Mother of 7 y/o Deaf girl

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Wow again I come back to this and it's really gone off again.

I can only speak to being a current Deaf educator in the US with a 7 year old daughter who is has been profoundly Deaf since birth. Honestly on the education side what @zeefour is posting is in line with everything being taught and promoted in all the Deaf Ed programs I've been in in the last 10 years and conferences I've attended as a SPED/TOD that focus on TC and how to integrate children into the classroom with the LEAST restrictive environment and the least amount of tech/equipment/etc needed to be as successful as possible. It's not just for Deaf Ed but children with a host of different disabilities. There's no need to load them up with expensive, restrictive equipment to make them as "normal" as possible ( I hate that word normal by the way), when there's a method that allows them to use the skills and abilities they already have to succeed.

In regards to being a hearing parent of a Deaf child, my daughter was raised with ASL as her first language and since pre-K has been learning English as her second language. She's at her grade level for reading and writing in English. I know there's some controversy about my daughter being mainstreamed in a hearing school. There's a handful of other DHH in her school, but there aren't any in her age group and as of right now she's the only DHH child in our small district who uses ASL. I would love if she could attend RMDS, the bilingual charter school in the Denver area. Right now we've had some really traumatic events in our family so keeping my girls with me at home is really what's beset (her sister is 5 years old and hearing but is bilingual in ASL as well). When my daughter is older I'll gladly let her choose where she'd like to be for school whether it's RMDS, CSDB or even if she wants to enroll in Kendal or MSSD. I'm adamant about giving her all the skills not only what I believe as an educator is the best option for her academically and intellectually (bilingual education) but what will allow her to succeed in life no matter what path she chooses and be proud of being a Deaf girl/woman.

There are several listening and spoken language only preparation programs including Mount Saint Mary's, Fontbonne University, Washington University, Utah State University, California Lutheran University, University of Southern Mississippi's Master's program, and University Of Texas San Antonio. So bi-bi is not the only thing being taught. Also, the vast majority are considered "comprehensive" so they do teach ASL, but they also teach cued speech, SEE and LSL.

 

[rockymountainmama]

There are several listening and spoken language only preparation programs including Mount Saint Mary's, Fontbonne University, Washington University, Utah State University, California Lutheran University, University of Southern Mississippi's Master's program, and University Of Texas San Antonio. So bi-bi is not the only thing being taught. Also, the vast majority are considered "comprehensive" so they do teach ASL, but they also teach cued speech, SEE and LSL.

I'm speaking in regards of how to teach children who are born profoundly Deaf/prelingually Deaf. Even in children with amplification I know in Colorado's Child Find Home Intervention program for birth through age 3 ASL instruction is the ideal. Even in infants with implantation, where its combined with speech, again bilingual. Theres no reason to use something like simcom or another made up signing system when you can expose a child to two complete languages (ASL and spoken English) There's been a huge push in our state programs to focus on two languages whether English is verbal or wriqtten.

Of course there's methods taught for HoH children who use amplification if and when speech is taught. A lot of those methods are stressed more in SPHL classrooms. I'm speaking on Deaf Education specifically which is my area of study amd expertise (as well as Educational Interpreting). You said your background is SPHL so it looks like we both have slightly different educational backgrounds.

No one is teaching SEE 1 and 2 anymore though, do you mean signed English?

 

[Beowulf]

I wish you would bother to educate yourself. In the very first sentence of the study it says that it is a population study. Yes, families have to opt-in, but it is representative of the entire population. It is not disproportionately oral other than the FACT that most families choose spoken language.

By the longitude?
Sounds like down under, deafies are vertically challenged.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

I'm speaking in regards of how to teach children who are born profoundly Deaf/prelingually Deaf. Even in children with amplification I know in Colorado's Child Find Home Intervention program for birth through age 3 ASL instruction is the ideal. Even in infants with implantation, where its combined with speech, again bilingual. Theres no reason to use something like simcom or another made up signing system when you can expose a child to two complete languages (ASL and spoken English) There's been a huge push in our state programs to focus on two languages whether English is verbal or wriqtten.

