Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users

[Angel]

... :rasing a peace flag:

 

[rick48]

The probability is that "their parents" were told to avoid ASL and focus
entirely on oralisum. As I stated befor this WILL DAMAGE A CHILDS
NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. The childs lack of development in the
area of language aquisition is the fault of so called professionals who
intentionally deprive these children of neurological input during critical
"windows of oportunity". The parents are doing what they were told
to do.

And teachers are right in line there with Mother T, because parents
don't listen to them and administrators don't support them and other
proffesionals tie their hands behind their backs and ask them to do the
impossible while sabotaging their efforts. Shel, I applaude you.

Sorry but that is a cop out. It is the parents' responsibility to make certain that their child is developing language and for a parent to sit by for 8 years while their child is not developing language and to not expore other options merely because a "professional" told them something is not acting as a responsible parent. It is the parents' responsibility, not the professionals or administrators, to ask questions, seek other options and alternatives, in short be a parent.


As for teachers, I am married to one so I know full well how dedicated and demanding their jobs are and I know from my wife what a difference in a child's life a dedicated and caring teacher can make.
Rick

 

[fredfam1]

As for teachers, I am married to one so I know full well how dedicated and demanding their jobs are and I know from my wife what a difference in a child's life a dedicated and caring teacher can make.
Rick

Then why make such a statement about Shel? I have read many of
her posts. She never sounds self rightious to me. She is concerned
that policies reguarding oralisum only are damaging childrens
abilities to learn language.

As for the parents, yes that is their responsibility but proffesional
know it alls can be very intimidating. And these people will
tell a parent that their judgment is best, and they
are the proffessional and if you
decide anything else you are jepordising your childs well being.
I know because that has happened to me over the vacination
issue. But I had medical training. If I had not, when I did the
research I would have not been able to discriminate between
the conflicting pro and con decisions that were presented.

 

[shel90]

Then why make such a statement about Shel? I have read many of
her posts. She never sounds self rightious to me. She is concerned
that policies reguarding oralisum only are damaging childrens
abilities to learn language.

As for the parents, yes that is their responsibility but proffesional
know it alls can be very intimidating. And these people will
tell a parent that their judgment is best, and they
are the proffessional and if you
decide anything else you are jepordising your childs well being.
I know because that has happened to me over the vacination
issue. But I had medical training. If I had not, when I did the
research I would have not been able to discriminate between
the conflicting pro and con decisions that were presented.

Thank you fredfam...Rick is trying to make me something that I am not and I dont give a flying rat's ass what he says about me.

Point is, he doesnt care about the suffering of deaf children as long as his own child doesnt suffer from it. He wont hold the oral-only philosophy responsible ..just blame the parents for their children's failures. My question is why did those oral-only deaf educators allow their children to fall thru the cracks? They are just as responsible too.

 

[shel90]

I know that I am doing everything in my power to help inform parent of all the choices they have including CI's, oral only TC, ASL.

The question wasnt directed at you. It was directed to Rick48.

 

[shel90]

The probability is that "their parents" were told to avoid ASL and focus
entirely on oralisum. As I stated befor this WILL DAMAGE A CHILDS
NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. The childs lack of development in the
area of language aquisition is the fault of so called professionals who
intentionally deprive these children of neurological input during critical
"windows of oportunity". The parents are doing what they were told
to do.

And teachers are right in line there with Mother T, because parents
don't listen to them and administrators don't support them and other
proffesionals tie their hands behind their backs and ask them to do the
impossible while sabotaging their efforts. Shel, I applaude you.

Awww thanks! That is my goal and concern but yet, I am being called names and belittled for my beliefs. I think what they hate is that I do not support their views on oral-only deaf ed and try to twist everything around to make it look like I am a meanie and against their children. I am agianst the oral-only philosophy in which they strongly believe in and that makes me a bad person? If so, then I guess I am a bad person. I dont really care cuz I am doing what I believe in and that is making language fully accessible for all deaf/hoh children so no child is ever put at risk for language delays.

 

[shel90]

Why didn't their parents?

We raised a deaf child and made certain that she did receive a proper education. If you are getting children admitted into your school who are 8 years old with a 2 year old language level, then put that question to their parents, not to me.

While you are it, knock off the high and mighty Mother Theresa attitude, you teach deaf children because that is your job, and you get paid for it.

I am putting the question to why do we have oral-only deaf education in the first place? That very approach that u support. That is the approach I do not support at all. I support the use of BOTH oral and sign approaches for all children.

U call me anti-CI, anti this or that...all totally false. U must be living in dreamland.

BTW, Yes I am Mother Teresa and I wear a nun's outfit everyday to work.

 

[shel90]

You are a walking talking cliche, parroting every line out of the anti-ci agenda.

Pls do pray tell how is it being against the education practices that deprive full language access to deaf children automatically make one anti-CI? I dont see the correlation there so please spell it out.

A philosophical question:

Jillo: I am against oral-ONLY deaf education

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: No, I am not against CIs..I am against the kinds of educational practices that further handicap deaf children.

