Mother of 7 y/o Deaf girl

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beowulf said:
She doesn't worship.
Chill.
Click to expand...

She know she doesn't literally worship it (that would be making DHH kids "hear" talk and listen ;-) ) She was just making a point by hyperbolizing.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
If any of what you said was true, you could easily point to data that backs you up. If you would provide me the research that says that kids who have ASL as their L1 do better than those who have English as their L1, I would be more than willing to read it. I have already provided you with two longitudinal studies that say exactly the opposite.

For the twentieth time, I don't make these decisions, families do. I provide services after they have decided. I believe that family choice should be supported, whether it is the choice I would make or not.
Click to expand...
And were those studies from oral schools or otherwise cherrypicked? Were they sponsored by the CI companies? Those EXIST. You do realize the CI companies want to make MONEY right? For some reason it hurts the CI companies' feelings if their product isn't portrayed as the best of the best. If they can portray their product as PERFECT, they will sell more......And most families who chose oral only are being SUCKERED in by ableist propaganda that portrays oral only as "normal and healthy" Have you ever analyzed the language used to promote oral only? It's VERY ableist and REEKS of inspiration porn to sucker in the parents!
 
Jane B. said:
And what about the ones that it gets them very close and then they object to having to go to a different school than the other kids from the neighborhood that they play with when not in school?

I was completey deaf in one ear but had very good hearing in the other ear all through my school years and I know I was happy in my neighborhood school during grade school and the regular high school that was the only high school in town. I was the only one that I knew of having any loss. This was many years ago as I started 1st grade in 1948.
Click to expand...
Why is that such a big deal? I mean kids in neighborhoods go to private schools ALL the time and they still play with the neighborhood kids. Besides, most if not all unilateral kids attend their neighborhood schools. It's very rare for them to even be in a dhh program. Besides you're from before they even had MAINSTREAM special ed. Back then kids who used wheelchairs were sent off to the State Physically Disabled Schools.
 
peekaboo said:
Most who are HOH are in mainstream schools. This is a mistake. They need to be with their peers so that they will feel welcome as a whole and not be put in hearing schools where they miss out on so much. HA doe not make them hearing! It just simply doesnt and they will think otherwise!!!!!! I wished that I had gone to a deaf school where I feel belonged. *sighs*
They are never going to get it!
Click to expand...
Yes and they fall through the cracks BIG TIME, both academicly and socially. It really is heartbreaking.
 
deafdyke said:
And were those studies from oral schools or otherwise cherrypicked? Were they sponsored by the CI companies? Those EXIST. You do realize the CI companies want to make MONEY right? For some reason it hurts the CI companies' feelings if their product isn't portrayed as the best of the best. If they can portray their product as PERFECT, they will sell more......And most families who chose oral only are being SUCKERED in by ableist propaganda that portrays oral only as "normal and healthy" Have you ever analyzed the language used to promote oral only? It's VERY ableist and REEKS of inspiration porn to sucker in the parents!
Click to expand...
I told you that the LOCHI study is a population study. It is every single child in the entire country of Australia.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
I told you that the LOCHI study is a population study. It is every single child in the entire country of Australia.
Click to expand...
That's a completely different country which ALSO has universal healthcare. Also how do you know they didn't fudge things like claiming that an oral child who had written language issues had "additional needs" ? They do that you know. Also dear, CI has a VERY huge influence in the country. Was the "population study" truely unbiased?
 
deafdyke said:
That's a completely different country which ALSO has universal healthcare. Also how do you know they didn't fudge things like claiming that an oral child who had written language issues had "additional needs" ? They do that you know. Also dear, CI has a VERY huge influence in the country. Was the "population study" truely unbiased?
Click to expand...
They included every child. It doesn't matter if they have additional disabilities or not. Why would they do the research, as researchers, just to lie about it? It is fully funded by the government. That doesn't make sense. If a longitudinal, population study funded by the government isn't good enough for you, nothing would be.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
They included every child. It doesn't matter if they have additional disabilities or not. Why would they do the research, as researchers, just to lie about it? It is fully funded by the government. That doesn't make sense. If a longitudinal, population study funded by the government isn't good enough for you, nothing would be.
Click to expand...

