Designing A Hearing Baby

[jillio]

Please tell me what do you know about CI and ALL the work involved with teaching the child to hear. Tell me HOW do you teach the CI-ed child to hear.

You know what is easy way out? let the child go as deaf, learn ASL and that's that. THAT is the easiest option.

Fuzzy

The whole point is that you have to teach a deaf child to hear.
And if you think that exposing a child to ASL is the easy way out, you have no clue what it is to raise a deaf child in a bilingual environment. If you think changing a home environment to accommodate the deaf child by learning a new language, making sure that all environmental sounds are made visual, and making sure that all communication is visual is easy, you are woefully uninformed on the issues. I take it you are not a parent, and are also post lingually deafnened.

 

[jillio]

Hearing children naturally acquire spoken language thru their auditory channels and deaf children naturally acquire ASL through the visual channel and both are equally easy. Why should deaf children have to work harder while the hearing kids get the easy way out? As long as acquiring language is easy for the deaf children, the more motivated they will be about learning. Too often, many deaf children are frustrated with trying to acquire language via the spoken form and by the time they enter school, their frustration level is so high ruining their motivation to learn. See that toooo often and I prefer deaf children to learn ASL for language development and spoken English as a 2nd language or parralell.

 

[jillio]

Actually no, you are not neutral,
you have a hidden agenda which is passively and manipulatively proving that CI is not as useful as people say it is. Otherwise why would you just "state such fact"?

Actually,shel's agenda is not hiddeen. Its right out there for all to see. Her agenda is quality education of deaf children.
And for comparison - everybody knows the HAs do work, they do amplify sound all the same way,
and just because one person does not receive equal benefit from it as the next one doesn't meant "it does not work". The same applies to CI- just because SOME children in your workplace seem not to receive as much benefit from CI as they should, does not mean the CI is not as successful in restoring ability to hear as it is told.

"Should" is a word that you need to use very carefully.

Any hearing aid has an ability to assist with hearing in exactly the same way, how well will it work in practice for a person depends on the very person who wears it.
I know I receive far better benefits from my HA than a "born ASL" Hoh/deaf whose audio test clearly shows his hearing is much better than mine. Why is that? I have a lot more practice at hearing and speaking than that person, plain and simple.

How exactly do you determine the level of benefit? By ability to learn speech? My, that's a narrow point of view.



Actually NO, I could not say yes or not to that because it has nothing to do with what I am saying. HOW the child lives its life has nothing to do with having CI or not.

Have you asked me "did the child wasted TIME having its surgery done later than sooner?" - then yeah, I would answer YES, it did. Did the child wasted its life because of that "do it later decision" - I woulld say NO, not neccessarily. Too bad you can't see the difference of what you and I are saying. Please recognize that we are talking about different subjects here.

What about the parents who have wasted time that couldhave been spent actually developing true communication withtheir deaf child by not learning sign?




Sadly, because the deaf children live in overwhelmingly hearing enviroment, the enviroment that depends on ALL senses.

No, it doesn't. A hearing environment is not dependdent upon sight, vibrational awareness (kinesthetic sense), olifactory sense, or a sense of taste. A hearing environment requires only hearing.
It is much simpler and better for the deaf person to acquire some hearing and speaking skills to live in such enviroment.

What about all of the technology that can give a deaf person "voice" and allow them to function optimally in a hearing environment?
After all, if you go to the store or are plain out on the street, you have to speak, not sign, to people around you.

Once again, I offer technology to you. CI is but one form of technology, and it is a technology designed only to assist in providing hearing. Many other forms of technology actually bridge the communication gap.



I agree that the deaf children have a hard time learning spoken English and that is why I believe the CI is wonderful invention that would help these children acquire spoken language much easier.

The CI provides a degree of auditory perception, only. It does not necessarily follow that an implanted child will learn to speak. And that assumption in and of itself is the reasonthat so many CI mplanted children are now being transferred to deaf schools so language deprived that the probability is high that they will ever be able to catch up developmentally.

but that's separate subject - At the same time I don't believe the deaf child HAS TO acquire the perfect spoken language ability. To me it's not neccessary. Indeed history shows the deaf are able to live independent lives wihout having to speak or hear. But, once again this is separate subject, one that has nothing to do with the efficiency of HAs, CIs, or benefits of early implantation. Or even the benefits of acquiring speech.