Of course there's methods taught for HoH children who use amplification if and when speech is taught. A lot of those methods are stressed more in SPHL classrooms. I'm speaking on Deaf Education specifically which is my area of study amd expertise (as well as Educational Interpreting). You said your background is SPHL so it looks like we both have slightly different educational backgrounds.

No one is teaching SEE 1 and 2 anymore though, do you mean signed English?

It is not the provider's choice, and there is no one "ideal". It is family choice. Profoundly deaf children can have as good access to spoken language as a child with a mild loss.

 

[zeefour]

I wish you would bother to educate yourself. In the very first sentence of the study it says that it is a population study. Yes, families have to opt-in, but it is representative of the entire population. It is not disproportionately oral other than the FACT that most families choose spoken language.

OMG. Just when I don't think you can obviously show your true lack of education you open your mouth again.

A populaton study doesn't mean the entire population of somewhere or some group is involved, or anything else about the size It means that the sample group is taken from the general population who share a common condition.

Ha ha ha ha if you had taken undergrad stats you would know that. Actually I first learned that in high school stats. Where do you live I can mail you my high school books you might learn something.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

I'm speaking in regards of how to teach children who are born profoundly Deaf/prelingually Deaf. Even in children with amplification I know in Colorado's Child Find Home Intervention program for birth through age 3 ASL instruction is the ideal. Even in infants with implantation, where its combined with speech, again bilingual. Theres no reason to use something like simcom or another made up signing system when you can expose a child to two complete languages (ASL and spoken English) There's been a huge push in our state programs to focus on two languages whether English is verbal or wriqtten.

Of course there's methods taught for HoH children who use amplification if and when speech is taught. A lot of those methods are stressed more in SPHL classrooms. I'm speaking on Deaf Education specifically which is my area of study amd expertise (as well as Educational Interpreting). You said your background is SPHL so it looks like we both have slightly different educational backgrounds.

No one is teaching SEE 1 and 2 anymore though, do you mean signed English?

I am a certified teacher of the deaf. My undergraduate and graduate degrees are both in deaf education. Deaf education was housed in the communication disorders college at my university.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

OMG. Just when I don't think you can obviously show your true lack of education you open your mouth again.

A populaton study doesn't mean the entire population of somewhere or some group is involved, or anything else about the size It means that the sample group is taken from the general population who share a common condition.

Ha ha ha ha if you had taken undergrad stats you would know that. Actually I first learned that in high school stats. Where do you live I can mail you my high school books you might learn something.

Have you bothered to look at what the investigators are saying about the study? They are saying exactly what I am saying. I heard it from Teresa Ching's own mouth.

 

[zeefour]

I am a certified teacher of the deaf. My undergraduate and graduate degrees are both in deaf education. Deaf education was housed in the communication disorders college at my university.

Please stop lying. You dont have a masters.

Have you bothered to look at what the investigators are saying about the study? They are saying exactly what I am saying. I heard it from Teresa Ching's own mouth.

Here you go changing the subject. All I'm talking about is its not representative of all Deaf Aussie kods. I thought your proof was "it says first sentence its a population study"
and I "need to learn to read."

Just because you're hearing doesn't mean what you heard is proof. Sorry if I don't believe your interpretation of anything academic as you prove time and time again you have an utter lack of comprehension of the most basic components of the things you babble about.

You thought a population study meant everyone in the country was enrolled ajahajababa

 

[deafdyke]

What? They have only followed the children to age 5 so far. What are you talking about? It is not a school-specific study, it is a population level study.