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: Some people benefit from their CIs but some others do not.

Rick48: You are against CIs.



Where is the correlation? I must be missing it. I dont see the link between being against oral-only deaf education and CIs unless u see that ALL children with CIs must be put in an oral-only deaf ed. That is the only reason I can think of that u continue to call us anti-CI when we have never stated such thing. Either that or u are just playing a game to try to falsly portray us as something we are not and turn everyone against us? HHMMM?

 

[deafskeptic]

Pls do pray tell how is it being against the education practices that deprive full language access to deaf children automatically make one anti-CI? I dont see the correlation there so please spell it out.

A philosophical question:

Jillo: I am against oral-ONLY deaf education

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: No, I am not against CIs..I am against the kinds of educational practices that further handicap deaf children.

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: Some people benefit from their CIs but some others do not.

Rick48: You are against CIs.



Where is the correlation? I must be missing it. I dont see the link between being against oral-only deaf education and CIs unless u see that ALL children with CIs must be put in an oral-only deaf ed. That is the only reason I can think of that u continue to call us anti-CI when we have never stated such thing. Either that or u are just playing a game to try to falsly portray us as something we are not and turn everyone against us? HHMMM?

I think that pretty much sums up his arguements vs you and Jillio.

Sweetmind comes across as anti-CI but you don't though I must admit that I thought Jillio was anti CI at first.

 

[Cheri]

Sweetmind comes across as anti-CI.

Yes, I've seen her posting. She's one of those capitalized "D", sticks in her tight-knit little world, who thinks primary language is sign only, without the use of hearing aids nor cochlear implants stays away from the hearing community.

Most of us here aren't so much like her, I don't see why some of them labelled us anti-CI. We mostly care about the child's well being and their language development.

 

[shel90]

I think that pretty much sums up his arguements vs you and Jillio.

Sweetmind comes across as anti-CI but you don't though I must admit that I thought Jillio was anti CI at first.

Oh Sweetmind was definitely anti-CI, anti-HAs, and anti teaching any deaf kids to develop speech skills. Jillo and I dont believe in that..we just believe in using ASL to teach concepts and use spoken language to develop speech skills and some access to English. We know that not all deaf children will develop excellent speech skills but it is always worth a try. What we hate is trying the oral-only approach first, wait a few years, and then resort to signing if the oral-only approach doesnt work. That right there puts their language development at risk and the children do not deserve that cuz hearing children are never put in that position. To me that is just so wrong.

 

[flip]

I think we should be careful to shun the anti-CI label, threating it as a negative term. To me "anti-CI" is a healty and legal standpoint. For a long time, parts of the majority have tried to label groups of deaf people as deaf militants or anti-CI, when those groups have a different viewpoint than the majority. It's nothing new, and actually, often those viewpoints are adapted later by the majority, instead of fading. An example is the view that ASL is a language and healty to use. That was an extreme viewpoint earlier. We also see today that the glory of CI have faded, compared to a decade ago.

CI is used to promote oralism. That's why I am so against CI. I know it can save lives, but so do guns. Guns are sold to make lives of people more secure, still they are the cause of big wars. It's the same thing with CI, they are sold to make lives of deaf people easier, but I see its negative impact so far are greater than it's positive impacts. Whether the impacts really are good or bad are probably the core of the flame wars here, but research supports the negative impact view. To me, it's use is out of control with oral epidemics and vast money spent on CI operations and risky mainstream programs instead of strong bi-bi projects and awarness campaigns for sign language.

If cochlear companies stoped doing dirty market tricks, and the goverment let a group of deaf scholars decide how and where CI should be used, I probably would be more positive towards CI. But as long this is not is happening, cochlear implant is a nasty and negative word to me, leaving me with no choice; I am ANTI-CI.

 

[jag]

Secondly, I have seen numerous deaf oral students who were simply passed through the system. I work with them onb a daily basis to bring their reading and writing skills up to a college level so that they will be able to read the textbooks and write the papers required at the college level.

You know if there weren't so many many young people who aren't deaf going off to college with terrible reading and writing skills you might actually have a good point here.

But having taken a couple writing classes and seeing exactly how these young people write I can safely say that there would not meet college level course work, but for some reason that seems to be 'ok' with the teachers at these community college, and they are the kids you don't necessarily see in the uni's until they've passed the remedial classes enough to get the gpa's needed to get into a 4 yr college.

When I take a reading and writing critically class on line, which requires reading what others have written regarding the aritcles they've chosen for a particular assignment, and only one or two actually write anything that even makes sense it does give you pause as to how those young people even got into that class. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm very good at run on sentences and poor spelling.

 

[rick48]

Pls do pray tell how is it being against the education practices that deprive full language access to deaf children automatically make one anti-CI? I dont see the correlation there so please spell it out.

A philosophical question:

Jillo: I am against oral-ONLY deaf education

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: No, I am not against CIs..I am against the kinds of educational practices that further handicap deaf children.

Rick48: You are against CIs.