LOCHI only studied 460 children from 3 states Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales who use HAs or CIs, far from EVERY DHH in all of Australia. Even with the smaller sample aside, of course those who recieved them earlier would have better language development than those who recieved them later. Thats the only definitive point from the study and no one here is disputing that. The study does not even include any Auslan use by DHH children, whether or not they also have a CI/HAs, let alone comparing Auslan L1 users to children from strictly oral backgrounds.

Really it doesn't have much to do with what's being debated here. ive lived in Australia and am familiar with DHH issued there as well.
 
zeefour said:
LOCHI only studied 460 children from 3 states Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales who use HAs or CIs, far from EVERY DHH in all of Australia. Even with the smaller sample aside, of course those who recieved them earlier would have better language development than those who recieved them later. Thats the only definitive point from the study and no one here is disputing that. The study does not even include any Auslan use by DHH children, whether or not they also have a CI/HAs, let alone comparing Auslan L1 users to children from strictly oral backgrounds.

Really it doesn't have much to do with what's being debated here. ive lived in Australia and am familiar with DHH issued there as well.
Click to expand...
You are 100% wrong. They are following every single child found to have hearing loss longitudinally since 2005. They have less children diagnosed each year than the state of Illinois. If a family uses Auslan, they are absolutely included in the research. It is a full population study. I just went to session that three hours long and presented by the primary investigator. Even a cursory Google search would have shown that it is a population study.

Again, the research from the population study showed that CI users, with all other things equal, controlling for all the other factors, those who did not sign had a median language standard score 12.38 points higher than the median score of those who did sign. For children without CIs it was lower, at 6.57.
 
zeefour said:
LOCHI only studied 460 children from 3 states Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales who use HAs or CIs, far from EVERY DHH in all of Australia. Even with the smaller sample aside, of course those who recieved them earlier would have better language development than those who recieved them later. Thats the only definitive point from the study and no one here is disputing that. The study does not even include any Auslan use by DHH children, whether or not they also have a CI/HAs, let alone comparing Auslan L1 users to children from strictly oral backgrounds.

Really it doesn't have much to do with what's being debated here. ive lived in Australia and am familiar with DHH issued there as well.
Click to expand...
https://outcomes.nal.gov.au/Publications_Presentations_Newsletters/5Yr LOCHI update.pdf
https://hearnetlearning.org.au/wp-c...2/2014-SWISH-seminar_Lochi-update_Hearnet.pdf
https://www.audiology.org.nz/Userfiles/file/NZAS 2014_Cowan et al_LOCHI Study_July 2014.pdf
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
https://outcomes.nal.gov.au/Publications_Presentations_Newsletters/5Yr LOCHI update.pdf
https://hearnetlearning.org.au/wp-c...2/2014-SWISH-seminar_Lochi-update_Hearnet.pdf
https://www.audiology.org.nz/Userfiles/file/NZAS 2014_Cowan et al_LOCHI Study_July 2014.pdf
Click to expand...

No you are wrong. This is straight from the Australian government website for the LOCHI study. I know how to research primary sources, you cant manipulate and even falsify information to suit your own needs and think youll get away with it because us DHH arent as smart as you. On the contrary it looks like you as a hearing person need to learn how to compete with your DHH peers who seem to be performing at a higher level than you. Maybe you can surgically remove your cochlea because to perform at our level you have to make yourself DHH.

20180418_122130.png
 
zeefour said:
No you are wrong. This is straight from the Australian government website for the LOCHI study. I know how to research primary sources, you cant manipulate and even falsify information to suit your own needs and think youll get away with it because us DHH arent as smart as you. On the contrary it looks like you as a hearing person need to learn how to compete with your DHH peers who seem to be performing at a higher level than you. Maybe you can surgically remove your cochlea because to perform at our level you have to make yourself DHH.

View attachment 25141
Click to expand...
https://www.nal.gov.au/project/long...children-with-hearing-impairment-lochi-study/

"The LOCHI study is a population-based longitudinal study that prospectively evaluates the development of a group of Australian children with hearing loss as they grow up "
 
zeefour said:
No you are wrong. This is straight from the Australian government website for the LOCHI study. I know how to research primary sources, you cant manipulate and even falsify information to suit your own needs and think youll get away with it because us DHH arent as smart as you. On the contrary it looks like you as a hearing person need to learn how to compete with your DHH peers who seem to be performing at a higher level than you. Maybe you can surgically remove your cochlea because to perform at our level you have to make yourself DHH.

