"Letting the Child Decide"

Cloggy said:
Cohesive argument..... sorry, missed that part...
... audist... that word rings a bell... !!
Audist viewpoint.... no, wrong. Not for the sake of speech. You really don't get it....
I like sign language. I think it's a beautiful language, very poetic, handy (I use it every day) It's wonderful.

I also see that my deaf daughter (sign is her first language) hardly has any use for it.

As for your "Infact, all research and the hisory of the decline in literacy rates suppoert the use of ASL, and illustrate the misconceptions and fallacy of oral successes."..... is probably the research that you red. And those two papers have been written quite a while ago.

Infact, all research and the hisory of the decline in literacy rates support the use of speech, and illustrate the misconceptions and fallacy of ASL successes.".....

BTW, statistics prove you wrong...
Click to expand...

Iam trying to remember..iam typing this from my pager so can't search the Internet...about this CI program that my class at Gally talked about. Their philosphy was to introduce ASL first to the children for language development while developing their speech and listening skills with the goal of the children fading away from ASL to use spoken language by the time they reach the academic age.

It is a good idea but at the same time, it feels like there is the underlying disrespect for ASL due to the goals of the children not having the need for it later on. I have mixed feelings about it. Happy that the children will be exposed to a visual language for language development and spoken language to develop their auditory skills but ..it is hard to explain.

What do u all think of programs like these? Yes, these programs have the gials for the children to be mainstreamed fully at their local schools with no suport from sign language. That makes me nervous cuz the academic setting or environment is a complete different one than the AVT/learning thru play sessions.

Iam going to ask u a question, Cloggy. Feel free to answer or not but pls no bashing from anone about this question.

Was the program your daughter in while she was a baby similar to the one I mentioned?
 
shel90 said:
Iam trying to remember..iam typing this from my pager so can't search the Internet...about this CI program that my class at Gally talked about. Their philosphy was to introduce ASL first to the children for language development while developing their speech and listening skills with the goal of the children fading away from ASL to use spoken language by the time they reach the academic age.

It is a good idea but at the same time, it feels like there is the underlying disrespect for ASL due to the goals of the children not having the need for it later on. I have mixed feelings about it. Happy that the children will be exposed to a visual language for language development and spoken language to develop their auditory skills but ..it is hard to explain.

What do u all think of programs like these? Yes, these programs have the gials for the children to be mainstreamed fully at their local schools with no suport from sign language. That makes me nervous cuz the academic setting or environment is a complete different one than the AVT/learning thru play sessions.

Iam going to ask u a question, Cloggy. Feel free to answer or not but pls no bashing from anone about this question.

Was the program your daughter in while she was a baby similar to the one I mentioned?
Click to expand...

as per Gallaudet CI Edu. Center at Clerc Center;

4. What Is our educational philosophy for students with cochlear implants?

The Center addresses issues related to educational programming for children with cochlear implants, including, development and use of both spoken language and signed language. The philosophy of the Clerc Center Demonstration Schools is to provide a "linguistically-rich environment for the acquisition of American Sign Language and English..."

The goal of cochlear implant technology is to provide deaf children with increased access to sound. An important focus for students with implants is, therefore, to maximize this access to sound toward the development and use of spoken English. We equally believe that students with cochlear implants should be provided with the opportunity to develop skill in American Sign Language and knowledge of Deaf culture.

Our Center focuses on facilitating the overall development of students with cochlear implants. As with all deaf students, our goal for students with cochlear implants is to ensure full access to language to support high levels of literacy development and access to a challenging educational curriculum.
Click to expand...

I have no objection with their philosophy as long they emphasize on spoken language and increases access to sounds.

source: http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/CIEC/about.html
 
Boult said:
as per Gallaudet CI Edu. Center at Clerc Center;



I have no objection with their philosophy as long they emphasize on spoken language and increases access to sounds.

source: About the Cochlear Implant Education Center at the Clerc Center, Gallaudet University
Click to expand...