Fuzzy

If itsa not necessary,then why the remarks about leaving a child to be deaf and learn ASL?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Even the profoundly deaf have some degree of residual hearing. That residual hearing is destroyed through implantation. The implant is not always successful. What then?

First, you have to ask the question - what good is that residual hearing anyway? as good as nothing. it's pathetic, it's grasping at straws.
A deaf person is as deaf as deaf goes with all that wonderful residual.
So if you destroy it thru implantation, you lose also nothing or very little.

Actually,shel's agenda is not hiddeen. Its right out there for all to see. Her agenda is quality education of deaf children.

Actually, what I am talking about has nothing to do with the quality of education.
her hidden agenda, of which even she herself might not be fully aware, is showing CI in certain light, under pretenses of neutrality.

"Should" is a word that you need to use very carefully.

I am very careful of the words I chose.

How exactly do you determine the level of benefit? By ability to learn speech? My, that's a narrow point of view.

By ability to HEAR and RECOGNIZE sounds and speech.

The hearing aid is able to provide the same level of benefit to EVERYONE.
But it's up to the individual how much benefit one receives from such aid. And that depends not only on the level of hearing loss, but also the ability to understand speech and sounds.

BTW, did you notice the hearing aids are all the same when it comes to the way they work?... All they can do, is merely, indifferently, amplify sound to x degree, reduce or not background noise, switch to telephone mode, that's it.

Exactly how do YOU determine the level of benefit?

What about the parents who have wasted time that couldhave been spent actually developing true communication withtheir deaf child by not learning sign?

TIMEWISE, they waste time.
But you must be aware that while ASL is relatively easy to learn and can be learned at any time, the ability to understand sound and speech and to speak dimnishes with age greatly.

No, it doesn't. A hearing environment is not dependdent upon sight, vibrational awareness (kinesthetic sense), olifactory sense, or a sense of taste. A hearing environment requires only hearing

So, how do you communicate with hearing people, for example when you are forced to ask for directions - do you vibrate, lick, or expel strong meaningful odour?

What about all of the technology that can give a deaf person "voice" and allow them to function optimally in a hearing environment?

What about it?

If itsa not necessary,then why the remarks about leaving a child to be deaf and learn ASL?

Exactly, that's the whole point. Think about it.

Fuzzy

 

[Cloggy]

No, cloggy, babbling does not always indicate that a child can hear, any more than a deaf older child, adolescent, or adult making vocal sounds indictes that they can hear. The feedback the child receives is not auditory stimuli, but the reaction from the parent or caregiver. That is the reinforcement. These phases are soon replaced with attempts to imitate what is heard in a hearing child. The deaf child will not progress to this stage inthe same way a hearing child does. In addition, deaf children exposed to sign from infancy hand babble.

Sure J...

So you're saying that the sounds made by a hearing child in it's first year of life, are the same as the sounds a deaf childs makes early in life...
Yeh.... right..!

"In addition, deaf children exposed to sign from infancy hand babble.".... I know... so you agree that "babbling" is an indicator of the language that will be used....
Like I said...

Where did you see the word wrong in my post?

General attitude....

And regarding your second assertion, surgical intervention does not always allow a completely deaf child to hear. Even the profoundly deaf have some degree of residual hearing. That residual hearing is destroyed through implantation. The implant is not always successful. What then?

Just a thought.... The child is .... deaf...!!

 

[Cloggy]

While the success rate is high when measured in terms of creating some degree of sound perception, when the parameters are narrowed, the success rates decline.

What's the success rate of deaf children growing up Deaf.... especially "when the parameters are narrowed"...???

So, if a child is implanted, andis unable to fully function in an oral environment even withthe implant, it is that child's fault?

So, if a child is not implanted, and is unable to fully function in an oral environment, it is that child's fault?

 

[Cloggy]

Fallicious comparison. You guys need to use examples that are pertinent and comparable.

The fact you don't like the comparison doesn't make it wrong.

When did I ever say it was a bad thing, cloggy?

Your general attitude.

I've only said that hearing was not the most important thing.

Neither have I.
You just couldn't answer a simple question (post 43). Actually, you could have, but you didn't want to admit that a deaf child that can hear can do just as much as a deaf child that cannot hear. Plus. It can hear...

So now you're trying to wiggle your way out of your incompetence to admit that by saying "I've only said that hearing was not the most important thing."... welll, we all agree on that - BUT that was not the question - now was it?

