Some children who are born deaf recover from their deafness

[deafdyke]

Rick, i am using "graduated" not as anything having to do with high school, but rather in the sense that someone has sucessfully completed a particualar course of study. In this case, the course of study is speech and language.
Have you never heard that used that way?
Very few dhh kids will need lifelong speech therapy. I have never said otherwise. But most oral kids do require intensive speech and language services for most of their school careers. Some of it is in school, but many others prolly realize that most public school therapists (with the exception of those who work at magnet oral programs) are crap when it comes to working with dhh kids. Need I remind you that many oral schools and programs run up to 8th grade? The evidence that oral-only isn't effective or good at teaching dhh kids spoken language, is evident in the fact that deaf people (whole population) have lower verbal iqs then hearing people. verbal iq measures the mastery of a languauge. now if oral kids had mastered the english language then they would have average verbal iqs. but they don't.
i have tried looking for cites, but none exist. perhaps that is b/c the oral industry is afraid of what such studies would reveal. after all, if i recall, from a book ling criticized oral students poor speech and literacy rates. if oralism really was all that, the experts wouldn't criticize it.

 

[Bear]

Very well said, and I do regret the I come over nowadays.
But what has to be seen in all this, is that I never say anything about Deaf culture. I respect deaf culture, HOWEVER, my opinion about my daughters ability to hear and directing focus back on her progres when this is ignores is INTERPRETED as disrespect. This is totally wrong. In fact, the disrespect goes the other way...
And previously I would have ignore that... now I am fed up with it.
And other parents chose to turn away from AllDeaf, parents that really tried to make contact with the Deaf community, but were rejected by the majority. It's a loss for AllDeaf.
Other parents, mostly mothers of children with CI that came here to share their positive story have left. They never showedany disrespect towards the Deaf world, still their opinion and stories are interpreted as child-abuse and audist attitude.

Well, what should I (and Rick for that matter) do.. Leave as well. ??? That wold be taking the easy way out, and you know, we have never done that, and are still not doing that.
So, I will stay here and share my experiences of my daughter with anyone who wants to hear...

And have a look at those experiences.... and look how much "respect" is shown from the people that accuse me and Rick of disrespecting Deaf world... and that is without us saying anything negative about it....
Our stories are not relevant for some, because they do not agree with the "accepted" view"...

A child that has CI (or even worse... bi-lateral!) has a parent that does not love it's child, hates sign, hates deaf world, doesn't realise that the child needs ASL, takes the easy way out, has not thought about the future for it's child, thinks the child can hear like normal hearing (whatever that is) etc. etc....

Guess I don't fit the profile... guess it's easier to ignore all the rediculous stories.....

But you are absolutely right.. all the bickering is leading to nothing and for that reason I have distanced myself again from the endless discussions..
My point of view is from my daughter point of view into the world.
Other peoples view is from a child that struggles' point of view into the world.
Some look into the light and some into the dark. Some are blinded by the light, some have the right filters. Some see the light at the end of the black tunnel and are working to get the child there, and then there are those that only see darkness and cannot accept that there is actually light at the end. Lot's of it.

Thanks again for your posts.. .they are great and I really appreciated them. I started replying on them because of the wrong assumptions in it, but decided against it. What's the point...???
That's how I come across, and that's fine. Those who have "know" me a bit longer have seen the other side as well, and perhaps will be able to think back to that as well.

Cloggy,

Thank you for letting me know you like my posts. I am in no way trying to put you down. Its just that I see that these posts anymore arent really educational. It is more of a point of bickering about the *fine tuning* if you get my drift.

I rarely post in the CI threads simply because of this. I mean what does it matter if the child has to have to speech therapy to adulthood? As long as that child is happy and adjusting well?

What does it matter if, now dont take me the wrong way here, your daughter is highly successful with the CI and another child fails? With any surgery there are outstanding successes and failures. That is how things are learned and improved upon.

Yes, we should allow both failure and success stories to be told without bickering. To shoot down a success or a failure story at least the way I see it, is both sides trying to do a *cover up*.