It was a VOLUNTARY study which was SELF SELECTIVE. You know, this wasn't the government reporting that all dhh kids in Queensland tested at the level of hearing kids. It was PARENTS reporting how they THOUGHT their kid was doing. That would be like the equalivant of an AVT mom from the US boasting her son was doing SO WELL. Then she posts a writing sample from her son that to be frank looked like it had been written by a kid who would have transferred to Clarke, CID or St Joseph's for middle school, or the equalivant of Melissa Chaikoff boasting that her girls (raised hardcore AVT) were doing SO WELL when they were in REMEDIAL English, or another parent boasting that CID had allowed her kid to be in all honors classes, for high school when a teacher, expert or advisor said her kid really needed to be in a self contained class. Also the presence of a school or program DOES influence things. You'd see the same thing in St Louis, Noho, or anywhere else that has a strong Deaf ed program and resources. Also this study is LIMITED b/c it only goes up to age five. Sophiscated language hasn't really been developed yet. Kids are jut beginning to become literate. Severe issues with sophiscated language haven't cropped up yet. You do know that the reason why the oral deaf dorm schools had dorms for so long (even into the 00's) wasn't b/c parents were sending their five year old off to boarding school, but b/c as things got more advanced (especially around middle school) they would struggle and transfer into the schools. About the only things this study "proves" is that parents think their kid is doing well and that SEVERE speech delays (like five words at age five) aren't that common anymore.

 

[deafdyke]

Wow again I come back to this and it's really gone off again.

I can only speak to being a current Deaf educator in the US with a 7 year old daughter who is has been profoundly Deaf since birth. Honestly on the education side what @zeefour is posting is in line with everything being taught and promoted in all the Deaf Ed programs I've been in in the last 10 years and conferences I've attended as a SPED/TOD that focus on TC and how to integrate children into the classroom with the LEAST restrictive environment and the least amount of tech/equipment/etc needed to be as successful as possible. It's not just for Deaf Ed but children with a host of different disabilities. There's no need to load them up with expensive, restrictive equipment to make them as "normal" as possible ( I hate that word normal by the way), when there's a method that allows them to use the skills and abilities they already have to succeed.

n.

Yes and most programs that use Sign are COMPREHENSIVE...which means that speech and HOH style interventions are strongly pushed. There's no lack of those interventions whatsoever. Honestly, dhh and other kids with disabilties DESERVE a RANGE of tools, not just "those that make them seem more "normal" ..Kids with physical disabilties deserve walkers, wheelchairs, PD camp and exposure to other PD kids, blind/low vision kids deserve to learn Braille, have books on tape, large print, exposure to blind/low vision kids, blind camp, and at least short term blind courses or even full time attendance at blind school (depending on circumstances of course. Most "just blind/low vision kids wouldn't need full time attendance except in unusual circumstances) Dhh kids deserve BOTH sign and speech and a range of social, educational and life experiences, and so on. That should be a GIVEN!

 

[deafdyke]

Please stop lying. You dont have a masters.



Here you go changing the subject. All I'm talking about is its not representative of all Deaf Aussie kods. I thought your proof was "it says first sentence its a population study"
and I "need to learn to read."

Just because you're hearing doesn't mean what you heard is proof. Sorry if I don't believe your interpretation of anything academic as you prove time and time again you have an utter lack of comprehension of the most basic components of the things you babble about.

You thought a population study meant everyone in the country was enrolled ajahajababa

Exactly. And Theresa Ching could have a built in bias. I doubt she's neutral.

 

[deafdyke]

I'm speaking in regards of how to teach children who are born profoundly Deaf/prelingually Deaf. Even in children with amplification I know in Colorado's Child Find Home Intervention program for birth through age 3 ASL instruction is the ideal. Even in infants with implantation, where its combined with speech, again bilingual. Theres no reason to use something like simcom or another made up signing system when you can expose a child to two complete languages (ASL and spoken English) There's been a huge push in our state programs to focus on two languages whether English is verbal or wriqtten.

Of course there's methods taught for HoH children who use amplification if and when speech is taught. A lot of those methods are stressed more in SPHL classrooms. I'm speaking on Deaf Education specifically which is my area of study amd expertise (as well as Educational Interpreting). You said your background is SPHL so it looks like we both have slightly different educational backgrounds.

No one is teaching SEE 1 and 2 anymore though, do you mean signed English?

Are HOH kids in Colardo getting a bimodal approach? Would love it if so. HOH kids do not need intense speech services, so why not meet them halfway and give them ASL and Deaf ed?

