Thank you jillo! Rick, that is very easy to explain. Yes, some oral-only kids do very well with just normal parental involvement, plus a foundation of early intervention. I did myself. I didn't need oral deaf schooling or a speech therapist specificly for dhh kids. I think what you and jackie don't understand is that for you, all the pieces that go together to produce a kid with good oral skills were there from the get go. You were lucky that way. A lot of other people don''t/didn't have all the pieces, such as good health insurance, abilty to relocate (to good oral programs), abilty to supplement therapies, good response to amplification and so on. Not all dhh kids respond well to just normal parental involvement. There are parents who go overboard, and who therapyizie their kids, by requiring only speech, attendance at oral schools, constant "let's do the "games" in the John Tracy clinic correspondance course, and let's also do audio-verbal therapy instead of just hanging out and being a kid (which can be enriching in of itself)
The difference between a bilingal route (which is what I'm proposing for almost all dhh kids) and oral only, is exactly like the difference in performance that you would get between someone who can speak English, but who's strengh is French, attending a bilingal school, vs. limiting them to a monolingal (English only) approach. I remmy when i went to summer camp as a teen, there were girls there from Quebec who could speak English pretty well. But it took a LOT of effort and energy. That's pretty much the same with us oral kids. It often takes a lot of energy for us to speak English b/c it concentrates so much on a weakness. Whereas with ASL, we are people, who's primary strengh is visual input. We can pick up ASL visually, and EASILY, without having to
Think of the language you learned in high school. You can speak it, yes? You might even be able to speak it very fluently. But in the end you're always more comfortable with English, b/c it's your strengh.