I am not wholeheartedly for the CI or against it. I know wierd coming from someone that has one. I achieved what I wanted with my CI, I can talk with others easily and most importantly * TO ME ONLY* I can hear my music again.

I believe that yes while a CI is invasive surgery and there is no denying that. That each parent does weigh the risks and benefits heavily before making that decision. You can say other surgeries are more needed or not needed. But truthfully all surgeries are still elective.

You can chose to have a heart bypass done or you can chose not to. Not everything in life is guaranteed and never will be. However, if we chose to live our lives worrying about the small things instead of major issues such as deaf rights,racism, and global warming, then this world will still remain in such a sad state.

Instead of bickering over who has a CI, who doesnt, should or shouldnt children be implanted, asl or oral, speech therapy or none. We should take those arguements and throw them out the damn door and start taking arguements to the government and getting BETTER RIGHTS!

Just my 2 cents!

And Cloggy not that whole post was directed at you only just for clarification.

 

[Bear]

Also forgot to add ty everyone for letting me know you enjoyed my posting.

 

[jillio]

So true..I notice that I am sitll not as competent in the English language as hearing people due to not growing up acquiring English naturally.

Exactly. I think it was in Damned for Their Difference that I read it phrased the best. The book stated that no matter how proficient their oral skills, the deaf individual would never use English the same way that a native speaker would, even though it might be their first and only language. The reason is that it is a learned language and not an acquired language.

 

[jillio]

Just like deaf children that can hear.

Because they cannot hear.. (enough)

What does that mean ??
Let's ask Wiki...

And wiki again...

Ah ha........ no ... still don't get that sentence......


When a deaf child can hear, it can aquire the language....

You are looking up words out of context. Open a liguistics book.

 

[jillio]

I obviously have never met you face to face, but you write English a lot better than some hearing people I know!

I remember growing up it took me a long time to understand idioms. For example we had a saying in the UK that if you weren't going to talk to someone you "sent them to Coventry". Coventry is also a town in England so you can guess what I made of that. I thought people were really going to get sent to Coventry town.

It wasn't until I was in my late teens that things clicked and my language deepened in that sense. The UK has a very understated, subtle sense of humour that is based on tone of voice and I really love that.

So well put. The nuances and play with oral language that the hearing begin to acquire at birth is a process of knowing certain things about the language in an instinctual way--often possessing the knowledge of how the language works without always being able to articulate how or why one knows. This is the earmark of a mother tongue, and that which allows full use of a language. These are the things that escape the oral deaf, even though they are capable of using the language in a very rigid and concrete way. This is alsso what has led to the stereotype of the deaf as being unable to grasp the sense of the abstract as well as the hearing. That is totally untrue, and if you know ASL or BSL, or any of the other signed languages, you understand that they are every bit as abstract as the oral languages. It is the abstract in the deaf person who has developed skills that would lead those same people to believe that because he/she has a good command of the spoken language that they are aslo able to use that language in the same way that a hearing native user will. The deaf know and are able to think in the abstract, they simply are not able to use or to grasp the nuances of the abstract in spoken language. However, the deaf use the same in signed communication on a consistent basis, so the stereotype is obviously incorrect.

 

[jillio]

While virtually all kids will have s&L language therapy in elementary school, it drops off in the middle school years and especially in high school.

True that most deaf kids of hearing parents have delays due to the length of time between diagnosis of deafness and beginning of language therapy but it applies to deaf kids regardless of language method chosen by the parents and while there initially may be language delays, those delays can be and are eliminated or decreased by the time they enter school.

Exactly what is your point by noting that S&L therapy will be rrequired? So what.
Rick

But the gaps close quicker in a Bi-Bi environment. The child who has been delayed in diagnosis has already begun to adapt to his deafness by relying on his visula mode to interpret, make sense, and understand his world. He knows how to do this despite the delay in diagnosis. In fact, the abiltiy to adapt as such is what causes many of the delays in diagnosis. The deaf child has adpated to well to the environment in a visual sense, that parents do not see the obvious signs that he is not hearing, because his response is natural and expected.