See Boult, this is where we disagree. Visual language is the only language that a deaf child, whether it be a deaf child with CI, HA, or completly unaided, has full and unimpeded access to. The emphasis should be on acquiring that language first, and English as a second language. Numerous Euopean countries have already figured this out, as well as the fact that when the emphasis is placedon oral language skills, the child's education is neglected because speech is focused on rather than the trasmission of knowledge. Only through the transmission of knowledge can a child become less dependent.
 
jillio said:
See Boult, this is where we disagree. Visual language is the only language that a deaf child, whether it be a deaf child with CI, HA, or completly unaided, has full and unimpeded access to. The emphasis should be on acquiring that language first, and English as a second language. Numerous Euopean countries have already figured this out, as well as the fact that when the emphasis is placedon oral language skills, the child's education is neglected because speech is focused on rather than the trasmission of knowledge. Only through the transmission of knowledge can a child become less dependent.
Click to expand...

But when this is the case, English is treated as a "second language" to the child and therefore MASTERY of the English language lags - which shows up in english comprehension scores in deaf institutions.

I know many people who were born deaf and learned English first and have a mastery at it - and ALSO know ASL - I went to college with numerous examples of this kind of education when I was at RIT/NTID, so you can't say that visual language is the ONLY language a child has access to. Language is not ONLY spoken - English is read and written - and mastery of that should be no problem for deaf children with the right approach/education.

Learning English first (reading/writing) doesn't necessarily mean its an *oral* approach.
 
Cloggy said:
individuation: discriminating the individual from the generic group or
species [syn: individualization, individualisation]

HOW ?

My daughter is a full "member" of our circle of family and friends, and creates her own circle of friends.
She fully integrated in the generic group.. There's no discrimination.

Now, had she only known sign language, THEN you might have been right... just might...

My daughters deafness doesn NOT define her !!

She's much, much more than deaf !
Click to expand...

Okay, whatever.
 
neecy said:
But when this is the case, English is treated as a "second language" to the child and therefore MASTERY of the English language lags - which shows up in english comprehension scores in deaf institutions.

I know many people who were born deaf and learned English first and have a mastery at it - and ALSO know ASL - I went to college with numerous examples of this kind of education when I was at RIT/NTID, so you can't say that visual language is the ONLY language a child has access to. Language is not ONLY spoken - English is read and written - and mastery of that should be no problem for deaf children with the right approach/education.

Learning English first (reading/writing) doesn't necessarily mean its an *oral* approach.
Click to expand...

And how is it that you would propose to teach English as a written and read language without waiting until the child is developmentally capable of learning to do this? There is a reason that reading and writing are not taught from birth--the child is developmentally incapable of learning these concepts, UNTIL a first language has been acquired. If you wait until a child is developmentally ready to grasp the concept of a written language, you will create a language impoverished environment. Surely you don't propose waitning until a child reaches elementary school to begin teaching a first language? If not, then the only way for a deaf child to acquire spoken language is through the oral method.

I did not say sign was the only language a deaf child had access to--I said it was the only language a deaf child had unimpeded and complete access to. And mastery of English is not a problem, provided the child has a strong L1 language.

And I respectfully disagree--mastery of a strong L1 language--yes, even ASL--actually facilitates the mastery of a second language.
 
I'm in no way/shape/form saying you should defray teaching English until grade school - I was simply saying that mastery of a language is not dependent on it being a visual/signed language only.

If mastery of ASL facilitates understanding of a second language, why are so many people who learn ASL first and then go on to deaf institutions where ASL is spoken, and English is taught as their second language doing so poorly in English?

And this is where a CI can HELP a child who is in the beginning stages of acquiring language by using both ASL/sign AND English simultaneously (of course in this situation, signed English would be best.)
 
jillio said:
And how is it that you would propose to teach English as a written and read language without waiting until the child is developmentally capable of learning to do this? There is a reason that reading and writing are not taught from birth--the child is developmentally incapable of learning these concepts, UNTIL a first language has been acquired. If you wait until a child is developmentally ready to grasp the concept of a written language, you will create a language impoverished environment. Surely you don't propose waitning until a child reaches elementary school to begin teaching a first language? If not, then the only way for a deaf child to acquire spoken language is through the oral method.

I did not say sign was the only language a deaf child had access to--I said it was the only language a deaf child had unimpeded and complete access to. And mastery of English is not a problem, provided the child has a strong L1 language.