 

[Cloggy]

Hearing children naturally acquire spoken language thru their auditory channels and deaf children naturally acquire ASL through the visual channel and both are equally easy. Why should deaf children have to work harder while the hearing kids get the easy way out? .........

Children will learn any language. My children speak Dutch, Norwegian, starting English, and they know some sign. Learning goes naturally.

But, when I had only taught them Dutch, and then told them to write Norwegian - without them speaking it, now that would be a stretch.
Or perhaps writing Russian would be a better comparison. Having to write with characters that you have no "sound-" connectio with.
(or even worse.... Chinese..)

So, when a child learns ASL, and then it needs to learn to write, it needs to learn another language in order to do this, without speaking the language it writes.
When a child learns to hear and speak, writing is just a natural flow...

So, when you choose ASL for your child, YOU are making it harder for the child. YOU make the child work harder...
And children will be able to do this... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf. And some don't.... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf.

 

[Cloggy]

I absolutely agree with you, Leibling! I have said it often....music seen is as beautiful as music heard when I talked about watching my son's signing choir perform. And that goes with any other sound. For instance, feeling the crash of a wave with your body is just as exciting as hearing a wave crash, and on and on.

And a deaf person that hears would not be able to do this?

 

[shel90]

Children will learn any language. My children speak Dutch, Norwegian, starting English, and they know some sign. Learning goes naturally.

But, when I had only taught them Dutch, and then told them to write Norwegian - without them speaking it, now that would be a stretch.
Or perhaps writing Russian would be a better comparison. Having to write with characters that you have no "sound-" connectio with.
(or even worse.... Chinese..)

So, when a child learns ASL, and then it needs to learn to write, it needs to learn another language in order to do this, without speaking the language it writes.
When a child learns to hear and speak, writing is just a natural flow...

So, when you choose ASL for your child, YOU are making it harder for the child. YOU make the child work harder...
And children will be able to do this... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf. And some don't.... plenty of examples around on AllDeaf.

So u are saying that ASL causes deaf people to have poor writing skills?

Did u know that ASL makes learning writing easier for the child because they have a strong L1 language? It is being deprived of and delayed in language that makes writing difficult for deaf children not ASL. I have seen proof of that constantly and I have constantly stated how important that the child to have a strong and internalized language before they start school.

Language deprivation is the root of deaf children's literacy problems and ASL doesnt cause language deprviation...being put in an oral-only environment does that to many children if they struggle with it.

 

[rick48]

I go away for a few days and look what happens!

fuzzy great posts!

 

[rick48]

"Gee, rick, I could offer the same suggestion to you. Why don't you make yourself deaf, get a CI, and then try to live in an oral environment 24/7 and then you will know what your daughter experiences firsthand?"

Well for starters since I would be receiving my implant as a lost-lingually late deafened adult, I would not have the same experiences as my daughter since she received hers as a prelingually deafened toddler. As I have yet to see what advantages there are to be gained by affirmatively depriving myself or my child of the use of one the primary senses, I will pass on your suggestion. I am just surpised how you have not taken that route as you appear to believe that denying a child the opportunity to develop the use of a primary sense is more beneficial then providing that opportunity to a child. I guess when it comes down to it, your money is not where your mouth is but I will be all ears awaiting your response.

 

[rick48]

"The same way a parent tries to make their child hearing...through surgical intervention and lingustic restrictions."

What surgery is it that can make a deaf child hearing? I must of missed it while I was researching the cochlear implant. So by imposing linguistic restrictions on my hearing daughter I have made her deaf. Wait till she hears that!

 

[rick48]

"Here's the scenario: HEARING parents of deaf children get the CI for their child. Someone was wondering out loud this one: Why can't DEAF parents who have HEARING children make their children deaf?

This is interesting in itself but I am asking if it would even be legal?"

The attempt to compare two unlike events in an attempt to prove that they are actually the opposite of each other is not an example of irony but rather one of flawed reasoning. The cochlear implant is a recognized and approved medical device or prosthesis that can only be given to people through a surgery and, at least in the United States, has been given approval by the FDA after years of medical trials and research. I am not aware of any surgical procedure to affirmatively destroy a child's otherwise viable hearing that has been approved by either the FDA or any governmental regulatory entity worldwide. Are you?

Therefore, it seems that the Deaf parent's options are to somehow ram some sort of sharp instrument into their child's ears in the hopes of destroying that child's otherwise viable hearing while hopefully causing no other injury or trauma to the child they allegedly profess to love.