 

[jillio]

Cloggy,

True, because the ci will give some kids access to sounds and to indirect or peripheral language that they would not get with HAs and obviously if unaided.
Rick

Not true, because they still have to be taught to interpret those sounds as meaningful.

 

[jillio]

U know what's weird? I have a profound hearing loss of 120 dB since birth and with my HAs, I can catch several words without lipreading. No, I cant rely on them alone for conversations but I was just sitting here typing on another thread with my back turned and I heard and understood my husband say to my son "Nathanial..stop throwing the ball." I turned around and asked him what he said and he told me exactly what I heard. Someone told me that we hear with our brains not with our ears. It could be the case with what just happened. I can talk on the phone (limited) with my regular HAs but too much work for me so I lost interest. I am sure the CI is a big improvement over HAs but just wanted to give u a FYI...sometimes HAs work well enough for profoundly deaf people. My best friend has a dB loss of 90 and can carry conversations on the phone with her regular (not digital) HAs.

Just wanted to share that...not saying that u are wrong nor arguing with your POV..

Yes, hearing is a neuroligical process, not an auditory process! Sound perception is the auditory process! You have learned over the years, to interpret what you perceived as having that particular meaning. That is exactly what I meant about having to be taught to interpret the sound as meaningful! Thanks so much for sharing what I was trying to explain in a rela life situation.

 

[jillio]

What does it matter how much someone can or cant here with a HA or CI? What does it matter how much speech and language therapy and child may or may not need? The point being is the CI's are here to stay and very legal
for a parent to implant their children. As long as that child is protected under law to be implanted, the will continue to do so.


Cloggy and others, when you come here your not really respecting others POV's on the implant. And you sure arent educating. Your coming across as pushy and overbearing, quite frankly reading many of your posts almost turned me off of getting a CI.I was afraid that it would turn me into you guys. Cloggy the only thing I see you post over and over and over and over again is the *child can hear*. A Ci does not do that alone. I had hearing aids since I was 14 and heard well enough with those. Yes I could talk on the phone with them. I mean I heard well AND was profoundly deaf.So therefore I could hear too.

A CI nor a hearing aid will ever make you INTO A HEARING PERSON AGAIN. I do know the difference. A Ci and a HA allows you to hear the sounds around you. They do not nor ever will allow true hearing. That is the point deaf people are making, it does not, nor ever will allow true hearing. Yes, Cloggy and others, your kids do *hear* with the CI, but its not what the hearing hears.

Now to the deaf ones, speech, no matter how it is acquired, is a good skill to have in your arsenal. I prefer to sign, than having to talk all the time. But, I can and do talk as well. And I talk very clearly, that has to do with being able to hear myself talk, as well as, growing up hearing.What Cloggy and others are trying to say is, you do talk more clearly and enunciate *sp?* better when you can hear yourself talk. You lose that nasal quality in your voice *deaf voice* when you can you hear yourself.

There will always be differences and points to make as Pro-or ANTI CI. And this bickering back and forth between the two groups isnt helping. It just makes both sides seem pushy and fanatical. Almost to the point of driving anyone away from Deaf Culture or a CI.

Ci's will not eradicated Deaf Culture or sign language. There will always be people who can sign and talk, sign only, or talk only. That has been the case for years now and will continue being the case for years to come.

The only thing eradicating Deaf Culture, is the way the deaf world is. We all know that because it is so small and that it does happen in the hearing world too, but in the deaf world, the backstabbing and the rumors are rampant. THAT is what turns people off of the deaf culture. Until we grow up and show more maturity in the deaf culture, people will turn away from it.

I mean come on, ever went to a store or restaraunt with a deaf friend and they threw a tantrum over the smallest thing? Deaf people can be very rude and immature when dealing with problems. THIS is the image most hearing people see and take notice of.


Pro-Ciers your also not helping our image by turning away from the deaf culture all together. I am a Cier and refuse to take being shunned by the deaf, instead I chose to educate them. Yes, look at me, I am a CI user, yet I sign and when I take off the CI, I am just as deaf as you are.