And I respectfully disagree--mastery of a strong L1 language--yes, even ASL--actually facilitates the mastery of a second language.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that people actually think children can master a language in the written form first. That's is impossible. It is bad enough for these kids to be delayed in acquired language so having no acquired language and then try to teach them to learn English thru the printed form will just make children's literacy skills nonexistent..
 
neecy said:
I'm in no way/shape/form saying you should defray teaching English until grade school - I was simply saying that mastery of a language is not dependent on it being a visual/signed language only.

If mastery of ASL facilitates understanding of a second language, why are so many people who learn ASL first and then go on to deaf institutions where ASL is spoken, and English is taught as their second language doing so poorly in English?

And this is where a CI can HELP a child who is in the beginning stages of acquiring language by using both ASL/sign AND English simultaneously (of course in this situation, signed English would be best.)
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with using sign and English, however, not signed English. A child has to grasp concept before they understand the structure of the English language. And since signed English represents the grammar of English, it does not represent viusally transmitted concept in the same way that does ASL.

I understand that you're not porposing delaying, however, if you plan to use written forms of English to give a child a first language, how would you do that if they aren't developmentally ready to understand a written language? And, where are you finding these institutions that use ASL as a first language, and English as a second language?
 
Possibly ignorant question:

What "knowledge" is not being focused on or gained by the child when CI kids are in an oral program before they can be mainstreamed into kindergarten or first grade?

Or am I misunderstanding that the theory is that mainstreamed, successful CI kids will never be able to grasp the knowledge they are being taught in school?
 
Drew's Dad said:
Possibly ignorant question:

What "knowledge" is not being focused on or gained by the child when CI kids are in an oral program before they can be mainstreamed into kindergarten or first grade?

Or am I misunderstanding that the theory is that mainstreamed, successful CI kids will never be able to grasp the knowledge they are being taught in school?
Click to expand...

Well, this is what I have seen with those kids who got referred to our school from the public/oral programs and sorry to say some of them have CIs..

No concept of time
No calendar concepts
No concepts of print
No concept of numbers
Having trouble following simple instructions
No concept of categorization

the list goes on and on..

these are 8 and 9 year olds that I am talking about..that is the knowledge that I am talking about. There are so much more that needs to be achieved by that age..
 
shel90 said:
Well, this is what I have seen with those kids who got referred to our school from the public/oral programs and sorry to say some of them have CIs..

No concept of time
No calendar concepts
No concepts of print
No concept of numbers
Having trouble following simple instructions
No concept of categorization

the list goes on and on..

these are 8 and 9 year olds that I am talking about..that is the knowledge that I am talking about. There are so much more that needs to be achieved by that age..
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are talking about children being weak in concepts that are taught after the age that kids usually begin to attend school, am I correct?

I have been reading many posts from various people that indicate that CI kids are sometimes not learning any substantive knowledge because they are so concentrated on learning oral speech, and I've been confused because I know that many kids that are mainstreaming into their school districts at the first grade level, and at that point they are not significantly behind in anything. In fact, they are often a bit ahead because they have sometimes had 4 1/2 years of some type of therapy or schooling whereas the typical hearing child has often had none.

It seems to me that we (at least me) are talking about two different scenarios. Sounds like you and others are talking about kids that are not "caught up" with their basic language development upon enrolling into school and they then suffer and struggle. I can certainly see how this could happen.

On the other hand, I have been thinking about kids that are generally "caught up" as of the age that the other children are beginning to attend school, and are hearing with their CI's plenty well enough to follow along in class - which means that they would likely face less difficulties. I've kept wondering what "knowledge" these kids have missed out on, since none of the other kids have been in school yet. I see now that we are not envisioning the same age groups or types of kids. Maybe this is where some of the disagreement comes from?
 
shel90 said:
Iam trying to remember..iam typing this from my pager so can't search the Internet...about this CI program that my class at Gally talked about. Their philosphy was to introduce ASL first to the children for language development while developing their speech and listening skills with the goal of the children fading away from ASL to use spoken language by the time they reach the academic age.

