Does CI person need interpreter?

[jillio]

I've got to tellyou, although I agree with you Jackie 90% of the time, this time I would have to disagree with you. To be quite honest, I would LOVE to have a teacher like Shel working with my son. Oral or not, because she (correct me if I'm wrong Shel and making an assumption) she is there for the kids- to help them succeed- no matter what the mode of communicaiton is. I would LOVE for my son to see a Deaf teacher in that role. I wouldn't object to it at all. After all, my opinion is that my son is in school to learn- albeit hie is mainstreamed and communicates orally, I don't think it's a terrible thing to have Shel teaching him. To me, it's just opening up another door for him and I think the rewards are BIG for my son and for Shel (hypothecially speaking of course). I don't get the sense that even though Shel maybe against CI's, she would ever hurt the success of a student by "holding a gruge". I am only saying this in my own personal experience, because my son's TOD is not there all day (he has another classroom teacher) and depending on the cirriculum, she either pulls in or pulls out. I think it could work, actually, and be a great experience for all.

And while I am stepping in, I just want to clarify that shel is not against CIs in any way. Shel is against CI being used as an excuse to keep children in sub-par educational environments based on the mistaken assumption that the CI allows them to function the same as hearing children in a classroom.

 

[Drew's Dad]

Those are still diseases, in the classical sense of the word. Cleft palate can lead to feeding difficulties, which result in an infant's inability to survive. A broken bone is just that, something broken that needs to be repaired. An impacted tooth, as well, can lead to infection which can be life threatening. The comparison is fallicious.

All of these things can happen "naturally", and the surgery required to "fix" all of those conditions is almost always not necessary to save a life. I don't see the fallacy in the comparison, even though the situations are certainly not identical.

 

[jillio]

All of these things can happen "naturally", and the surgery required to "fix" all of those conditions is almost always not necessary to save a life. I don't see the fallacy in the comparison, even though the situations are certainly not identical.

The fallacy in comparison lies in the fact that a broken bone was once whole, is broken, and in need of medical intervention to return it to it former whole state. A cleft palate is a condition that has numerous health implications, and requires surgery for the individual to be functional, from a feeding standpoint, and a health standpoint. Likewise with an impacted tooth. Deafness is none of those. Deafness does not negatively impact the individual from a health standpoint, nor are a congenitally deafened child possess something which is broken. As I stated in another thread, we need to see the glass as full, even if a child is deaf, rather than "half empty" as a result of the deafness.

And, the fact of the matter is, as related to the original topic of the thread, there are numerous CI users that require the same accommodations that a non-CI user requires...including terps.

 

[Drew's Dad]

The fallacy in comparison lies in the fact that a broken bone was once whole, is broken, and in need of medical intervention to return it to it former whole state. A cleft palate is a condition that has numerous health implications, and requires surgery for the individual to be functional, from a feeding standpoint, and a health standpoint. Likewise with an impacted tooth. Deafness is none of those. Deafness does not negatively impact the individual from a health standpoint, nor are a congenitally deafened child possess something which is broken. As I stated in another thread, we need to see the glass as full, even if a child is deaf, rather than "half empty" as a result of the deafness.

And, the fact of the matter is, as related to the original topic of the thread, there are numerous CI users that require the same accommodations that a non-CI user requires...including terps.

The point is simply that those conditions or situations (or use one of many others) do not call for "life saving" surgery. They may relieve pain, prevent possible complications, or repair something that has been broken during life, but they are not "life saving" procedures.

The point did not attempt to compare deafness to a broken bone, but rather simply pointed out that there are many surgeries that are not technically "life saving" that the author would likely be in favor of for children, when what they actually said was that only life saving surgeries should be performed.

 

[rick48]

Actually, shel teaches in a Bi-Bi atmosphere, and the last time I checked, that was still an atmosphere that included BOTH sign and spoken language, not one or the other. And the reason that you would not be hired to teach in such an atmosphere is simply because you are not fluent in both languages.