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

It was a VOLUNTARY study which was SELF SELECTIVE. You know, this wasn't the government reporting that all dhh kids in Queensland tested at the level of hearing kids. It was PARENTS reporting how they THOUGHT their kid was doing. That would be like the equalivant of an AVT mom from the US boasting her son was doing SO WELL. Then she posts a writing sample from her son that to be frank looked like it had been written by a kid who would have transferred to Clarke, CID or St Joseph's for middle school, or the equalivant of Melissa Chaikoff boasting that her girls (raised hardcore AVT) were doing SO WELL when they were in REMEDIAL English, or another parent boasting that CID had allowed her kid to be in all honors classes, for high school when a teacher, expert or advisor said her kid really needed to be in a self contained class. Also the presence of a school or program DOES influence things. You'd see the same thing in St Louis, Noho, or anywhere else that has a strong Deaf ed program and resources. Also this study is LIMITED b/c it only goes up to age five. Sophiscated language hasn't really been developed yet. Kids are jut beginning to become literate. Severe issues with sophiscated language haven't cropped up yet. You do know that the reason why the oral deaf dorm schools had dorms for so long (even into the 00's) wasn't b/c parents were sending their five year old off to boarding school, but b/c as things got more advanced (especially around middle school) they would struggle and transfer into the schools. About the only things this study "proves" is that parents think their kid is doing well and that SEVERE speech delays (like five words at age five) aren't that common anymore.

No, no, no! They tested the students. They have a battery of tests that they give to the children. It is not a parent reporting how a child is doing. They list the tests they give.

"They are tested by our researchers at different times as they grow up. We collect information about the children’s speech and language skills, literacy and numeracy skills, academic achievement, psycho-social development, and cognition. At every test interval, we also collect demographic information about the child, the child’s family and the intervention that the child receives."

https://outcomes.nal.gov.au/index.html

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

It was a VOLUNTARY study which was SELF SELECTIVE. You know, this wasn't the government reporting that all dhh kids in Queensland tested at the level of hearing kids. It was PARENTS reporting how they THOUGHT their kid was doing. That would be like the equalivant of an AVT mom from the US boasting her son was doing SO WELL. Then she posts a writing sample from her son that to be frank looked like it had been written by a kid who would have transferred to Clarke, CID or St Joseph's for middle school, or the equalivant of Melissa Chaikoff boasting that her girls (raised hardcore AVT) were doing SO WELL when they were in REMEDIAL English, or another parent boasting that CID had allowed her kid to be in all honors classes, for high school when a teacher, expert or advisor said her kid really needed to be in a self contained class. Also the presence of a school or program DOES influence things. You'd see the same thing in St Louis, Noho, or anywhere else that has a strong Deaf ed program and resources. Also this study is LIMITED b/c it only goes up to age five. Sophiscated language hasn't really been developed yet. Kids are jut beginning to become literate. Severe issues with sophiscated language haven't cropped up yet. You do know that the reason why the oral deaf dorm schools had dorms for so long (even into the 00's) wasn't b/c parents were sending their five year old off to boarding school, but b/c as things got more advanced (especially around middle school) they would struggle and transfer into the schools. About the only things this study "proves" is that parents think their kid is doing well and that SEVERE speech delays (like five words at age five) aren't that common anymore.

They continue to follow the children. They have only made it to age 5 so far, but the study is on-going and the next data point is age 9. Please read the information before you comment.

 

[LoveBlue]

They continue to follow the children. They have only made it to age 5 so far, but the study is on-going and the next data point is age 9. Please read the information before you comment.

If this study began in 2005, as you’ve stated at least once,, those kids would be over 10 years old now.
And I thought you had said previously that they were only following the kids to age 5.

You seem to contradict yourself a lot.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

If this study began in 2005, as you’ve stated at least once,, those kids would be over 10 years old now.
And I thought you had said previously that they were only following the kids to age 5.

You seem to contradict yourself a lot.

They have not published beyond age 5 yet. The information is all right there https://www.nal.gov.au/project/long...children-with-hearing-impairment-lochi-study/ and https://outcomes.nal.gov.au/ You don't need to take my word.

 

[LoveBlue]

Really? Not according to this link: https://www.ridbc.org.au/fact-list

• More than 12,000 children in Australia have a significant hearing impairment.

Identify by UNHS since 2005 and followed up to age 5 so far. Why is this hard to understand? It is clearly laid out as a population study.