I dont agree with implanting children, however, I am smart enough to know that no matter what I say or do, that a parent has the choice for themselves.

I could state those opinions here. But why do so? When I have people like Cloggy and others more than willing to shoot down those opinions?

I could state many reasons for a CI. WHY should I do so? When I have people more than willing to shoot down any reason to get a CI.

My opinion is just let everyone be what they wanna be. And chose to live together peacefully, and educate both sides on the goodness of a CI and the goodness of teaching signs and the deaf culture that they belong to.

 

[jillio]

Cloggy,

Thank you for letting me know you like my posts. I am in no way trying to put you down. Its just that I see that these posts anymore arent really educational. It is more of a point of bickering about the *fine tuning* if you get my drift.

I rarely post in the CI threads simply because of this. I mean what does it matter if the child has to have to speech therapy to adulthood? As long as that child is happy and adjusting well?

What does it matter if, now dont take me the wrong way here, your daughter is highly successful with the CI and another child fails? With any surgery there are outstanding successes and failures. That is how things are learned and improved upon.

Yes, we should allow both failure and success stories to be told without bickering. To shoot down a success or a failure story at least the way I see it, is both sides trying to do a *cover up*.

I am not wholeheartedly for the CI or against it. I know wierd coming from someone that has one. I achieved what I wanted with my CI, I can talk with others easily and most importantly * TO ME ONLY* I can hear my music again.

I believe that yes while a CI is invasive surgery and there is no denying that. That each parent does weigh the risks and benefits heavily before making that decision. You can say other surgeries are more needed or not needed. But truthfully all surgeries are still elective.

You can chose to have a heart bypass done or you can chose not to. Not everything in life is guaranteed and never will be. However, if we chose to live our lives worrying about the small things instead of major issues such as deaf rights,racism, and global warming, then this world will still remain in such a sad state.

Instead of bickering over who has a CI, who doesnt, should or shouldnt children be implanted, asl or oral, speech therapy or none. We should take those arguements and throw them out the damn door and start taking arguements to the government and getting BETTER RIGHTS!

Just my 2 cents!

And Cloggy not that whole post was directed at you only just for clarification.

Ageed, bear. And in order for the rights of deaf people to improve, we all have to come to an understanding that deaf is deaf and all are entitltled to accomodation and equal education. The hearing world in particular, needs to stop separating deaf into categories of mild, moderate, severe, profound, HA user, CI user, and non-assisted. It leads to the attitude that I encounter with hearing professors--they will ask why a student with a CI who speaks so well has to have a sign interpreter in class. Other students wee it as being given an extra advantage rather than a necesary accomodation to ensure equal access to class room material. That is my biggest concern--that these children who are implanted continue to receive the services they need and are supposed to be guaranteed by law. But they are often denied the proper services unless someone advocates for them because it is assumed that they don't need the services by those that are supposed to be offering them. That is my biggest concern. By not providing services, the hearing world often is guilty of discrimination agaisnt the CI user more so than the deaf world is. I want to see all deaf children, no matter who they are or how they choose to cope with their deafness succeed to their fullest potential. There is no one way to do that--my son has done it through choosing not to be implanted, and preference of sign to speech, although he can and does use oral communication when he has to. Others choose the implant and the oral only route. But no matter what path is chosen, they are still deaf, and as such have rights to equal access. Those rights are not being addressed in the proper way. The CI is a wonderful tool. Oral skills are a wonderful tool. But when we use them as an excuse not to provide our children with all the tools necessary to insure that they receive an equal educational experience as their hearing peers, then we are doing our deaf children a disservice.