No irony involved at all. There is no incongruity involved, in one instance a deaf child remains a deaf child but is given the possiblility to hear and to acquire speech and in the other, a hearing child is made deaf and can no longer hear adn without some intervention have speech skills that begin to deteriorate. The cochlear implant is a legally recognized exercise of parental rights. Your scenario would be considered the crime of assault under virtually all penal codes.

 

[Maria]

There's so much wrong with your arguments, but the last sentence really shows you have no clue.

Nobody rushes in CI. It is not possible,
It's not the "easy way out",
It requires patience..

Well, maybe that word " rush " is not the right word to describe it. I will explain somethin' else .. similiar to that word " rush " but, in a different way. Hearin' parents chose CI over hearin' aids, just because they want a deaf child to be ABLE to HEAR better than HA. They think that CI will process more faster than HA - I mean, develope to be able to hear. That's what I mean about " rush " .. why chose CI to make it a little faster to be able to hear rather than HA ? Oh, yeah just because it has a better technology rather than HA and it has its own part to help somethin' inside the brain by feedin' the sounds or somethin'. I don't think if the hearin' parents have good patience. They want somethin' BETTER & FAST as the easy way out... that's like wantin' to teach a deaf child to grow up fast... I mean, that's waaaay ahead with a huge gap in between.

And how do you know a deaf child will not hold it against his parents that he did not get the possibility to hear.?

Because, I know. Look at me, I am deaf and I don't hold it against my parents that I don't get the possibility to hear. I wore HAs when I was a small child. I NEVER thought of what they have out there that might help me to learn how to talk. I don't know anythin' until my parents show me the HAs and what they were for. I accepted and wore it. They even took me to a speech therapist to learn how to talk. At the age of 8, I learned how to sign through my old pal. There was no " harm " to conflict my health or anythin' from HAs and signings. I was perfectly healthy while growin' up. I even learned that by learnin' sign language, it increased my insights rather than HAs does. More focus on important things such as drivin'. I use my eyes most of times, never got a ticket from a cop on the roads for over 25 years. Thanks to sign language because it trained my visual better than my ears to hear with HAs.

How do you make it to be that it can only be the child with CI that would resent it's parents? Isn't it just as possible the other way around.
For the child with CI, it can stop using CI and start a deaf life.
For the deaf child.... not as easy to get CI and start a hearing life..

I believe that CI is the " easy way out " for the hearin' parents and it's all FOR the hearin' parents, not for the CHILD - oh, because the parents are just hearin'. I opposed that. That's like " Read my lips. You can read my lips. " It's all about the hearin' parents. They don't want to learn sign language as a first language for the DEAF child to begin with. Why put CI first before language ? This deaf child is not blind... or is he/she ? Deaf child CAN READ parents' signings thru the eyes. Eyes can understand. Sign language helps a deaf child to THINK, too. Creative.

 

[rick48]

"Once again, I offer technology to you. CI is but one form of technology, and it is a technology designed only to assist in providing hearing. Many other forms of technology actually bridge the communication gap."

Name one that provides the profoundly deaf person with as much access to sound as the cochlear implant.

Anyone who has any degree of knowledge in this area will tell you that if you can increase the person's ability to hear, especially if you can get it into the "speech banana" then there is a greater probability that the person can develop speech, so the two are intrinsically linked together not separate as you erroneously attempt to argue.


"The CI provides a degree of auditory perception, only. It does not necessarily follow that an implanted child will learn to speak. And that assumption in and of itself is the reasonthat so many CI mplanted children are now being transferred to deaf schools so language deprived that the probability is high that they will ever be able to catch up developmentally."

Wrong-see above and where are you getting your facts? The number of mainstreaming children is increasing while the enrollment in deaf schools has continued to decline.

Cite your source for the number of ci children being transferred to deaf schools and please do not use Shel as your source as she has already demonstrated her true feelings about the ci. Cite facts.

Imagine a teacher in a deaf school who has implanted children not wearing them or not using them to the best of their ability and she does not care to know why. "Too busy"? Give me a break!

 

[Cloggy]

So u are saying that ASL causes deaf people to have poor writing skills?

Wonderfull conclusion. You're wrong! - I never said that. I have seen the writing skills of people that use mainly ASL on Alldeaf and it tells a lot.
I'm saying that for children that grow up with ASl as a first language, learning to write is an extra challenge..., an extra language to learn.
Have a look on AllDeaf.

