Is oral deaf education really a threat?

jillio said:
But with her CIs she hears more. That is her functional level. Without her CIs turned on is her literal level. So why she may i.d as deaf even with her CI, functionally, her levels fall into the same category as HOH.
Click to expand...

Tested with her CIs on, she doesn't fall into what you are calling "HOH categories." She hears at 10-15 db across the band, her discrimination is currently at 96-100% in silence and in noise. But that doesn't mean she hears the same as or the same way as a typically-hearing person. Those results are defined within the context of being aided by her CIs and within specific testing environments, and she is considered to have profound hearing loss -- bilateral by her school and her doctors, regardless of accommodations for her hearing loss such as CIs, HAs, FM systems, soundproof rooms, etc.
 
jillio said:
But with her CIs she hears more. That is her functional level. Without her CIs turned on is her literal level. So why she may i.d as deaf even with her CI, functionally, her levels fall into the same category as HOH.

The distinction is important to areas like educational accommodation and workplace accommodation.
Click to expand...

As far I'm concerned my literal level is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Of course, I'm very dependent on the functional level my CI provides me to function in the hearing world. I'm very aware of that fact and the degree I'm dependent on technology. In other words, I'm screwed if the supply chain falls apart.
 
Tested with her CIs on, she doesn't fall into what you are calling "HOH categories." She hears at 10-15 db across the band, her discrimination is currently at 96-100% in silence and in noise. But that doesn't mean she hears the same as or the same way as a typically-hearing person. Those results are defined within the context of being aided by her CIs and within specific testing environments, and she is considered to have profound hearing loss -- bilateral by her school and her doctors,
Click to expand...
That is basicly functionally hoh. Not nessarily.....profound that's aided into the moderate speech range, but more like a moderate or mild kid who can hear pretty well with hearing aids.
Hoh encompasses a very wide range of listening and function abilty you know.....Not to mention that the speech discrimination test can be kind of misleading The trouble with speech discrimination tests is that the audis generally have very easy to understand speech. They subconsciously modify their speech to make it easy for dhh folks to understand them. Unfortunatly in the real world, not everyone does that...Not everyone has a "professional speaker" voice.
I think too that she's gonna be a "label switcher" I remember awhile back, people saying that they identified as both deaf and hoh depending on the sitution.
She does have a profound loss, which makes her basicly deaf. Absolutly no benifit from HAs, right? But with the CI on, she is functionally hoh. She hears like a hoh kid
Not a hearing kid
 
It looked for several years as if progress was actually being made in that direction. However, with more children being implanted, I see people reaching back into the past and dragging up methods for communication that were never intended for such...such as SEE I, SEE II, Cued Speech, etc. It appears to me that organizations that are in a position of making a profit off of these things are one more time, trying to convince hearing parents of children with CIs that, now that the CI has become available, these methods, long proven to be marginally effective in limited situations, are suddenly more effective. And unfortunately, parents are buying into it left and right. Why? Because of the belief that their child is different because they have a CI.

The CI does not fix the problems of these systems. It wasn't lack of hearing that made things like SEE and CS nominally effective. It was faults in the systems themselves. The designers of these systems failed to take processing issues in the brain into account when coming up with these systems. They were designed on the fly, and they have been proven to create linguistic confusion. The CI does not change that. But parents everywhere seem to be hanging onto the belief (mistaken) that it will. I find it very, very sad. The CI could provide so much more benefit for the children that have it if it were not used, so often, as an excuse for keeping a child in a restrictive oral environment.
Click to expand...
Yes, but jillo, Sign isn't generally used in a restrictive oral enviroment.
At least they are using some Sign. I totally get what you're saying. You're saying that using SEE and other artificical sign systems as a primary language is akin to using Spanglish in ESL programs for Spanish speaking kids, right?
 
deafdyke said:
That is basicly functionally hoh. Not nessarily.....profound that's aided into the moderate speech range, but more like a moderate or mild kid who can hear pretty well with hearing aids.
Hoh encompasses a very wide range of listening and function abilty you know.....Not to mention that the speech discrimination test can be kind of misleading The trouble with speech discrimination tests is that the audis generally have very easy to understand speech. They subconsciously modify their speech to make it easy for dhh folks to understand them. Unfortunatly in the real world, not everyone does that...Not everyone has a "professional speaker" voice.
I think too that she's gonna be a "label switcher" I remember awhile back, people saying that they identified as both deaf and hoh depending on the sitution.
She does have a profound loss, which makes her basicly deaf. Absolutly no benifit from HAs, right? But with the CI on, she is functionally hoh. She hears like a hoh kid
Not a hearing kid
Click to expand...

She tests at "functionally hearing" levels, not HOH, not mild or moderate. But I can tell you as her mother that she doesn't hear the way a typically hearing child does, so I think it's misleading to label her as either hearing or mild/moderate HOH based on those tests. Her doctors don't, her teachers don't. They consider her functionally deaf, but with access to sounds via CIs.

