Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
seb said:
Yes, some who receive CI;s end up being linguistically deprived, just as their are some who use sign language who end up in the same situation, but I would make an educated guess that most do well if implanted early enough.
Click to expand...

You make an "educated guess" while discounting the use of educated guesses in the book you and AmputeeOT are discussing. Irony...
 
deafdyke said:
No private schools, no. But the public Special School District teaches in ASL. Matter of fact, if a child isn't doing too well at CID, St Joseph's or Moog, they get asked to leave and end up at the Special School District
Click to expand...
I had a friend who lived a stone's throw from the St. Joseph school for the Deaf and I felt sorry for the poor fellow because it was run by nuns (I'm pretty sure). Lol
He had a CI explanted and to tell the truth, I no longer feel sorry for him.
 
this so-called research sounds like AGBell propaganda to me. Anything that's all pro-speech/oral anti-ASL/signs = AGBell push. Tsk.
 
AmputeeOT said:
They do back up their claims with research. The problem is that the research is highly variable in outcomes. Which is why they can only make an educated guess, because that's all the research can give us at this point. It's not some kind of failure on their part at all. It has zero to do with their education and everything to do with the current, available research.

Yes, I do know Deaf adults, with CI, who were language deprived. Some are not language deprived, and some are.

You are disputing the fact that some children who are implanted end up linguistically deprived, based on your statement, "I wouldn't say that children who receive CI are language deprived"

Yet the research literature states otherwise. There are children, with CI, who are language-deprived.

"I know some who get along very well as well as a number of adults who also get along very well with their CI's too"

I am sure you do, but I know a number of implanted adults who do not get along well. I am not saying ALL children with CI are language deprived. Some of them do great! While others end up language deprived.

Just out of curiosity- do you think I am pro or anti-ci?
Click to expand...
Also, the thing is.....I think the meaning of language deprived means different things. AG Bell is interpreting it as being like those kids who ABSOLUTLY cannot speak or who have very low speech skills. Very luckily, those types of kids are rare. But one can be said to be langugage deprived if they have language DELAYS. Like a ten year old with the speech skills of an 8 or seven year old. The delays aren't SEVERE, but they still exist. In the study, 50% still had delays in spoken language!
 
cdmeggers said:
this so-called research sounds like AGBell propaganda to me. Anything that's all pro-speech/oral anti-ASL/signs = AGBell push. Tsk.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Wonder if they might have paid to get this published.
 
Beowulf said:
I had a friend who lived a stone's throw from the St. Joseph school for the Deaf and I felt sorry for the poor fellow because it was run by nuns (I'm pretty sure). Lol
He had a CI explanted and to tell the truth, I no longer feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...
Did you know St Joseph's is no longer a school? It's mostly a preschool with teletherapy services..... But yes, there used to be a bunch of Catholic Deaf schools run by nuns.
 
AmputeeOT said:
I don't know, and neither do you.

It could be that some of the 40 kids lost to follow up were lost because they transferred to a different educational program emphasized sign.

It could be that some kids would highly benefit from sign but their parents refuse to sign with them because of negative perceptions about signing.

It could be because none of them needed to add sign because they had sufficient oral skills.

It could be because parents whose kids fail to use their implants to develop functional speech and who give up using them entirely think, "why bother to follow up with this study about CI, my kid doesn't use it anyway."

(Note: I am not jumping to conclusions, forming ideas based on conjecture, or making assumptions. I am stating possible reasons why none of the kids added sign, to emphasize the point that we do not know and therefore should not make assumptions about why.)

I live in St. Louis which has NO schools for Deaf kids where they sign. It's ALL "listening and spoken language". I know many Deaf in the area who were not allowed to sign, or who thought signing was bad, and did not learn how to do it until they were in high school or adults. This is actually extremely common. They desperately wish their parents had let them learn earlier. Some kids themselves believed ASL was for those "poor disabled Deaf kids" and were against sign until their perspectives changed. I know other Deaf who never developed oral skills and never developed good signing skills and basically don't have a fluent language at all. That's a disgrace and society has failed those folks. The reason they never developed a fluent language is because their educators only gave them a language they were unable to access, due to negative perceptions that ASL would hinder their spoken language development.
Click to expand...
They very clearly stated why the 40 were not included in the study. You are forming theories that do not align with the stated facts.

St. Louis has public programs both in the city and county that use sign.

The non-use statistics for people implanted before age 5 is around 3%.
 
deafdyke said:
Also, the thing is.....I think the meaning of language deprived means different things. AG Bell is interpreting it as being like those kids who ABSOLUTLY cannot speak or who have very low speech skills. Very luckily, those types of kids are rare. But one can be said to be langugage deprived if they have language DELAYS. Like a ten year old with the speech skills of an 8 or seven year old. The delays aren't SEVERE, but they still exist. In the study, 50% still had delays in spoken language!
Click to expand...
Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term. As a teacher, I would have serious concerns if a child was not making more than month for month progress when enrolled in a language rich program. Without that, they will never close the gap.
 
deafdyke said:
Exactly. Wonder if they might have paid to get this published.
Click to expand...
You are again making actionable, slanderous accusations against both Ann Geers and the Pediatrics publication. Do you have any sort of evidence to back this up?
 
Beowulf said:
And? It is still not actionable.
We all have opinions.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer, but here is the legal definition of libel.

"to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue"
 
d9e194070e5449b9855f70f2dce8059ccf859146874ecdaed3d1412c488f9e08.jpg
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
I am not a lawyer, but here is the legal definition of libel.

"to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue"
Click to expand...
The key word is "obvious" here.
No court will agree that dd's posts were intentionally malicious.
Teacherofthedeaf, do not misunderstand us. We are neither pro-CI or anti-Ci. It is just that some of these studies run contrary to our own personal experiences, and do you expect us to sit back and say nothing? I do not want a fight, because no one ever wins a fight, but others may feel differently. Deafdyke is one of them because she is surprisingly knowledgeable, and we should let it go at that. You are also the same way, so ditto.
Don't take things so close to your heart unless they're actionable.
I am glad you are here, though.
 
"Damages." If there is no monetary damage (such as loss of income, being blacklisted or incurring legal expenses), then there is no case.
 
Reba said:
"Damages." If there is no monetary damage (such as loss of income, being blacklisted or incurring legal expenses), then there is no case.
Click to expand...
No kidding.
Hugging you anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top