They also know sign language too so you don't know if they think it is better that the child have both exposure. They could be there to work with the oral side of exposure. Just because they work there doesn't mean anything.
They work at oral only schools. There in no signing in any of these classrooms. They give information to parents and encourage them to use spoken language. Why would you do those things if you thought it was wrong? I have had a long conversation with one professional in particular (at JTC) about ASL and spoken language. She told me that she understands where we are coming from, wanting our child to have both, and JTC is very supportive of parental choice, and then she explained why they have the philosophy that they have.
just because someone encourage spoken language doesn't mean they are against bilingual for the deaf child. bilingual means both. So of course, they would encourage spoken language. I feel If she was truly against ASL, she wouldn't bother learning it. So did she really speak against ASL, as in don't use ASL at all?
Did you ever stop to think that they work there due to pay or benefits? Not just their belief's or their perceived belief's.
I know people who work for different companies and it was not their first choice and the company policies do not reflect their beliefs, but they get paid better and have more benefits than they would anywhere else.
She's been working at JTC for many many years. She and I had many conversations about ASL and spoken language and she continued to impress upon me how important it is that we spend the time learning spoken language now, and if we chose to continue with ASL it was fine, but the chance for spoken language was closing.
May I ask why she thought the chance for spoken language is starting to close? I had speech therapy from age 2 through high school and I did well with it. I was completely fluent in ASL by age 4 or so, so no further sign instruction was necessary (other than adapting to newly established signs as they arose), so all focus turned to spoken language for the remainder of my IEP years.
I think I disagree, but I may be an exception. As long as I wore my hearing aids (or in Miss Kat's case, her CI) I always had brain/auditory stimulation. I could hear all my teachers, classmates, family at home, and everywhere else. I don't think that really changes over time. It is a natural reaction (for me, at least) to listen to what you're hearing - I think you as a hearing person likely takes that for granted (no offense meant) because you have the ability to tune out repetitive sounds so you don't necessarily have to "listen" for stuff. Just my 2 cents.
I thought being visual is awesome. Anyway, I too wore hearing aids before I was in preschool. around at the age 2
She's been working at JTC for many many years. She and I had many conversations about ASL and spoken language and she continued to impress upon me how important it is that we spend the time learning spoken language now, and if we chose to continue with ASL it was fine, but the chance for spoken language was closing.
The chance to hear it and understand it, sure, but since she is an implanted child, she should be able to process it now. I didn't get aids until I was 6 years old, and I am fluent in English, and I speak well. I had no speech delay whatsoever, and my parents never signed to me. My language window didn't "close." I have no issues with speech.
The part about the spoken language window closing sounds ridiculous if you are speaking about a child who is now implanted. The implant ought to help her process speech, and she can't HELP but hear what is going on around her now, assuming that everything is activated, etc. There is no need for pushing auditory stimulation if she is getting it already with the implant being on, period. She will hear speech and learn it anyway. I did. Because she is so young (am I right in thinking she is very young? I always forget how old each of the implanted children are on here), her brain would just be soaking up the information she gets. It would not be ignoring the new information she obtains through her implant in auditory form.
Oral school is just a replica of what you go through in daily life. You mentioned they don't advocate for lipreading. Well, amplification devices aren't perfect. I wear aids, and I have a friend with a CI. He was implanted at two years old, I believe. Both of us are deaf, and we both lipread. He gets a SIGNIFICANTLY higher benefit from his CI than I do with my aids, BUT he still has to lipread, because it doesn't allow him to hear everything. The thing is that oral environments make it harder on the child to understand. It's possible, but it's a lot less comfortable for me and sometimes very frustrating.
My daughter is 7, she was implanted at age 5. She did not have access to spoken language with her hearing aids, so she did not start learning to hear until she was implanted. That means she had a very late start. Now she has learned to hear and can overhear and understand, but no, at first she couldn't, She had to gain discrimination skills, learn to be able to hear the subtle differences between "Sh" and "ch" and "mmm" and "nnn". Now that she hears those things well, she can learn language through listening. If she hadn't heard, and been able to discriminate between those sounds, language would be just a garble of sound rushing by her and leaving her behind.
Oh, of course. There's an adjustment period. The same happens if you get a newer hearing aid if you are HOH and can hear the difference. I'm deaf now, but I remember when I'd get new HAs and would have to relearn sounds and listening for a while. Not to compare it directly to the CI, because I know that's a whole other world. Just saying I can sort of empathize.
But now that she CAN hear, she can get that auditory stimulation from other places, not just school. I was mainstreamed, and I got auditory stimulation there just from listening to the teacher and students, but I didn't really understand anything they said because, well, my speech perception sucks, I suppose. But my speech abilities turned out fine. I might have learned more and been more interested if my classes were in ASL or in a bi-bi school.
My daughter is 7, she was implanted at age 5. She did not have access to spoken language with her hearing aids, so she did not start learning to hear until she was implanted. That means she had a very late start. Now she has learned to hear and can overhear and understand, but no, at first she couldn't, She had to gain discrimination skills, learn to be able to hear the subtle differences between "Sh" and "ch" and "mmm" and "nnn". Now that she hears those things well, she can learn language through listening. If she hadn't heard, and been able to discriminate between those sounds, language would be just a garble of sound rushing by her and leaving her behind.