Actually its a mono athmosphere as Shel has already stated that she and many teachers do not use their voices at all in thier classroom instruction and never denied my statement that virtually all conversation throughout the day between students, teachers and administrators outside of S&L therapy is done manually.

So spoken English skills in a bi-bi program are as useful as screen doors on submarines.

My opinion of course.

 

[rick48]

The fallacy in comparison lies in the fact that a broken bone was once whole, is broken, and in need of medical intervention to return it to it former whole state. A cleft palate is a condition that has numerous health implications, and requires surgery for the individual to be functional, from a feeding standpoint, and a health standpoint. Likewise with an impacted tooth. Deafness is none of those. Deafness does not negatively impact the individual from a health standpoint, nor are a congenitally deafened child possess something which is broken. As I stated in another thread, we need to see the glass as full, even if a child is deaf, rather than "half empty" as a result of the deafness.

And, the fact of the matter is, as related to the original topic of the thread, there are numerous CI users that require the same accommodations that a non-CI user requires...including terps.

So by your "logic" all those who were born hearing and lose thier hearing from let's say meninngitis should be implanted.

BTW we parents of ci kids see the glass as neither half empty or half full but now not only full but overflowing.

 

[deafdyke]

One thing I have found is most children are fascinated with ASL.

Agreed. Kids LOVE disabilty things..........to them things like Braille, wheelchairs, afos etc are "fun" things.
Wish more parents had that attitude.
Oh, and does anyone find it ironic that a lot of the parents who aren't exactly excited about Sign, would jump at the chance for their kid to be bilingal in any other language? It's just that ASL has the stigma of being special needs or a "crutch"

 

[jillio]

The point is simply that those conditions or situations (or use one of many others) do not call for "life saving" surgery. They may relieve pain, prevent possible complications, or repair something that has been broken during life, but they are not "life saving" procedures.

The point did not attempt to compare deafness to a broken bone, but rather simply pointed out that there are many surgeries that are not technically "life saving" that the author would likely be in favor of for children, when what they actually said was that only life saving surgeries should be performed.

Got your point. Except that surgery for cleft palate could indeed to be considered life saving. Just not heroic. And that repair of a broken bone insures that further accommodation is not required by addditional functional limitations that would result directly from not repairing said fracture. My only point is that CI surgery does not insure that the same accommodations required by the non-CI implanted, i.e. the large number of CI implanted students that continue to require terps and visual language for complete access. That is what the thread is concerned with.

 

[Boult]

Actually its a mono athmosphere as Shel has already stated that she and many teachers do not use their voices at all in thier classroom instruction and never denied my statement that virtually all conversation throughout the day between students, teachers and administrators outside of S&L therapy is done manually.

So spoken English skills in a bi-bi program are as useful as screen doors on submarines.

My opinion of course.

Of course! in bi-bi it is like ASL first then reading/writing while spoken english (speech therapy or avt) is optional and not required. So it is not a level playing field but a lopsided.

 

[jillio]

Actually its a mono athmosphere as Shel has already stated that she and many teachers do not use their voices at all in thier classroom instruction and never denied my statement that virtually all conversation throughout the day between students, teachers and administrators outside of S&L therapy is done manually.

So spoken English skills in a bi-bi program are as useful as screen doors on submarines.

My opinion of course.

A bi-bi atmosphere is not determined by the spoken form of a language alone. And it is not a monolinguitic atmosphere, because various forms of English are used, along with ASL, which makes it a bilingual atmosphere. There is much more to English fluency and literacy than being able to speak.

And, this is not my opinion.

 

[jillio]

Of course! in bi-bi it is like ASL first then reading/writing while spoken english (speech therapy or avt) is optional and not required. So it is not a level playing field but a lopsided.

How do you consider that to make the playing field lopsided? What I see as lopsided is the playing field that restricts the deaf child to a single language to the degree that speech skills are equated to literacy skills, thereby, having a negative impact on the child's education across domains.