It is a good idea but at the same time, it feels like there is the underlying disrespect for ASL due to the goals of the children not having the need for it later on. I have mixed feelings about it. Happy that the children will be exposed to a visual language for language development and spoken language to develop their auditory skills but ..it is hard to explain.

What do u all think of programs like these? Yes, these programs have the gials for the children to be mainstreamed fully at their local schools with no suport from sign language. That makes me nervous cuz the academic setting or environment is a complete different one than the AVT/learning thru play sessions.

Iam going to ask u a question, Cloggy. Feel free to answer or not but pls no bashing from anone about this question.

Was the program your daughter in while she was a baby similar to the one I mentioned?
Click to expand...
When my daughter was diagnosed as deaf, the first thing that happened was trying HA's and establish communication with sign language. She was just under 1 year old. The HA was no use. The sign was great and it was fun learning and using it. (Our other two children also loved using it, and still do..)
When she was fitted with CI, we continued to use sign which gradually became less and less (by us and her) when she started to understand more.

So, ASL was never a tool when she had CI.
Now she learns Dutch and Norwegian, and sign has stagnated. We might pick it up when she requests it.

You said "underlying disrespect for ASL due to the goals of the children not having the need for it later on. " which is a wrong interpretation.
You assume children will need it, and I believe you are wrong there. You cannot compare a child with CI with a child with HA's, and the "ASL needed in future" is based on children with HA's that still cannot hear... and loose communication when they do not know sign...
So, disrespect is the wrong choice of word. ASL is set aside. Not out of disrespect, but because time can be spend more productive.

I would not dream of teaching Lotte english at the moment, since she has no need for it now. Does that mean I disrespect English?
I will not teach her German, because she will not likely be using it in the future. Do I disrespect German...??
 
Cloggy said:
When my daughter was diagnosed as deaf, the first thing that happened was trying HA's and establish communication with sign language. She was just under 1 year old. The HA was no use. The sign was great and it was fun learning and using it. (Our other two children also loved using it, and still do..)
When she was fitted with CI, we continued to use sign which gradually became less and less (by us and her) when she started to understand more.

So, ASL was never a tool when she had CI.
Now she learns Dutch and Norwegian, and sign has stagnated. We might pick it up when she requests it.

You said "underlying disrespect for ASL due to the goals of the children not having the need for it later on. " which is a wrong interpretation.
You assume children will need it, and I believe you are wrong there. You cannot compare a child with CI with a child with HA's, and the "ASL needed in future" is based on children with HA's that still cannot hear... and loose communication when they do not know sign...
So, disrespect is the wrong choice of word. ASL is set aside. Not out of disrespect, but because time can be spend more productive.

I would not dream of teaching Lotte english at the moment, since she has no need for it now. Does that mean I disrespect English?
I will not teach her German, because she will not likely be using it in the future. Do I disrespect German...??
Click to expand...
Ohhh no I wasn't referringto the parents who take their kids to those kinds of programs. I will clarify to why I felt that way. The guy who came to my class was the program director of a program like this so what he said gave me that feeling. He said he wanted to eliminate the use of ASL completely for all deaf children once they make full use of their CIs. It was how he said it like he doesn't believe in ASL as a language but yet uses it it for language development. That's why I got that feeling. Nothing to do with the parents. :)
 
Drew's Dad said:
It sounds like you are talking about children being weak in concepts that are taught after the age that kids usually begin to attend school, am I correct?

I have been reading many posts from various people that indicate that CI kids are sometimes not learning any substantive knowledge because they are so concentrated on learning oral speech, and I've been confused because I know that many kids that are mainstreaming into their school districts at the first grade level, and at that point they are not significantly behind in anything. In fact, they are often a bit ahead because they have sometimes had 4 1/2 years of some type of therapy or schooling whereas the typical hearing child has often had none.

It seems to me that we (at least me) are talking about two different scenarios. Sounds like you and others are talking about kids that are not "caught up" with their basic language development upon enrolling into school and they then suffer and struggle. I can certainly see how this could happen.

On the other hand, I have been thinking about kids that are generally "caught up" as of the age that the other children are beginning to attend school, and are hearing with their CI's plenty well enough to follow along in class - which means that they would likely face less difficulties. I've kept wondering what "knowledge" these kids have missed out on, since none of the other kids have been in school yet. I see now that we are not envisioning the same age groups or types of kids. Maybe this is where some of the disagreement comes from?
Click to expand...


