Parants of CI children.

[faire_jour]

You have a question?

You asked me to think about what oral means, so I explained the difference between oral and AV.

 

[jillio]

You asked me to think about what oral means, so I explained the difference between oral and AV.

And I added what you left out. :shrug: I didn't ask for a contrast and compare.

 

[Hear Again]

Ditto here. I've never been for oral only.

I second that. If I had a Deaf or deafblind child and chose to have them implanted, I would allow them to have access to more than one form of communication including ASL, tactile sign, lipreading and speech. If it turns out that speech is not working well for them, I would immediately drop it in favor of ASL or tactile sign.

 

[rick48]

And it also means being in the position of attempting to gain information through the auditory (weakest) sense without the benefit of readily available visual, contextual input. Speech reading is of limited benefit in a classroom.

That may be your definition but for many deaf individuals who are "oral", they do indeed rely upon visual and contextual inputs. Depending upon the variables, speech reading is indeed beneficial to deaf students in the classroom.

As to this "weakest" sense nonsense, that's just more of your semantical nonsense. Guess that for those with refined senses of smell, then that is how they should be gaining information. You, in your anti-ci/anti-oral agenda gloss over an important fact that for successful ci users and successful oral deaf they are able to do exactly what you claim they cannot-gain information through their auditory sense.

I know its tough for you to admit it, but there are those deaf individuals, especially those with cochlear implants who are living the lives you claim they cannot.

 

[shel90]

Honestly, If I had a deaf child... I would have my child get CI. However I will have the deaf child know the both world, Hearing World and Deaf World. I would teach the child the Deaf Culture and I would have the child communicate ASL, but I also would have the child be Oral as well. I just want the child to have all the opportunities, to have all the possibilities.

Same here..but for the CI part.

 

[dreama]

I second that. If I had a Deaf or deafblind child and chose to have them implanted, I would allow them to have access to more than one form of communication including ASL, tactile sign, lipreading and speech. If it turns out that speech is not working well for them, I would immediately drop it in favor of ASL or tactile sign.

That's good to know. If I had a deaf child I wouldn't implant them though. They would learn sign language starting with baby signs, and also how to read and write. Speech (with tactilating, Hearing aids and/or cued speech) would only come 3rd. If they weren't mastering I'd drop it and they could communicate with the world with Pen and paper.

 

[jillio]

That may be your definition but for many deaf individuals who are "oral", they do indeed rely upon visual and contextual inputs. Depending upon the variables, speech reading is indeed beneficial to deaf students in the classroom.

As to this "weakest" sense nonsense, that's just more of your semantical nonsense. Guess that for those with refined senses of smell, then that is how they should be gaining information. You, in your anti-ci/anti-oral agenda gloss over an important fact that for successful ci users and successful oral deaf they are able to do exactly what you claim they cannot-gain information through their auditory sense.

I know its tough for you to admit it, but there are those deaf individuals, especially those with cochlear implants who are living the lives you claim they cannot.

Even with a CI, the auditory sense is a deaf individual's weakest sense. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be deaf, now, would they?

Speech reading is beneficial provided the lighting is proper, the distance is no more than 5 feet between speaker and receiver, the receiver is able to see the full face of the speaker, the speaker does not have a mustache and/or beard, and the speaker enunciates well with sufficient movement to allow for discrimination visually. Even under ideal conditions, there are numerous sounds that cannot be speech read when spoken. Given the nature of a classroom, it is a far less than ideal situation for speech reading. And, just like asking a child to use their hearing to gain all of the information in a classroom is asking them to use their weakest sense, asking them to speech read in a classroom environment places them at a definate disadvantage. Particularly when there are ways to communicate 100% of the information to them.

 

[shel90]

Even with a CI, the auditory sense is a deaf individual's weakest sense. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be deaf, now, would they?

Speech reading is beneficial provided the lighting is proper, the distance is no more than 5 feet between speaker and receiver, the receiver is able to see the full face of the speaker, the speaker does not have a mustache and/or beard, and the speaker enunciates well with sufficient movement to allow for discrimination visually. Even under ideal conditions, there are numerous sounds that cannot be speech read when spoken. Given the nature of a classroom, it is a far less than ideal situation for speech reading. And, just like asking a child to use their hearing to gain all of the information in a classroom is asking them to use their weakest sense, asking them to speech read in a classroom environment places them at a definate disadvantage. Particularly when there are ways to communicate 100% of the information to them.

