Some thoughts?

[faire_jour]

Oh look! I know someone who was raised orally and is doing perfectly fine.
Oh look! I know someone who was raised with ASL, can speak also, and does perfectly fine.
Oh look! I know someone who was raised with ASL, even though s/he has bad oral skills, s/he does perfectly fine.

What can we conclude from that? Nothing!

I'll be blunt here. Just because I'm in a devil-ish mood today.
Faire_jour, I am on your side, but it's becoming glaringly obvious that you're a little emotional when someone merely mentions your child (which is understandable) and also I think you want to get some confirmation/support from the deaf community for your possible plan of putting Miss Kat in a mainstream school.
Others, it's obvious that you're tired of faire constantly trying to get even one person to approve of the idea that oral only may not be a bad idea, and I suspect that some of you are bringing faire's daughter into the topic because you know it would irritate her.
Also, am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that the ones who are the most outspoken about subjects like this are those who are oral only who learned ASL or going to learn ASL later? Where are the native ASL users? Isn't there a difference between "I wish I had" and "I am so happy that I had"????

HINDSIGHT.....

She won't be in a mainstream school for a very long time. I am simply trying to defend the parents and hearing people who get bashed here every single day.
I find it ironic that yes, there are very very very few native ASL users here to talk about the effects of growing up with ASL as opposed to without. But honestly, most ironic is that the person who posts the research and is the most informed, is HEARING!

 

[Bottesini]

She won't be in a mainstream school for a very long time. I am simply trying to defend the parents and hearing people who get bashed here every single day.
I find it ironic that yes, there are very very very few native ASL users here to talk about the effects of growing up with ASL as opposed to without. But honestly, most ironic is that the person who posts the research and is the most informed, is HEARING!

Well, the one posting the other side is hearing too. And I have noticed you usually start it.

 

[faire_jour]

Well, the one posting the other side is hearing too. And I have noticed you usually start it.

Yeah, I'm the one supporting parental choice, because I am a parent. Why isn't the Deaf community citing the research? Supporting their postions through well read and educated study? Why is it always Jillio?

 

[Bottesini]

Yeah, I'm the one supporting parental choice, because I am a parent. Why isn't the Deaf community citing the research? Supporting their postions through well read and educated study? Why is it always Jillio?

She is a parent too. Just took the other route from you.

 

[faire_jour]

She is a parent too. Just took the other route from you.

That is where you are WRONG! We took the same path. Why can't people understand that????
My daughter is in an ASL school. She has been exposed to ASL since 12 months old, BEFORE we knew she had a hearing loss. SHe wasn't even deaf, only moderatly hoh and we STILL chose to give her ASL as her first language AND a bi-bi school. I am a fluent signer, I passed my state cert, over a year ago. We are very active in the Deaf community. We even attend a Deaf church that is conducted completly in ASL.

Why does everyone accuse me of being against ASL or the Deaf? It is obviously not true.

 

[Bottesini]

That is where you are WRONG! We took the same path. Why can't people understand that????
My daughter is in an ASL school. She has been exposed to ASL since 12 months old, BEFORE we knew she had a hearing loss. SHe wasn't even deaf, only moderatly hoh and we STILL chose to give her ASL as her first language AND a bi-bi school. I am a fluent signer, I passed my state cert, over a year ago. We are very active in the Deaf community. We even attend a Deaf church that is conducted completly in ASL.

Why does everyone accuse me of being against ASL or the Deaf? It is obviously not true.

I didn't accuse you. I just meant you chose CI and Jillio did not.

 

[faire_jour]

I didn't accuse you. I just meant you chose CI and Jillio did not.

I do not think the CI was available when Jillio's son was very young. If it was, it was still very new and experimental. I would have probably no chosen it to do it in her situation either. Her son was born deaf, my daughter was not. Our situations were very different.

 

[deafskeptic]

I do not think the CI was available when Jillio's son was very young. If it was, it was still very new and experimental. I would have probably no chosen it to do it in her situation either. Her son was born deaf, my daughter was not. Our situations were very different.

Cochlear implants were no longer expermintal as early as 1984 and I think that children were being implanted in the mids 80s. I know some deaf young adults (in 20s) who were implanted very young.

 

[faire_jour]

Cochlear implants were no longer expermintal as early as 1984 and I think that children were being implanted in the mids 80s. I know some deaf young adults (in 20s) who were implanted very young.

In 1989, less than 200 children had been implanted with the Nucleus 22, the first multichannel cochlear implant in the US.

 

[deafskeptic]

In 1989, less than 200 children had been implanted with the Nucleus 22, the first multichannel cochlear implant in the US.

True. I decided to post again to make a correction: implantation was mostly for adults till the implantation age was lowered to age 2 in 1990.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

In 1972, a speech processor was developed to interface with the House 3M single-electrode implant and was the first to be commercially marketed. More than 1,000 of these devices were implanted between 1972 to the mid 1980s. In 1980, the age criteria for use of this device was lowered from 18 to 2 years. ). During the 1980’s, several hundred children had been implanted with the House 3M single channel device. The FDA formally approved the marketing of the 3M/ House cochlear implant in November 1984. By the late eighties, virtually all of the major concerns about the long-term success and safety of cochlear implants were largely resolved.

History of Cochlear Implants source

The age for implantation was lowered from 18 years old to 2 years old at 1980 not 1990.

 

[faire_jour]

History of Cochlear Implants source

The age for implantation was lowered from 18 years old to 2 years old at 1980 not 1990.

