GEEZ! Here we go with this BS!

faire_jour said:
Their agenda is to teach deaf children English through listening and spoken language. That is their goal, plan and simple.
Click to expand...

Even it means making my friend feel like shit about not implanting her children? Ok..whatever.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
A lot of people think deaf children must have a CI or two CIs. Well, funny, I see the opposite; deaf people with HAs are good at speech and listening. :dunno:

I guess people with HAs are not count. So whatever. :roll:
Click to expand...

Exactly..u understand what I mean! I am very concerned about these kinds of views becoming rampant among society against us.
 
shel90 said:
Even it means making my friend feel like shit about not implanting her children? Ok..whatever.
Click to expand...

She shouldn't feel bad, she didn't want them to get CI's, so the oral path wasn't appropriate, there is nothing wrong with that.

Oral schools have lots of kids with HA's but for kids with severe-profound losses, hearing aids will not provide enough access to speech for most kids to learn language through listening. THAT is why they would recommend a CI. They school would look at the child's loss, and their functioning, and the rate at which they are learning language and if it isn't appropriate, they would recommend a CI, or a change in schools.
 
faire_jour said:
She shouldn't feel bad, she didn't want them to get CI's, so the oral path wasn't appropriate, there is nothing wrong with that.

Oral schools have lots of kids with HA's but for kids with severe-profound losses, hearing aids will not provide enough access to speech for most kids to learn language through listening. THAT is why they would recommend a CI. They school would look at the child's loss, and their functioning, and the rate at which they are learning language and if it isn't appropriate, they would recommend a CI, or a change in schools.
Click to expand...


This makes perfect sense to me.... ya gotta work with what you can and find what works best for that individual..
 
faire_jour said:
She shouldn't feel bad, she didn't want them to get CI's, so the oral path wasn't appropriate, there is nothing wrong with that.

Oral schools have lots of kids with HA's but for kids with severe-profound losses, hearing aids will not provide enough access to speech for most kids to learn language through listening. THAT is why they would recommend a CI. They school would look at the child's loss, and their functioning, and the rate at which they are learning language and if it isn't appropriate, they would recommend a CI, or a change in schools.
Click to expand...


They told her that there was something wrong with her thinking for not implaning her children. Pls tell me that is not acceptable?
 
shel90 said:
They told her that there was something wrong with her thinking for not implaning her children. Pls tell me that is not acceptable?
Click to expand...

No, that is not ok. Judgement and name-calling is never ok.

I am just saying that the oral school recommending a CI was the responsible thing to do. How much worse would it be if these schools allowed students to be underamplified, unable to access language and left for years without a way to communicate. They are being responsible by not allowing students who wouldn't be successful with their methods.
 
ya know what.. 40 yrs ago this would never have been a problem.. deaf children remained deaf.. and there is nothing wrong with that.. there have been many deaf people who became successful without a CI. It's all in what the parents want for their children.. TO CI or not to CI its no one elses business than the parents and the childs.. anyone else's opinion means nothing.
 
faire_jour said:
No, that is not ok. Judgement and name-calling is never ok.

I am just saying that the oral school recommending a CI was the responsible thing to do. How much worse would it be if these schools allowed students to be underamplified, unable to access language and left for years without a way to communicate. They are being responsible by not allowing students who wouldn't be successful with their methods.
Click to expand...

Both of her deaf sons have very very good oral skills. Yet, it wasnt good enough for the parents and staff at that oral school.

Just the feelign that deaf people cant be good enough unless they perform like hearing people. Get my drift?
 
Weird, Oral schools used to welcome any deaf kids who are hoping to see ANY deaf kids to be able to learn how to listening and speaking in general. Then all of a sudden, oral schools aren't looking for deaf kids anymore because deaf kids don't have CIs, They start to see kids with CIs due to the better technologies in their oral school programs. I thought they are interested in encouraging kids to learn how to speak and listen but they rely on CI alone like they aren't interested in kids' future but CI itself have futures. That is not a good case because most schools forget about other kids with no CIs' futures and spending many hours of working with CI itself to see what CI itself can do or don't for Kids.
Yeah That's how I feel with hearing people like it's their motto's. "Without a CI, you are not good enough in the hearing world. get lost." That's what hearing people's point of views are all about. That is the another story.
 