Her accommodations needed are different from a mild or moderate hearing child. She's a deaf child. When her CIs are turned on, coils are in firmly place, and there are no barriers to the sound, she has access to sound at the levels a hearing child would have. If someone is talking and she brushes her hair aside, moving the coil a centimeter to the left, she hears nothing. If her ski helmet moves the coil a centimeter to the side she goes from hearing me giving instruction 100 yards away to hearing nothing. She can hear conversations from the playground out a closed window as clearly as the teacher at the board, but if her batteries die in the middle of class, she hears nothing. It's very different from a 30db shift in degree of hearing when you take off a hearing aid. It's a 90+db shift. Her learning environment has to take into consideration that if she has a cold, if her equipment breaks, if the wind blows a certain way she can be participating with a 100db hearing loss. I agree with SR171Soars, that access to sound via CI is temporary and tenuous, it's not a permanent altering of a child's hearing state.

You know that I think the CI successfully provides my daughter with access to sound, but I think it is as important to understand the limitations: this tool does not make her hearing, nor does it make her mild or moderately HOH. She's deaf, with a tool that she picks up and uses to hear, and puts away when done.
 
GrendelQ said:
Tested with her CIs on, she doesn't fall into what you are calling "HOH categories." She hears at 10-15 db across the band, her discrimination is currently at 96-100% in silence and in noise. But that doesn't mean she hears the same as or the same way as a typically-hearing person. Those results are defined within the context of being aided by her CIs and within specific testing environments, and she is considered to have profound hearing loss -- bilateral by her school and her doctors, regardless of accommodations for her hearing loss such as CIs, HAs, FM systems, soundproof rooms, etc.
Click to expand...

Nevermind. You obviously don't get it and have no intention of trying to.:roll: Why must you argue with everything I say. Is your need to be on top really that profound?

Fact is, what I state is true. Accept it or not. Really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Learn the hard way if you must.

BTW: testing results are not real life transferable.
 
sr171soars said:
As far I'm concerned my literal level is irrelevant in the scheme of things. Of course, I'm very dependent on the functional level my CI provides me to function in the hearing world. I'm very aware of that fact and the degree I'm dependent on technology. In other words, I'm screwed if the supply chain falls apart.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But you will agree, that in terms of testing results that are necessary for accommodations, that the difference between functional levels and literal levels are important.

For instance, a parent that approaches a school system with a statement such as "My child is deaf but she can hear" is going to have a huge battle in getting any accommodation that may be necessary for that child. She has just shot herself in the foot.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. But you will agree, that in terms of testing results that are necessary for accommodations, that the difference between functional levels and literal levels are important.

For instance, a parent that approaches a school system with a statement such as "My child is deaf but she can hear" is going to have a huge battle in getting any accommodation that may be necessary for that child. She has just shot herself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Like most people did on CI thread.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. But you will agree, that in terms of testing results that are necessary for accommodations, that the difference between functional levels and literal levels are important.

For instance, a parent that approaches a school system with a statement such as "My child is deaf but she can hear" is going to have a huge battle in getting any accommodation that may be necessary for that child. She has just shot herself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Why are you so eager to insist that my child is not functionally deaf regardless of what her doctors, her educators and I say? Why don't you walk over to her during the half of each schoolday she is 'voices-off', when her CIs are turned off, and 'test' her yourself if you don't believe she's really deaf.
 
GrendelQ said:
Why are you so eager to insist that my child is not functionally deaf regardless of what her doctors, her educators and I say? Why don't you walk over to her during the half of each schoolday she is 'voices-off', when her CIs are turned off, and 'test' her yourself if you don't believe she's really deaf.
Click to expand...

She's literally deaf. We all know that. Without her CI's, she can hear no more than the rest of us who have a high DB loss.

Functionally -- if her speech discrimination and everything is what you have said it to be, she's not "functionally" deaf.
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
GrendelQ said:
Why are you so eager to insist that my child is not functionally deaf regardless of what her doctors, her educators and I say? Why don't you walk over to her during the half of each schoolday she is 'voices-off', when her CIs are turned off, and 'test' her yourself if you don't believe she's really deaf.
Click to expand...

She's literally deaf. We all know that. Without her CI's, she can hear no more than the rest of us who have a high DB loss.

Functionally -- if her speech discrimination and everything is what you have said it to be, she's not "functionally" deaf.
Click to expand...

So, even though her state, school, doctors classify her as profoundly deaf, there's a special classification that goes by how she tests aided and you want me to refer to her as functionally hearing rather than deaf? And this is new designation is employed how and where? And why?
 
GrendelQ said:
Wirelessly posted

So, even though her state, school, doctors classify her as profoundly deaf, there's a special classification that goes by how she tests aided and you want me to refer to her as functionally hearing rather than deaf? And this is new designation is employed how and where? And why?
Click to expand...

She is literally deaf. So am I. I understand the relation between Li-Li and I in terms of DB loss. If she tests with her CIs as near hearing then that does not make her functionally deaf as you were saying. I only score in the 50 db range even fully aided -- that still makes ME functionally deaf.