No, these concepts are not taught--under usual circumstances--after a child reaches school age. These are concepts that a child learns peripherally, through expoure to and internalization of language in a native environment. The concept is internalization--the school system simply expands on the conceptual knowledge the child arrives with. If, because of language delays, the child has been unable to internalize these concepts, they arrive at school unable to have the concept expanded upon, and therefore, even though they may be able to speack intelligibly, their language is not sufficient to allow for further understanding of abstract concepts. They cannot connect the concepts and how they relate to each other in order to synthesize the information. It is like the difference between taking a test that requires you to memorize fact, and one that requires you to apply the information to an abstract concept. The fact does you little good, if you cannot apply it to real life situation. So even though you have gotten an A on the test that requires memorization, you have not taken in knowledge in a way that will allow you improved cognition and ability to apply that fact in a useful way that improves your life.
 
Look under Ethical Issue in this site:

Cochlear implant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parents with CI children maybe will have better understanding of why some deaf people argues about CI.

Cloggy, your daughter IS deaf. If she is more than deaf, then you wouldnt be here posting your threads. She is part of the deaf culture forever.

beetarehoh
 
jillio said:
No, these concepts are not taught--under usual circumstances--after a child reaches school age. These are concepts that a child learns peripherally, through expoure to and internalization of language in a native environment. The concept is internalization--the school system simply expands on the conceptual knowledge the child arrives with. If, because of language delays, the child has been unable to internalize these concepts, they arrive at school unable to have the concept expanded upon, and therefore, even though they may be able to speack intelligibly, their language is not sufficient to allow for further understanding of abstract concepts. They cannot connect the concepts and how they relate to each other in order to synthesize the information. It is like the difference between taking a test that requires you to memorize fact, and one that requires you to apply the information to an abstract concept. The fact does you little good, if you cannot apply it to real life situation. So even though you have gotten an A on the test that requires memorization, you have not taken in knowledge in a way that will allow you improved cognition and ability to apply that fact in a useful way that improves your life.
Click to expand...

Jillio,

I want to pick your brain on ENGLISH grammars. lol, Well said.

beetarehoh
 
Also check this out:
In the intrduction of this website,
Cochlear implant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The introduction of cochlear implants has seen the renewal of a century-old debate about models of deafness that often has the hearing parents of deaf children on one side and the deaf community on the other. University of Pittsburgh science affiliation, led by prominent bio-molecular audiologist Michael Kraemer, has crafted the basic audiological structure for the cohesion to operate properly. On the one hand, modern medical ethics law dictates that the decision of whether to get a cochlear implant is up to the patient or the legal guardian of the patient. Therefore, political debate about whether deafness is a disability or not is irrelevant to the current medical profession. On the other hand, whether society treats deafness as a disability has direct bearing on government policy. Many governments in the world have disability legislation which includes people who are deaf. Some developed countries provide cochlear implantation as a part of state healthcare.[citation needed] The debate is also economic. Many state-funded medical interventions for a disability (such as free genetic screening for Down Syndrome) are justified on the ground that, in the long run, they will prove cheaper for the state. Sweden is the most progressive. It is the only country that has legislation that when a deaf child is born to a hearing parent, they are, by law, consulted by the deaf community as well as the medical community so they can make an informed decision

I wish American laws has the same as Swedish law!!! In fact thats my nationality!!! HOORAAH! lol.

beetarehoh
 
Cloggy said:
I know some hearing people like that......
Are you sure it is about CI, or is it about the person...

Thanks for the clarification about your "state" of hearing..

And, to conclude, based on your post, my daughter is doing great!
Click to expand...


I am sure its about three things: CI, person and her parents. Her parents MUST focus on the oral methods for her daughter, so it become a problem that she missed parts education, important concepts, and whatever Jillio said in the post. Jillio just about said everything that is true about deaf people with all technologies. I know because I have experienced the problem.

There is much more than just suggestions I quoted for you. And when I think of them I will reply.
 
Back
Top