They continue to follow the children. They have only made it to age 5 so far, but the study is on-going and the next data point is age 9. Please read the information before you comment.

They have not published beyond age 5 yet. The information is all right there https://www.nal.gov.au/project/long...children-with-hearing-impairment-lochi-study/ and https://outcomes.nal.gov.au/ You don't need to take my word.

Started in 2005, up to age 5, next data point is age 9. I guess you've failed at math. 2005 + 9 = 2014. And today is 2018. Hmm

 

[DeafDucky]

We want these students to keep up and be competitive in school and in the workforce. That means they need to be able to read as well as the 99.8% of the population that was not born with hearing loss. If they use English as their language of communication it means they need to have grammar, syntax, vocabulary and pragmatic skills that are equal to those same people because those are the people they will be going to school with, be graded against and be considered for the same jobs. They need to have the same skills.

Hmm... well as a TINY data point... I was born profoundly deaf (with vision issues on top of that yay..?). I did not receive hearing aids until the age of 2 (oh no.. no language acquisition before then.. lagging already!), I was enrolled in some programs for the "hearing impaired"- I only remember 1 though- 1/2 day in kindergarten (don't remember that at all) and 1/2 day in the self contained class for the DHH oral kids (that I remember). My mother also did the Spencer Tracy correspondence course. Next was the local elementary school (all the neighborhood kids went there). I repeated kindergarten (I suspect mainly because of the age cut off dealie). Only deafblind kid in the entire school until my 6th grade year. No services other than speech therapy which actually cut into my academic time- must be why I suck at math... I did okay in general but still struggled a LOT. Transferred to private school after that through HS. Somewhat better. This school was...is one of the best schools in that area. I did well enough - B- ish average; entire class was under 100 students. But still.. still missed a LOT especially videos, filmstrips with audio, and tapes that we had to listen to for 'work stations'. One of the reasons why I took Latin was because both Spanish and French classes relied HEAVILY on audio & headphones (no thank you!). Socially I got along well with everyone but I wasn't exactly invited anywhere or belonged to any sort of 'clique' or group of friends. Went to Gallaudet- Did okay, can't say much for academics.. did well at times, lousy at others as I was busy finding my deaf identity and learning a whole new language at the same time.

Fast forward into the "real world" where 'deaf need to compete on the same level as hearing".. while yes I had the skills... I CAN tell you it still was not a very level playing field even with my 'stellar' transcript from both HS and Gallaudet. There is still bias, even for a person who speaks so well people will refuse to believe you are deaf and refuse to believe/understand that no- no I CANNOT understand every word you say (speech therapy wasn't THAT successful). I have all those skills mentioned above in TOD's post- yet I still struggle. Yes, I've been lucky enough to land some pretty great jobs but it comes at a cost. I had longer gaps than most hearing people in employment when between jobs. I have many friends who are on the wide spectrum of deafness from mild hearing loss to profound and solely ASL... the one with the mild hearing loss (I do not know if that person still signs or not)- has never been able to hold down a job for longer than a year- though to be fair there were other issues. A few who use ASL exclusively and may or may not have hearing aids have done very very well for themselves. Of course there are those who aren't doing well...

The thing is it feels like the above statement is so broad as to say yes we want these kids to be at this certain level but forgetting to say 'but it is also possible for ANY deaf kid to succeed and reach the very same level as the hearing kid regardless of WHAT mode of communication they use' I may have been successful in my life and 'successful' with "hearing and speaking" but that does not mean that I actually understand everything verbally/auditorily (yes I know that's not spelled right). A LOT of reading got me through - just about.

Profoundly deaf children can have as good access to spoken language as a child with a mild loss.

That's all it is "access". It does not mean that the access will give them understandable language or information. Case in point... As noted... my hearing/speech development was obviously stellar/top-notch whatever.. but a recent incident tells me otherwise. My first weekend in the "DevHouse" (the house I stayed in while I was studying in Utah), I met the other two housemates. One I could not understand at all because he slurred his words (I found out the next day why...dentures). The other person I could not understand either and when asked to repeat...he said..."NEVER MIND". Story of my life. Anyone new I meet I cannot hear clearly at all- maybe lucky once in a while. Even after 3 months there I still had a hard time understanding/hearing 90% of the class (but to be fair- one of my interpreters said half the class mumbled - it became a running joke).