Dont forget that speechreading is very hard on the eyes. I used to get headaches and fatigue constantly by afternoon when the lessons got more complex. Try to imagine understanding a complex lesson and working to get access to the information at the same time. It is not natural.

 

[jillio]

Dont forget that speechreading is very hard on the eyes. I used to get headaches and fatigue constantly by afternoon when the lessons got more complex. Try to imagine understanding a complex lesson and working to get access to the information at the same time. It is not natural.

Yep, you're right. I should have included that. Thank you.

 

[deafdyke]

Honestly, If I had a deaf child... I would have my child get CI. However I will have the deaf child know the both world,

Actually, almost ditto here too. If my child was a right off the bat canidate, then I would chose to implant them. However if they had some speech perception with HA, I'd wait til they were a bit older to implant them.....I also think (when it's ambigious) they should be able to help make the choice whether or not to get a CI.
I have a condition where I could have surgery to gain hearing. I could have had it as a little kid, but my parents choe to wait til I was a teen for me to have it, so that I could help chose. (I tried it but didn't work )

That may be your definition but for many deaf individuals who are "oral", they do indeed rely upon visual and contextual inputs. Depending upon the variables, speech reading is indeed beneficial to deaf students in the classroom.

As to this "weakest" sense nonsense, that's just more of your semantical nonsense. Guess that for those with refined senses of smell, then that is how they should be gaining information. You, in your anti-ci/anti-oral agenda gloss over an important fact that for successful ci users and successful oral deaf they are able to do exactly what you claim they cannot-gain information through their auditory sense.

I know its tough for you to admit it, but there are those deaf individuals, especially those with cochlear implants who are living the lives you claim they cannot.

Rick, bear in mind that the oral population you see are the ones who have been very sucessful with it. They don't represent the average dhh person. Matter of fact, I remember reading that a significent percentage of orally trained kids still need to use "terps in the classroom.....if I recall correctly, it's not all that unusual to see 'terps at AG Bell conferences!
jillo is not saying that a dhh person can't be sucessful using their weakest sense. Hell.....I'm an AUDITORY learner with a very high verbal IQ AND I scored 660 on the verbal part of the SATs! I've got more to say, but I'm being kicked off the net now. Will say more later!

 

[Hear Again]

That's good to know. If I had a deaf child I wouldn't implant them though. They would learn sign language starting with baby signs, and also how to read and write. Speech (with tactilating, Hearing aids and/or cued speech) would only come 3rd. If they weren't mastering I'd drop it and they could communicate with the world with Pen and paper.

If I had a Deaf or deafblind child, I would implant them (especially a deafblind child so they can become more aware of their surroundings).

However, that does not mean I would place complete focus on an oral-only approach. I would give them the "full communication toolbox" that DD speaks of by making sure to incorporate speech, lipreading and ASL/tactile sign.

The only exception would be if my child were clearly having difficulty with speech at which time it would be discontinued in favor of sign.

 

[rick48]

Even with a CI, the auditory sense is a deaf individual's weakest sense. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be deaf, now, would they?

Speech reading is beneficial provided the lighting is proper, the distance is no more than 5 feet between speaker and receiver, ...blah, blah blah

Really, speech reading or lip reading is only beneficial at a distance of FIVE FEET or less!!

Guess that is another of your opinions that you are passing off as "fact". No wait folks, we'll get the standard response that there is "empirical evidence and studies have shown". Bottom line is that you are just making it up as you go along.

As to your trite little attempt at a put down to start your post, you just do not get it and never will. Talk TO, instead of talking AT, a successful implant user and or the parent of such a child and they will tell you what the implant has allowed them or their child to accomplish auditorily. Yes, of course they are deaf and always will be but they have, through the cochlear implant, the ability to hear sounds that they could never hear before.

Cloggy said it best when he said his beautiful daughter was a deaf child who could hear with her cochlear implant. You of course, looked only at the words and attacked him because you could not, and never will, understand the meaning of what he was saying.

I am done on this and moving on, in part because as you said the other day, I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits with one who is unarmed but more so I have no time to waste with a close minded individual who cannot see deaf people as unique individuals and who sees the success of oral and cochlear implanted children as a threat to her.

Instead of embracing the success of such children and adults as part of the entire deaf community and seeking to incorporate their success to the benefit of all in the deaf community, you want oral and cochlear implanted children to fail. That is truly sad.