Did u know that ASL makes learning writing easier for the child because they have a strong L1 language?

So, with that idea, wouldn't it be easier for children if they could actually write their L1 language?
And, regarding learning English with strong L1-language... what do you make of this post... or this one...

It is being deprived of and delayed in language that makes writing difficult for deaf children not ASL. I have seen proof of that constantly and I have constantly stated how important that the child to have a strong and internalized language before they start school.

Exactly. That's why we have the focus on speaking Dutch and Norwegian for Lotte.. To establish a good L1/L2.

Language deprivation is the root of deaf children's literacy problems and ASL doesnt cause language deprviation...being put in an oral-only environment does that to many children if they struggle with it.

Of course ASL can be the cause of it. When a child grows up in an area where ASL is not much used, how is it going to learn if well.
When only the direct family uses ASL, and the level is not high, how is the child going to learn it.?
Just like oral-only, asl-only can be just as bad. Except... oral examples are all around the child. The whole day, the whole week..

 

[Cloggy]

I go away for a few days and look what happens!

fuzzy great posts!

Indeed...

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy: There's so much wrong with your arguments, but the last sentence really shows you have no clue.
Nobody rushes in CI. It is not possible,
It's not the "easy way out",
It requires patience..

Well, maybe that word " rush " is not the right word to describe it. I will explain somethin' else .. similiar to that word " rush " but, in a different way. Hearin' parents chose CI over hearin' aids, just because they want a deaf child to be ABLE to HEAR better than HA. They think that CI will process more faster than HA - I mean, develope to be able to hear. That's what I mean about " rush " .. why chose CI to make it a little faster to be able to hear rather than HA ? Oh, yeah just because it has a better technology rather than HA and it has its own part to help somethin' inside the brain by feedin' the sounds or somethin'. I don't think if the hearin' parents have good patience. They want somethin' BETTER & FAST as the easy way out... that's like wantin' to teach a deaf child to grow up fast... I mean, that's waaaay ahead with a huge gap in between.

See, this is where you show - again - that you have the wrong idea about CI. One cannot choose the CI over a HA. When a HA works, there's no need for a CI. And the normal procedure is still that a HA has to be used first, and when it's obvious that there's no benefit, THEN a CI can be considered.
So please. READ about CI, instead of just accepting Deaf "facts" about CI....

Cloggy: And how do you know a deaf child will not hold it against his parents that he did not get the possibility to hear.?
Because, I know. Look at me, I am deaf and I don't hold it against my parents that I don't get the possibility to hear. ........

Was it an option in that (what year?) time?
Did your parents consider it?

Cloggy: How do you make it to be that it can only be the child with CI that would resent it's parents? Isn't it just as possible the other way around.
For the child with CI, it can stop using CI and start a deaf life.
For the deaf child.... not as easy to get CI and start a hearing life..
I believe that CI is the " easy way out " for the hearin' parents and it's all FOR the hearin' parents, not for the CHILD - oh, because the parents are just hearin'. I opposed that. That's like " Read my lips. You can read my lips. " It's all about the hearin' parents. They don't want to learn sign language as a first language for the DEAF child to begin with. Why put CI first before language ? This deaf child is not blind... or is he/she ? Deaf child CAN READ parents' signings thru the eyes. Eyes can understand. Sign language helps a deaf child to THINK, too. Creative.

SO, you mean it's in the childs interest to learn ASL, so that it can communicate with less than 0.02% of the people that actually do speak the language. It will have a hard time communicating with the other 99.8% that does not speak ASL....
And this is good for the child - because???

And about "Why put CI first before language ?".... you still don't get it... CI allows the child to have a language... Just like ASL.
Parents that choose for CI for their child, make the choice that the child will grow up with a language. And not a language that is only visual but cannot be written, but a language that can be spoken, written and cued.

And - here's the scary part....

Some parents will also use signlanguage with these children...
Scary.... Children with CI that can hear, speak AND sign....
Have you ever thought that possible...????

Now, please... have a look beyond "deafness only"..

 

[jillio]

What's the success rate of deaf children growing up Deaf.... especially "when the parameters are narrowed"...???

And how would you narrow those parameters, cloggy. You are attempting to apply a statement I made regarding CI failure rates to something that requires another form of measurement.

So, if a child is not implanted, and is unable to fully function in an oral environment, it is that child's fault?

That was a question addressed to another poster who made a statement implying such. Your response is both inappropriate and unnecessary.