Jillo: Some people benefit from their CIs but some others do not.

Rick48: You are against CIs.



Where is the correlation? I must be missing it. I dont see the link between being against oral-only deaf education and CIs unless u see that ALL children with CIs must be put in an oral-only deaf ed. That is the only reason I can think of that u continue to call us anti-CI when we have never stated such thing. Either that or u are just playing a game to try to falsly portray us as something we are not and turn everyone against us? HHMMM?

This is great now you are making up conversations to support your views! Let me know when you return from make believe land.

If you ever read my posts then you know that while we chose an oral only approach for our child, I do not believe that it is the appropriate choice for every child but that it should remain an option available to all parents. Sorry you are unable to comprehend that but perhaps you can invent another imaginary conversation to support your views.

 

[jag]

Thank you fredfam...Rick is trying to make me something that I am not and I dont give a flying rat's ass what he says about me.

Point is, he doesnt care about the suffering of deaf children as long as his own child doesnt suffer from it. He wont hold the oral-only philosophy responsible ..just blame the parents for their children's failures. My question is why did those oral-only deaf educators allow their children to fall thru the cracks? They are just as responsible too.

In the end Shel the parents are the ones most familiar with their child. They are the ones who know how well their child communicates. I'm sorry but even 'I' could see that trying to get my then 2 yo to rely only on trying to speak (she has down syndrome) would not be in HER best interests. And that was while I still actually 'believed' that those people talking so encouragingly from my school district actually cared. We as parents were responsible for what was put into the IEP and we as parents were responsible to see that it was actually followed. To wait 8 or more years while the child with normal intellect gets more behind while listening to the 'experts' is and not placing blame on the parents in a copout IMO. The ones who make the final decision are the parents so they can take their share of the blame.

I do thankyou for your dedication to the kids.

 

[jag]

CI is used to promote oralism. That's why I am so against CI. I know it can save lives, but so do guns.
I

And how do CI's save lives? I would still be alive without the CI. The CI doesn't 'save' lives, but it does do much to make life much easier in a world that relies on the sense of hearing. But we know we would still be alive even if we can't/couldn't hear..........................

 

[shel90]

This is great now you are making up conversations to support your views! Let me know when you return from make believe land.

If you ever read my posts then you know that while we chose an oral only approach for our child, I do not believe that it is the appropriate choice for every child but that it should remain an option available to all parents. Sorry you are unable to comprehend that but perhaps you can invent another imaginary conversation to support your views.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question.

U can say all you want about me...I gave up caring a long time ago. If I am in dreamland, so be it. If I am creating imaginary conversations, yes I am. I dont care.

 

[shel90]

In the end Shel the parents are the ones most familiar with their child. They are the ones who know how well their child communicates. I'm sorry but even 'I' could see that trying to get my then 2 yo to rely only on trying to speak (she has down syndrome) would not be in HER best interests. And that was while I still actually 'believed' that those people talking so encouragingly from my school district actually cared. We as parents were responsible for what was put into the IEP and we as parents were responsible to see that it was actually followed. To wait 8 or more years while the child with normal intellect gets more behind while listening to the 'experts' is and not placing blame on the parents in a copout IMO. The ones who make the final decision are the parents so they can take their share of the blame.

I do thankyou for your dedication to the kids.

YW

Yes, the parents are responsible but so are the experts who give them misconceptions about ASL. Those are the people who believe in using those kinds of educational practices that put the child's language development at risk. Did u read Kaitlin's post about the history of oralism in the education of the deaf? Anyone who tells the parents that ASL will interfere with their children's ability to develop spoken language, develop literacy skills, lessen their opportunites and that being around hearing children will promote better years are full of BS. I dont support these people and their philosophies. Most parents will take their word for it just like my mom did and I dont fully blame them cuz like Jillo said, they are frightened and vulnerable and want reassurance that everything will be ok.

 

[Kaitin]

The thread is......:roll:......no information and just fighting I think. Probably impossible to discuss ideas and research and not attacks.

But we have many different ideas together I think and maybe separate ideas are more useful. Cloggy's first post quoted the article about 2 ideas - 1) speech in kids with CI and speech in hearing kids and said "children who use cochlear implants have improved speech production skills" and 2) oral and total communication for CI kids - "oral communication educational setting is also associated with more speech production improvement than placement in a total communication setting".

So 1) speech in CI kids and hearing kids and 2) speech in oral and total communication for CI kids.

Can we discuss the ideas?

Probably not but I tried.

 

[Cheri]

We all know that deaf/hoh/cochlear implants children communicate in different ways, depending on several factors: age at which deafness began; type of deafness; language skills; speech abilities and I am aware that no deaf choose which communication is better for their development of language skills, it's been given to them by their parents from the start. If parents see any language delays with their children, they need to step up and work on another option, while I agree with Shel that oral approach option is not a good way to start on a deaf child no matter if the child is currently wearing his/her implant. I'm with her on both speech and signs to avoid any language delays. I think it's one of the best option to start with. IMO anyways.