 

[Daredevel7]

I'm curious about one thing. A lot of people here talk about giving children a full communication toolbox or "best of both worlds" etc. Some also say that if they have a difficulty with speech, they will drop it in favor of sign. I'm curious about what you consider "difficulty". It's obvious to drop it if they show no progress. However, what if they refuse to even try? I mean they ARE kids. I doubt most of them will be good little students when it comes to speech. If they start signing "I dont wanna!", does this mean it's time to drop speech or do you keep insisting?

 

[Hear Again]

I'm curious about one thing. A lot of people here talk about giving children a full communication toolbox or "best of both worlds" etc. Some also say that if they have a difficulty with speech, they will drop it in favor of sign. I'm curious about what you consider "difficulty". It's obvious to drop it if they show no progress. However, what if they refuse to even try? I mean they ARE kids. I doubt most of them will be good little students when it comes to speech. If they start signing "I dont wanna!", does this mean it's time to drop speech or do you keep insisting?

If my child were to refuse speech therapy and did not even try to put forth the effort involved to voice for themselves, I would continue therapy regardless.

I would also try to find a speech therapist who can make therapy fun and interesting instead of a repetitive set of drills that bore my child.

However, if their speech therapist indicates that my child is applying themselves and doing the best they can but is not making any progress, I would cease speech training in favor of ASL/tactile sign.

 

[rockdrummer]

We as educated responsible parents make decisions for our children every day. If we do something for them or elect not to do something for them we have still made a decision on their behalf. Much of the time we do this because our children aren't old enough or mature enough to grasp the pros/cons of such decisions.

We have had this discussion over and over again and I totally get it that some people don't think parents should choose to go down the CI route for their child. And that some people believe that if a parent does choose for a CI then the child is being forcefully implanted and that the parent doesn't accept their child for who they are. Personally I dis-agree with that position but I do respect the opinions of others but on that point is where I have to agree to disagree.

 

[shel90]

I'm curious about one thing. A lot of people here talk about giving children a full communication toolbox or "best of both worlds" etc. Some also say that if they have a difficulty with speech, they will drop it in favor of sign. I'm curious about what you consider "difficulty". It's obvious to drop it if they show no progress. However, what if they refuse to even try? I mean they ARE kids. I doubt most of them will be good little students when it comes to speech. If they start signing "I dont wanna!", does this mean it's time to drop speech or do you keep insisting?

If my child shows no progress over a significant period of time and speech therapy is wasting our time, then I will drop it.

My hearing son was in speech therapy for a year...he made progress so I continued it and he is still getting it at the school he attends.

 

[jillio]

Really, speech reading or lip reading is only beneficial at a distance of FIVE FEET or less!!

Guess that is another of your opinions that you are passing off as "fact". No wait folks, we'll get the standard response that there is "empirical evidence and studies have shown". Bottom line is that you are just making it up as you go along.

Nope, not opinion at all. And, yes, there is considerable emiprical evidence and studies done on the topic. It's a shame you don't ever take the time to access the volumes of information at your disposal. Not only is there considerable empirical evidence available, there is also the anecdotal evidence supplied by the lip readers themselves. You don't seem to give their experience any credibility at all, either. It would appear that the only information you give credibility to is your own limited experience of never having seriously investigated the issue, but rather, relying on opinion based on wishful thinking on your behalf. For me, when it comes to the education of deaf children, I prefer to take the word of those that have actually experienced it, and those that have studied and researched it extensively, rather than the opinion of one person who has done neither.As to your trite little attempt at a put down to start your post, you just do not get it and never will. Talk TO, instead of talking AT, a successful implant user and or the parent of such a child and they will tell you what the implant has allowed them or their child to accomplish auditorily. Yes, of course they are deaf and always will be but they have, through the cochlear implant, the ability to hear sounds that they could never hear before.

It wasn't an attempt to insult at all. It was an attempt, and a quite successful one at that, to point out the fatal flaw in your reasoning. A deaf person's weakest sense is their auditory sense. If that were not a true statement, they would not be deaf. Quite a simple concept really, but one you consistently seem to ignore. And I can talk to all the CI users in the world and it will not change the fact that their auditory sense is still their weakest sense. To ask a CI user, or any deaf person, to function solely on audition in the reception of communicative information is to ask them to gain that information through their weakest sense.
Cloggy said it best when he said his beautiful daughter was a deaf child who could hear with her cochlear implant. You of course, looked only at the words and attacked him because you could not, and never will, understand the meaning of what he was saying.

