I think "who pushes what communications modality" is very regional. In California, for example, it is actually the opposite of what you indicate below. Early Intervention in our state is very biased towards communication modalities that include sign, our foundation actually developed and provided to them the first set of information they distributed on oral programs, but I don't even know that they are getting handed out to families on a consistent basis.
One thing that I'm not sure people realize (I didn't, until I read Niparko's study) is that deaf children's outcomes with respect to fluency in spoken language are very tightly associated with the parent's level of education and income. Education and income are actually statistically more significant than the etiology of the deafness !!! All the therapy that is required is very expensive, and not always covered by insurance. The # one outcome predictor is age of implantation -- earlier is always better.
Every child I have personally come into contact with in the past five years who got their first CI before age 2 (probably a total of about 400 or so) who came from an oral program and had struggles with spoken language later in childhood fall into one of the following categories:
1) they came from families where English was not spoken at home (so they had TWO spoken languages they were getting exposed to, not one)
2) the families did not adhere to the therapy program for many reasons (divorce, moving, lack of availability/funds).
3) the child was multiply disabled, the hearing impairment was not the only issue
I think in retrospect knowing that information, we can make better suggestions to families that come from those categories that are more appropriate for their situations. I cannot stress how important the therapy is. Yes it is hard, yes it is expensive, yes it is a nuisance. But it is absolutely essential to a good outcome, and if you decide to get an implant for your child, you are committing to a LOT more than just surgery.
So, just my opinion, but thank you for asking Shel
Sheri
Not here...just referring to the general public about the oral-only programs that I have experienced. I am just wondering out loud why do those oral specialist push to put deaf children with those kinds of losses into such programs that restricts them severely. Just wondering why that is happening all over. I thought maybe LTHAdvocate can answer since she seems to have a lot of knowledge about it.