 

[deafdyke]

jillo, that's an excellent post, and that's my main concern too. Hearing people (including experts like Moog, Flexor etc) think that oral skills are pretty much sufficent. If a dhh kid can do ok spoken language wise, there's no reason for them to learn sign. BUT, maybe those kids who are just plodding along and just doing ok, might do even better if they were granted access to a full toolbox of options. historically oral only kids really don't have the best acheivement levels. Also right on about the dhh kids learning speech as a second language.
with the possible exception of unilaterally dhh people, most dhh kids will never really be able to master the meat and potatos of oral language. This is apparent in for example the fact that a lot of oral kids have difficulty with reading and expressing themselves in english. Yes, there are superstars, but the superstars are simply a significent minority. plus, a lot of them have advantages like very hyperinvolved parents. not just involved parents, but the type of parent who would buy their kids toys to increase their sat scores. also this population tends to be relatively wealthy, so that parents can afford to do things like move, and buy really really good health insurance and things like that.

 

[jillio]

jillo, that's an excellent post, and that's my main concern too. Hearing people (including experts like Moog, Flexor etc) think that oral skills are pretty much sufficent. If a dhh kid can do ok spoken language wise, there's no reason for them to learn sign. BUT, maybe those kids who are just plodding along and just doing ok, might do even better if they were granted access to a full toolbox of options. historically oral only kids really don't have the best acheivement levels. Also right on about the dhh kids learning speech as a second language.
with the possible exception of unilaterally dhh people, most dhh kids will never really be able to master the meat and potatos of oral language. This is apparent in for example the fact that a lot of oral kids have difficulty with reading and expressing themselves in english. Yes, there are superstars, but the superstars are simply a significent minority. plus, a lot of them have advantages like very hyperinvolved parents. not just involved parents, but the type of parent who would buy their kids toys to increase their sat scores. also this population tends to be relatively wealthy, so that parents can afford to do things like move, and buy really really good health insurance and things like that.

dd. And you are correct about the SES coming into play. Lower economic categories cannot afford to give their children some of the advantages that upper SES can. But you know, it is usually the upper SES that insists on strict oral only environments and demand strict oral only performance from their kids. I have my theories on the reason for this, but nothing that has been researched. Basing my opinion on the research done regarding other attitudes, etc. in the upper SES.

 

[Cloggy]

You are looking up words out of context. Open a liguistics book.

 

[jillio]

Now there's an intelligent reply. It still stands that the definitions you posted have nothing to do with the psychological and linguistic definitions of internalization as applied to language.

 

[Cloggy]

Now there's an intelligent reply. It still stands that the definitions you posted have nothing to do with the psychological and linguistic definitions of internalization as applied to language.

 

[neecy]

Why does he NEED to post about the psychological and linguistic definitions of internalization as opposed to language?

 

[shel90]

Now there's an intelligent reply. It still stands that the definitions you posted have nothing to do with the psychological and linguistic definitions of internalization as applied to language.

I agree with u. There is so much more just than having good speech and listening skills...so much more. That's why I strongly believe in the BiBi approach over the oral only approach. I cant trust that the children are really getting all their information in the oral only approach.

 

[rick48]

But the gaps close quicker....

"Can you truthfully say that you were not talking about me and/or Cloggy?

Who is that other ci parent who gives his wife all the credit for raising a wonderful daughter? I would like to meet him, we appear to have a lot in common!"

Until you answer those questions, please do not correspond with me. Go find somewhere else to troll. I have stopped playing your games.

 

[shel90]

But the gaps close quicker in a Bi-Bi environment. The child who has been delayed in diagnosis has already begun to adapt to his deafness by relying on his visula mode to interpret, make sense, and understand his world. He knows how to do this despite the delay in diagnosis. In fact, the abiltiy to adapt as such is what causes many of the delays in diagnosis. The deaf child has adpated to well to the environment in a visual sense, that parents do not see the obvious signs that he is not hearing, because his response is natural and expected.

I know and why not do that? What's wrong with having both sign language and oral language in the educational setting? Why must have only one or the other? That's why I would never teach in oral only programs because it goes against my philosophy and beliefs as a teacher and also, I dont think I would be comfortable speaking all day without any signing with deaf children. It would feel just too weird. If my work closes and I lose my job, that's the end of teaching for me. I will pursue a different career. No way I will teach using spoken language because it is just too difficult for me and I would probably start to resent the job.