View attachment 25141
Click to expand...
THE VERY FIRST LINE OF THAT PAGE SAYS SO.
 
zeefour said:
No you are wrong. This is straight from the Australian government website for the LOCHI study. I know how to research primary sources, you cant manipulate and even falsify information to suit your own needs and think youll get away with it because us DHH arent as smart as you. On the contrary it looks like you as a hearing person need to learn how to compete with your DHH peers who seem to be performing at a higher level than you. Maybe you can surgically remove your cochlea because to perform at our level you have to make yourself DHH.

View attachment 25141
Click to expand...
I can't believe you tried to call me stupid and claim I was manipulating and falsifying information when exactly what I said was the first line on the page you shared.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
You are 100% wrong. They are following every single child found to have hearing loss longitudinally since 2005. They have less children diagnosed each year than the state of Illinois. If a family uses Auslan, they are absolutely included in the research. It is a full population study. I just went to session that three hours long and presented by the primary investigator. Even a cursory Google search would have shown that it is a population study.

Again, the research from the population study showed that CI users, with all other things equal, controlling for all the other factors, those who did not sign had a median language standard score 12.38 points higher than the median score of those who did sign. For children without CIs it was lower, at 6.57.
Click to expand...

Just a side note, the presentation you were at was at an auditory oral conference, so I have no doubts the presenter made sure to share only what could fit into this bias. And let me guess the presenter was hearing... and there was no CART/FM systems provided, let alone an interpreter. It would fit in with your mindset if you can't learn to hear you're just no smart enough, and you all likely think your field of study is only for "intelligent" folks.

@deafdyke is right. A good number of these studies, programs and evem individual researchers are massively funded by Ci companies. Anything that only promotes one method is suspicious. The money trail amd dispropotionate number of non DHH just make that exponentially more so.

While we're on the topic of motives... @Teacherofthedeaf you have yet to answer my question I keep posting time and time again. Why did you get involved with DHH ed and services to begin with? Since it seems you find everything DHH inferior unlike many hearing folks working with DHH because they're fascinated by Deaf culture/find ASL/BSL/Auslan beautiful etc.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
I can't believe you tried to call me stupid and claim I was manipulating and falsifying information when exactly what I said was the first line on the page you shared.
Click to expand...

Aww bumbye. I actually never called -you- any of those things, I only stated a proven fact about academic performance levels. That said, doesn't it suck to have those things said to you especially when they're rationalized as overall truths and therefore okay. At least my chosen career path isnt educating the very people I find beneath me, with a goal of making them somewhat acceptable which can only be done if they deny their very essence and replace it to be like myself.
 
@Teacherofthedeaf BTW you must teach at a very unique school. You are able to post non stop M-F 8 am- 5 pm as well as many other times. At first I thought it was maybe Spring/Easter Break but its been more than a week. I wasn't allowed to have my phone out whem I taught preschool, not even at lunch since I had to help my kiddos eat. But overall we had very little technology in our classroom for this day and age. I'm always interested in alternative school set ups so I'd be interested in hearing more about your classroom set up.
 
zeefour said:
Just a side note, the presentation you were at was at an auditory oral conference, so I have no doubts the presenter made sure to share only what could fit into this bias. And let me guess the presenter was hearing... and there was no CART/FM systems provided, let alone an interpreter. It would fit in with your mindset if you can't learn to hear you're just no smart enough, and you all likely think your field of study is only for "intelligent" folks.

@deafdyke is right. A good number of these studies, programs and evem individual researchers are massively funded by Ci companies. Anything that only promotes one method is suspicious. The money trail amd dispropotionate number of non DHH just make that exponentially more so.

While we're on the topic of motives... @Teacherofthedeaf you have yet to answer my question I keep posting time and time again. Why did you get involved with DHH ed and services to begin with? Since it seems you find everything DHH inferior unlike many hearing folks working with DHH because they're fascinated by Deaf culture/find ASL/BSL/Auslan beautiful etc.
Click to expand...
No, the conference had both real time captioning and ASL interpreters. You have no idea what conference I am talking about so how would you know about the accessibility?

I don't remotely find people with hearing loss inferior. That is absurd. I originally was looking at being an SLP but decided that I wanted to teach instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top