Sorry this is long but the entire conversation in this tread drove me batty and I am sorry to rockymountainmama that quite a few people hijacked your thread though a few made very good points.

As noted... the above is from just ONE perspective but I can almost say for certain that many DHH people i know have had very similar experiences- majority mainstream/oral and some from deaf schools but I can say that (in my perspective) a large percentage of those who grew up with ASL were more confident of themselves. For sure there are oral/non signing individuals who are themselves strongly self confident but in my view I don't see as many.

*signing off*

(I may have a change of heart and delete this entire thing as people ARE going to have their own set view and will never budge from it).

 

[deafdyke]

If this study began in 2005, as you’ve stated at least once,, those kids would be over 10 years old now.
And I thought you had said previously that they were only following the kids to age 5.

You seem to contradict yourself a lot.

LoveBlue, oralists do this a LOT. They mistake "kid doesn't have SEVERE language issues" for "these kids aren't like the kids from the '70's who could only say "Deblee Deblah. Bedlah"...They hardly ever look at the whole picture. It's only speech

 

[deafdyke]

Fast forward into the "real world" where 'deaf need to compete on the same level as hearing".. while yes I had the skills... I CAN tell you it still was not a very level playing field even with my 'stellar' transcript from both HS and Gallaudet. There is still bias, even for a person who speaks so well people will refuse to believe you are deaf and refuse to believe/understand that no- no I CANNOT understand every word you say (speech therapy wasn't THAT successful). I have all those skills mentioned above in TOD's post- yet I still struggle. Yes, I've been lucky enough to land some pretty great jobs but it comes at a cost. I had longer gaps than most hearing people in employment when between jobs. I have many friends who are on the wide spectrum of deafness from mild hearing loss to profound and solely ASL... the one with the mild hearing loss (I do not know if that person still signs or not)- has never been able to hold down a job for longer than a year- though to be fair there were other issues. A few who use ASL exclusively and may or may not have hearing aids have done very very well for themselves. Of course there are those who aren't doing well...

The thing is it feels like the above statement is so broad as to say yes we want these kids to be at this certain level but forgetting to say 'but it is also possible for ANY deaf kid to succeed and reach the very same level as the hearing kid regardless of WHAT mode of communication they use' I may have been successful in my life and 'successful' with "hearing and speaking" but that does not mean that I actually understand everything verbally/auditorily (yes I know that's not spelled right). A LOT of reading got me through - just about.


That's all it is "access". It does not mean that the access will give them understandable language or information. Case in point... As noted... my hearing/speech development was obviously stellar/top-notch whatever.. but a recent incident tells me otherwise. My first weekend in the "DevHouse" (the house I stayed in while I was studying in Utah), I met the other two housemates. One I could not understand at all because he slurred his words (I found out the next day why...dentures). The other person I could not understand either and when asked to repeat...he said..."NEVER MIND". Story of my life. Anyone new I meet I cannot hear clearly at all- maybe lucky once in a while. Even after 3 months there I still had a hard time understanding/hearing 90% of the class (but to be fair- one of my interpreters said half the class mumbled - it became a running joke).

Sorry this is long but the entire conversation in this tread drove me batty and I am sorry to rockymountainmama that quite a few people hijacked your thread though a few made very good points.

As noted... the above is from just ONE perspective but I can almost say for certain that many DHH people i know have had very similar experiences- majority mainstream/oral and some from deaf schools but I can say that (in my perspective) a large percentage of those who grew up with ASL were more confident of themselves. For sure there are oral/non signing individuals who are themselves strongly self confident but in my view I don't see as many.

*signing off*

(I may have a change of heart and delete this entire thing as people ARE going to have their own set view and will never budge from it).

No, this is PERFECT!!!!!!! This is AMAZING! What oral deaf proponets don't understand is the HARD in the HOH. Speech skills don't g7ve unfettered access to the mainstream. If it did then hearing disabled kids wouldn't have issues with acheivement etc