"In December 1984, the Australian cochlear implant was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to be implanted into adults in the United States. In 1990 the FDA lowered the approved age for implantation to 2 years, then 18 months in 1998, and finally 12 months in 2002, although off label use has occurred in babies as young as 6 months in the United States and 4 months internationally"

Cochlear implant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"1990 - The FDA approved the use of cochlear implants in children as young as 2 years. "

Cochlear Implants

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved cochlear implant devices for adults in 1985 and for children in 1990."

http://cochlearimplants.med.miami.edu/faq/index.asp#howlong

"In June 1990, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System for children aged 2 to 17 years."

http://www.deafblind.com/cochlear.html

"Cochlear implants have been FDA approved for adults since 1985 and FDA approved for children since 1990."

http://www.hearaz.com/wst_page7.html

 

[rick48]

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg -- Mode of Communication and Classroom Placement Impact on Speech Intelligibility, May 2004, Tobey et al. 130 (5): 639

"In summary, higher speech intelligibility scores acquired in 8- to 9-year-old congenitally deafened cochlear implant recipients were associated with educational settings that emphasize oral communication development and placement with hearing peers. Less accurate speech intelligibility scores at 8 to 9 years of age were associated with educational programs that emphasize the development of language via signs and placement in special education classes. "

The whole article is there for people to peruse.

I think this would be in direct opposition to the idea that signing has no effect on speech development.

Interesting article. I have read many other papers by Geers over the years (nice rhyme) as she is one of the leaders in this field.

I do not take this article as meaning that ASL impedes one's ability to develop speech as much as the academic placement itself plays an important role.

Did you find it interesting that as soon as you produce empirical evidence that is contrary to the prevailing view of some on this board that immediately they launch into attack mode and out comes the oldie but goodie that of course mainstream kids have social problems, etc. etc.?

I think a lot of this is self-evident, if your child is in an academic environment that is voices-off do you realistically expect your child to develop his speech to the same extent as a child who is in a mainstream setting?

But speech intelligiblity is but one pice of the puzzle for you also have to consider the academic part and also the social part.

I truly feel for you for you are now at a crossroad for your own child and I wish there was one easy and right answer. For us, it was the mainstream for others it was a deaf school. Whatever you choose, continue to monitor and constantly re-evaluate, nothing is set in concrete and if it is not working out make the change.

I do not always agree with you but I have never doubted the sincereity and depth of love and concern that you have for your child. Do not underestimate those qualities!
Best wishes,
Rick

 

[rick48]

In 1989, less than 200 children had been implanted with the Nucleus 22, the first multichannel cochlear implant in the US.

True, at that point in time these children were part of the clinical trials being conducted that ultimetely led to the lowering of the age to 2 by the FDA in 1990.

When my daughter was implanted in July of 89 she was the then youngest child with an implant, a disitinction she held for only a few weeks until our friend's daughter was implanted. Back then even though there was no internet like today, we knew many of the implanted families as we would talk to each other over the phone to ask questions and seek advice.
Rick

 

[jillio]

She won't be in a mainstream school for a very long time. I am simply trying to defend the parents and hearing people who get bashed here every single day.
I find it ironic that yes, there are very very very few native ASL users here to talk about the effects of growing up with ASL as opposed to without. But honestly, most ironic is that the person who posts the research and is the most informed, is HEARING!

And your point on that one would be? If you will check your thread that was closed, you will find that I have been given the honorary title of "Deaf". Why? Beacause when I seek to advocate for and serve the deaf/Deaf population, I take the deaf/Deaf perspective regarding their needs. "Nothing for us without us." You might consider doing that yourself, since the goal is to serve the needs of the deaf child, not the hearing parent.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I'm the one supporting parental choice, because I am a parent. Why isn't the Deaf community citing the research? Supporting their postions through well read and educated study? Why is it always Jillio?

Because I am concerned with the linguisitic, educational, and psycho-social needs of the deaf child. ALL deaf children. The Deaf/deaf don't seem to have a problem with that. Why do you?

 

[jillio]

I do not think the CI was available when Jillio's son was very young. If it was, it was still very new and experimental. I would have probably no chosen it to do it in her situation either. Her son was born deaf, my daughter was not. Our situations were very different.

The CI most certainly was available when my son was young. I chose not to implant. My son is now an adult, and can chose for himself. He has chosen not to be implanted. He does not see how the quality of his life could be improved by the introduction of sound. He finds his life quite satisfactory and fulfilling just as he is. Being without a CI certainly hasn't stopped him from achieving anything he has chosen to undertake.

 

[faire_jour]

The CI most certainly was available when my son was young. I chose not to implant. My son is now an adult, and can chose for himself. He has chosen not to be implanted. He does not see how the quality of his life could be improved by the introduction of sound. He finds his life quite satisfactory and fulfilling just as he is. Being without a CI certainly hasn't stopped him from achieving anything he has chosen to undertake.

I was under the impression that your son was an adult. If he is 20, that means he was 2 in 1989. The implant was still in FDA trials at the time. How old is he?

 

[faire_jour]

Because I am concerned with the linguisitic, educational, and psycho-social needs of the deaf child. ALL deaf children. The Deaf/deaf don't seem to have a problem with that. Why do you?

I think they should be defending themselves instead of relying on you to do it.

 

[jillio]

Here's a thought:

If one is truly concerned about language issues, why would one not rely on the research done by specialists in that field, with training and education related to child development, cognitive development, language acquisition, and psyco-social development of deaf children?

Why exactly, is it, that one would rely on research conducted by a specialist in surgery, without training in the above mentioned areas? The surgeon is trained in surgical techniques.