Frisky Feline said:
Weird, Oral schools used to welcome any deaf kids who are hoping to see ANY deaf kids to be able to learn how to listening and speaking in general. Then all of a sudden, oral schools aren't looking for deaf kids anymore because deaf kids don't have CIs, They start to see kids with CIs due to the better technologies in their oral school programs. I thought they are interested in encouraging kids to learn how to speak and listen but they rely on CI alone like they aren't interested in kids' future but CI itself have futures. That is not a good case because most schools forget about other kids with no CIs' futures and spending many hours of working with CI itself to see what CI itself can do or don't for Kids.
Yeah That's how I feel with hearing people like it's their motto's. "Without a CI, you are not good enough in the hearing world. get lost." That's what hearing people's point of views are all about. That is the another story.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that they are trying to help the kids. They don't want kids to fall behind, or suffer without language. They don't want them to struggle to understand their peers and the teachers. They don't want their cognition and literacy to suffer because of the inability to access language through listening. They have learned that oralism does NOT work for many kids, so they are trying to give the kids that would struggle another method of learning language, ASL.

How is that bad? It is responsible and better for the kids.
 
I remember a certain poster who said my CI doctor forgot to implant a brain because I don't care much for SEE. I'm like oh great here we go again when I read the OP's post.
 
faire_jour said:
I disagree. I think that they are trying to help the kids. They don't want kids to fall behind, or suffer without language. They don't want them to struggle to understand their peers and the teachers. They don't want their cognition and literacy to suffer because of the inability to access language through listening. They have learned that oralism does NOT work for many kids, so they are trying to give the kids that would struggle another method of learning language, ASL.

How is that bad? It is responsible and better for the kids.
Click to expand...

I think it may vary from school to school as well Faire-- there are some that seem to be more open to letting kids sign than others... Adam's is not open to it so much... not even to facilitate more speech-- he doesn't sign like a pro, but uses it to get some points across while saying the word (he's more TC) but it doesn't fly very well in his little 'oral' school

But what upsets me is the blatant 'disgust' some parents display when I say I'm not sure a CI would be the best thing for Adam... even if his hearing decreases more in his 'moderate' ear...
 
Jiro said:
eh nothing to get pissy about. I lol'ed.

why? because he's so full of anger and I'm so full of love so who is living a good life now? :cool2:
Click to expand...

Good point ! Not worth to be upset or angry... Life is short !
 
Wirelessly posted

Frisky Feline said:
faire_jour said:
so they are trying to give the kids that would struggle another method of learning language, ASL.
.
Click to expand...

Do oral schools allow kids to learn ASL?
Click to expand...

no. They say "this school is not an appropriate placement for your child because (whatever reason they won't be successfully oral only)" and then refer them to a better placement, which would be a school that uses asl.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



no. They say "this school is not an appropriate placement for your child because (whatever reason they won't be successfully oral only)" and then refer them to a better placement, which would be a school that uses asl.
Click to expand...

right, the problem is that lots of deaf schools are closing slowly because those people don't pay attention to asl users or oral non ci user and focus on those ci users too excessive. So where will the asl users and oral non ci users go? :|
 
Frisky Feline said:
right, the problem is that lots of deaf schools are closing slowly because those people don't pay attention to asl users or oral non ci user and focus on those ci users too excessive. So where will the asl users and oral non ci users go? :|
Click to expand...

Do you know if the closings are disproportionately hitting a particular type of deaf school (using one particular methodology such as oral, AV, TC, bi-bi, asl, SEE, Cue or a structure, such as parochial, private, state, residential, day, etc.)?

(I've seen this listing from MishkaZena: http://www.mishkazena.com/2009/01/2...osings-or-severe-budget-cuts-some-not-severe/ but don't know if these include all types or reflect just ASL or oral, or so on)
 
Adamsmomma said:
I think it may vary from school to school as well Faire-- there are some that seem to be more open to letting kids sign than others... Adam's is not open to it so much... not even to facilitate more speech-- he doesn't sign like a pro, but uses it to get some points across while saying the word (he's more TC) but it doesn't fly very well in his little 'oral' school

But what upsets me is the blatant 'disgust' some parents display when I say I'm not sure a CI would be the best thing for Adam... even if his hearing decreases more in his 'moderate' ear...
Click to expand...

And that is the whole point of this thread...


The blantant disgustion by society becoming worse and worse against many of us who dont have CIs or choose not to get one.

It seems to be getting worse lately. :(
 
Empirical Science Advocate
Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 33
Sign: Leo

He is 33; he still immature. It is very interesting.
 
Back
Top