No one is saying that a deaf child cannot perceive sound through their CI. Many deaf children can perceive sound through an HA. Doesn't mean that they are any less deaf, nor that their auditory sense is still their weakest sense.
I am done on this and moving on, in part because as you said the other day, I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits with one who is unarmed but more so I have no time to waste with a close minded individual who cannot see deaf people as unique individuals and who sees the success of oral and cochlear implanted children as a threat to her.

You're funny! Why is it that everytime a true statement is made that you cannot refute, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Pretty clear indication that you have nothing left. Please, if you are able to, and we all know you cannot, enlighten us as to how a deaf individual's auditory sense is not their weakest sense, CI or no CI.Instead of embracing the success of such children and adults as part of the entire deaf community and seeking to incorporate their success to the benefit of all in the deaf community, you want oral and cochlear implanted children to fail. That is truly sad.

Yeah, I want CI implanted children to fail.:roll: That is why I have a consistent record of advocating for those methods that will allow them to access information in their environment and their educational placement at an equal level to that which is accessed by hearing children. You seem to forget, it is your policy of ORAL ONLY that restricts.

 

[jillio]

If my child shows no progress over a significant period of time and speech therapy is wasting our time, then I will drop it.

My hearing son was in speech therapy for a year...he made progress so I continued it and he is still getting it at the school he attends.

And particularly so if that speech therapy is the only effort being made on behalf of language acquisition.

 

[AlleyCat]

[Really, speech reading or lip reading is only beneficial at a distance of FIVE FEET or less!!

Guess that is another of your opinions that you are passing off as "fact". No wait folks, we'll get the standard response that there is "empirical evidence and studies have shown". Bottom line is that you are just making it up as you go along.

As to your trite little attempt at a put down to start your post, you just do not get it and never will. Talk TO, instead of talking AT, a successful implant user and or the parent of such a child and they will tell you what the implant has allowed them or their child to accomplish auditorily. Yes, of course they are deaf and always will be but they have, through the cochlear implant, the ability to hear sounds that they could never hear before.

Cloggy said it best when he said his beautiful daughter was a deaf child who could hear with her cochlear implant. You of course, looked only at the words and attacked him because you could not, and never will, understand the meaning of what he was saying.

I am done on this and moving on, in part because as you said the other day, I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits with one who is unarmed but more so I have no time to waste with a close minded individual (s) who cannot see deaf people as unique individuals and who sees the success of oral and cochlear implanted children as a threat to her.

Instead of embracing the success of such children and adults as part of the entire deaf community and seeking to incorporate their success to the benefit of all in the deaf community, you want oral and cochlear implanted children to fail. That is truly sad.

Everything in your original post was right on, I firmly believe. I highlighed just the part that I liked best. I barely post in these threads as well anymore because it, like you said, has become a battle of wits where certain people always have to have the last word and nitpick everything down to the last detail - even going so far as to pick out just one word and change the context.

And what infuriates me is that oftentimes these last words come from posters who think their opinion is superior than any of ours. Not equivalent, allowed, justifiable, experienced -- nothing - just superior. I have said all I have needed to say.

 

[shel90]

Really, speech reading or lip reading is only beneficial at a distance of FIVE FEET or less!!

Guess that is another of your opinions that you are passing off as "fact". No wait folks, we'll get the standard response that there is "empirical evidence and studies have shown". Bottom line is that you are just making it up as you go along.

As to your trite little attempt at a put down to start your post, you just do not get it and never will. Talk TO, instead of talking AT, a successful implant user and or the parent of such a child and they will tell you what the implant has allowed them or their child to accomplish auditorily. Yes, of course they are deaf and always will be but they have, through the cochlear implant, the ability to hear sounds that they could never hear before.

Cloggy said it best when he said his beautiful daughter was a deaf child who could hear with her cochlear implant. You of course, looked only at the words and attacked him because you could not, and never will, understand the meaning of what he was saying.

I am done on this and moving on, in part because as you said the other day, I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits with one who is unarmed but more so I have no time to waste with a close minded individual who cannot see deaf people as unique individuals and who sees the success of oral and cochlear implanted children as a threat to her.

Instead of embracing the success of such children and adults as part of the entire deaf community and seeking to incorporate their success to the benefit of all in the deaf community, you want oral and cochlear implanted children to fail. That is truly sad.

Maybe not only beneficial but definitely the most beneficial at 5 feet or less. The further away the speaker it, the less is being understood unless the person speaks slower than he/she normally does. Speechreading is not easy and a lot of guesswork happens.