 

[shel90]

A bi-bi atmosphere is not determined by the spoken form of a language alone. And it is not a monolinguitic atmosphere, because various forms of English are used, along with ASL, which makes it a bilingual atmosphere. There is much more to English fluency and literacy than being able to speak.

And, this is not my opinion.

Geez, people are so discriminating against ASL. Nothing new. They dont want to see how ASL has given Deaf children access to literacy, knowledge and so much more. They just see speech as being the primary goal.

 

[shel90]

How do you consider that to make the playing field lopsided? What I see as lopsided is the playing field that restricts the deaf child to a single language to the degree that speech skills are equated to literacy skills, thereby, having a negative impact on the child's education across domains.

I agreed but it doesnt matter to them cuz ASL is evil to them.

 

[rick48]

Of course! in bi-bi it is like ASL first then reading/writing while spoken english (speech therapy or avt) is optional and not required. So it is not a level playing field but a lopsided.

Agreed, like I said earlier, calling it Bi-Bi is actually a misnomer. Also, why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize the teaching/indoctrination of any culture?

Rick

 

[rick48]

I agreed but it doesnt matter to them cuz ASL is evil to them.

Resorting to false labels only weakens your position. The program you described is ASL first and foremost and in reality little emphasis on the development of oral language and speech skills as evidenced by the fact tthat not only is your classroom instruction done in ASL but you do not even use your voice or at the very least mouth the words.

 

[jillio]

Agreed, like I said earlier, calling it Bi-Bi is actually a misnomer. Also, why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize the teaching/indoctrination of any culture?

Rick

It is done everyday for hearing children. Why not for deaf children? Are your tax dollars more important that educating children? If so, I would suggest that education is the most effective way to insure that they become fully functioning adults that do not have to rely on any form of public assistance and dip into those precious tax coffers.

You claim that Bi-Bi is a misnomer. On exactly what basis? Have you visited various Bi-Bi programs? Do you have a degree in education? Do you have direct experience with anything other than oral only education?

 

[jillio]

Resorting to false labels only weakens your position. The program you described is ASL first and foremost and in reality little emphasis on the development of oral language and speech skills as evidenced by the fact tthat not only is your classroom instruction done in ASL but you do not even use your voice or at the very least mouth the words.

A Bi-Bi program concentrates on the development of English skills through the use of ASL as the language of instruction to teach English as a second language. English cannot be reduced to the spoken word only. It is only the oralists that refuse to see this distinction. Being able to speak is certainly not going to get a deaf adult a job if they can't read and write. And being able to speak is not indicative of language fluency.

 

[jillio]

Geez, people are so discriminating against ASL. Nothing new. They dont want to see how ASL has given Deaf children access to literacy, knowledge and so much more. They just see speech as being the primary goal.

Exactly. They are failing to see that being able to speak does not equate to language fluency. If it did, we would not be seeing deaf children with good oral skills but unable to sequence, to comprehend the written word, and the inability to create a grammatically correct English sentence.

 

[jillio]

In relation to the main question in this study, how CI children communicatively perform in mainstream education with regard to their normal-hearing peers, the SIFFER outcome showed that the CI children were delayed in communication in kindergarten, as well

Nevertheless, in the area of communication on the SIFTFR, the Cl pupils failed or scored marginally. The CI group scored significantly less well than did their normal-hearing peers on most questionnaire domains of both the AMP and the SIFTFR.


Speech recognition scores do not always imply better classroom performance. Besides speech perception, it is acknowledged that language development could have played a substantial role in the performance of CI children in mainstream educational settings.

Damen, G., et.al. (2006). Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Larynology.11.'>|7):542-552,

 

[shel90]

Resorting to false labels only weakens your position. The program you described is ASL first and foremost and in reality little emphasis on the development of oral language and speech skills as evidenced by the fact tthat not only is your classroom instruction done in ASL but you do not even use your voice or at the very least mouth the words.

Just like u resort to false labels by calling us anti-CI.