Please don't turn this into a word-play game or semantics. This is the foundation of the bickering that goes on here. You can choose what you want to call your daughter, and I can have an opinion of my own.
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
GrendelQ said:
Wirelessly posted

So, even though her state, school, doctors classify her as profoundly deaf, there's a special classification that goes by how she tests aided and you want me to refer to her as functionally hearing rather than deaf? And this is new designation is employed how and where? And why?
Click to expand...

She is literally deaf. So am I. I understand the relation between Li-Li and I in terms of DB loss. If she tests with her CIs as near hearing then that does not make her functionally deaf as you were saying. I only score in the 50 db range even fully aided -- that still makes ME functionally deaf.

Please don't turn this into a word-play game or semantics. This is the foundation of the bickering that goes on here. You can choose what you want to call your daughter, and I can have an opinion of my own.
Click to expand...

Ok, well then if you have some unresolvable need to call my deaf daughter "functionally hearing," so be it. Maybe that will spontaneously happen.
 
jillio said:
I hope so, too. It looked for several years as if progress was actually being made in that direction. However, with more children being implanted, I see people reaching back into the past and dragging up methods for communication that were never intended for such...such as SEE I, SEE II, Cued Speech, etc. It appears to me that organizations that are in a position of making a profit off of these things are one more time, trying to convince hearing parents of children with CIs that, now that the CI has become available, these methods, long proven to be marginally effective in limited situations, are suddenly more effective. And unfortunately, parents are buying into it left and right. Why? Because of the belief that their child is different because they have a CI.

The CI does not fix the problems of these systems. It wasn't lack of hearing that made things like SEE and CS nominally effective. It was faults in the systems themselves. The designers of these systems failed to take processing issues in the brain into account when coming up with these systems. They were designed on the fly, and they have been proven to create linguistic confusion. The CI does not change that. But parents everywhere seem to be hanging onto the belief (mistaken) that it will. I find it very, very sad. The CI could provide so much more benefit for the children that have it if it were not used, so often, as an excuse for keeping a child in a restrictive oral environment.
Click to expand...

I hope they are not going back to past and drag up all those things again but I do think that is likely due history keeps repeating itself.

People do mess around with system to make money out of it and sell product link with that system like DVDs, books, tools, etc. For now it seems that old system not dragged up yet but it could happen soon, there big thing over here about Deaf kids poor GSCE results (final year school exams to get you in college or whatever) saying something like 42% of Deaf kids will not get grade A-C. Parents are getting really worried about this when their Deaf kid reach 14 to start study for GCSEs.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. But you will agree, that in terms of testing results that are necessary for accommodations, that the difference between functional levels and literal levels are important.

For instance, a parent that approaches a school system with a statement such as "My child is deaf but she can hear" is going to have a huge battle in getting any accommodation that may be necessary for that child. She has just shot herself in the foot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you. That would not be the best way to go about it. One really can't tell if that child could pull it off or not. I myself had speech therapy through middle school. I didn't need any other accommodation other than the fact the teacher needed to be aware that my hearing (with a HA) wasn't perfect.
 
Wirelessly posted

the enrollments in the early intervention programs and preschools are what is really booming. CID for example is serving ten times as many in EI and preschool than their primary department.

the whole point is to have their language age appropriate by age 3 or 5 at the very latest.

smaller enrollments as the children age is a sign of success. If the kids are still far behind at age 12, they have been failed.
 
Grendel, it really does seem to be sematics. I mean unilateral dhh kids are classified as functionally hoh as well, even though they have one hearing ear.
Maybe a better term for Li -Li might be Hoh. (note the capital H) She hears as a functionally hoh kid, but can also switch in and out from being functionally hoh to functionally deaf. Make sense? Hoh is a term you would use when a kid uses either HA or CI really well (beyond deaf levels) but they're not hearing. Hoh kids don't hear like hearing kids.
e enrollments in the early intervention programs and preschools are what is really booming. CID for example is serving ten times as many in EI and preschool than their primary department.

the whole point is to have their language age appropriate by age 3 or 5 at the very latest.

smaller enrollments as the children age is a sign of success. If the kids are still far behind at age 12, they have been failed.
Click to expand...
True, but on the other hand it could be b/c they're better at identifying kids who may actually NEED ASL or other methodologies.....and I wouldn't say that a kid who was in a program for primary has failed. Perhaps they were in the mainstream (including mainstream oral program) and started doing not so well, and their parents knew about the Deaf School placement, and transferred them. Not all hearing parents know about Deaf Schools.
 
I honestly think HOH is a term made up by audiologists to make going deaf feel better for people... that is all.
 
But faire joure, they are still very small. Except for Sunshine Cottage, (about a hundred kids) and they are TINY.The enrollement represents the school as a WHOLE!!!! Back in the old days at oral schools you'd have tons of dhh kids. Hearing loss is a low incidence disabilty yes....but still...
Also, some kids may have returned after not being able to hack it in the mainstream, rather then being in the program for their entire career.
 
Back
Top