL and their kids to be exposed to Deaf culture. Some of them have experienced being told not to have their children learn ASL or not to use sign with their children but ignored the comments. I applaud them.

However, the parents of those kids who have fallen behind are the ones who believed the medical community about not exposing their children to ASL for fear of not becoming successful CI users. Now, that's where I get disgusted by the medical community. It is NOT their place to make those kinds of suggestions.
 
GrendelQ said:
The CI clinic we contacted recommended we incorporate ASL into my daughter's life immediately -- months before we were approved for CIs (we had already begun doing so). After getting CIs, they provided a powerful recommendation to our local school district for out of district placement at a school for the deaf.
Click to expand...

I wish the CI center here would do that. It would be nice. Oh well.
 
shel90 said:
I wish the CI center here would do that. It would be nice. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Shel, I think you might really like the head of the hospital's Deaf & HOH program (Dr. Terrell Clark) -- she is a huge proponent of ASL, has written and spoken on the importance of learning sign young, very young, and not just baby signs. She is not a big fan of SEE at all -- from what she's said, I think she believes that the emphasis on SEE and the idea that ASL 'ruins' children came from misinterpretation of early studies -- the real cause of problems in the children studied was that children weren't getting ANY or enough fluent language in those early critical 2 years, and not a problem with ASL. One big point she's made is that very young children need both instructor and matched peer models using ASL.

She often talks about the importance of authentic peer groups who share language and communicate preferences, and meeting the cultural needs of students (not Deaf v. deaf exactly, but the issue of feeling like you belong versus "other").That's a big concern of mine with regard to a CI -- I want Li to have a sense that she belongs in the environment she lives.
 
GrendelQ said:
Shel, I think you might really like the head of the hospital's Deaf & HOH program (Dr. Terrell Clark) -- she is a huge proponent of ASL, has written and spoken on the importance of learning sign young, very young, and not just baby signs. She is not a big fan of SEE at all -- from what she's said, I think she believes that the emphasis on SEE and the idea that ASL 'ruins' children came from misinterpretation of early studies -- the real cause of problems in the children studied was that children weren't getting ANY or enough fluent language in those early critical 2 years, and not a problem with ASL. One big point she's made is that very young children need both instructor and matched peer models using ASL.

She often talks about the importance of authentic peer groups who share language and communicate preferences, and meeting the cultural needs of students (not Deaf v. deaf exactly, but the issue of feeling like you belong versus "other").That's a big concern of mine with regard to a CI -- I want Li to have a sense that she belongs in the environment she lives.
Click to expand...



Maybe I can write to her and ask her to visit that CI center because (I wont name it due to myself being in the field of deaf ed) really does discourage parents of newly implanted children from using ASL or refuse to collaborate with the BiBi programs here in the area although attemps have been made.
Maybe she can educate them about ASL and how it wont prevent children from benefitting from their CIs? Thanks.
 
shel90 said:
Maybe I can write to her and ask her to visit that CI center because (I wont name it due to myself being in the field of deaf ed) really does discourage parents of newly implanted children from using ASL or refuse to collaborate with the BiBi programs here in the area although attemps have been made.
Maybe she can educate them about ASL and how it wont prevent children from benefitting from their CIs? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'll bet she would -- she presents all over the country. My daughter's teachers/school SLPs have come to her mapping sessions 3X and I think they were very glad and surprised to find the CI clinic audiologists were using ASL with Li (and our audi for the first year was an HOH/HA user). At our last CI mapping session, we were in a central area, right in front of Dr. Clark's office -- she poked her head out to watch my daughter and 2 other little girls -- all clients of hers and classmates at a bi-bi school, signing rapidly away to each other in a long period of silence, then we all split up and while walking in different directions the kids were calling out in spoken language to each other "See you tomorrow!" and similar things -- she was beaming: it was really such a nice moment of those kids being so comfortable communicating and part of a wonderful friendship, no matter what the language.
 
It seems like the stereotypical idea that doctors/audiologists forcing parents to do the oral route doesn't apply to several of us here. When I was diagnosed at 18 months old, they told my mom that I had very little chance of having beyond a 4th grade literacy if I tried to go through a hearing school, so my mom should just send me to a deaf school.

It's odd because... what if a doctor tells a parent to send their child to go a deaf school, not because they are pro-ASL, but rather because they have little faith in deaf people, so might as well send them to a school where they can be "happy" with other kids with the same "problems"? And somehow the parent looks like a hero to other deaf kids because they "didn't" go through the oral route?
 
Back
Top