The CI for children issue (My POV)

faire_jour said:
The vast majority of bi-bi schools are completely voice off. That is why I keep bringing it up. A child can not learn an entire language in 10 minute "speech lessons". If we are going to have hearing parents enroll their children in bi-bi schools, we need to find a way to make them bilingual in all modes, not just written language. They need to equally emphasis and value both languages.

How do they do that?
Click to expand...

I did... but if you think CI babies can keep up with hearing peers, then what the harm of teaching them ASL... unless CI in infant really does not work alone without therapy.
 
faire_jour said:
The vast majority of bi-bi schools are completely voice off. That is why I keep bringing it up. A child can not learn an entire language in 10 minute "speech lessons". If we are going to have hearing parents enroll their children in bi-bi schools, we need to find a way to make them bilingual in all modes, not just written language. They need to equally emphasis and value both languages.

How do they do that?
Click to expand...

There is oracy...spoken English classes. Doesnt the child get spoken English exposure at home as well. Why are the parents putting all the responsibility on the schools? The point of the schools is to educate the children in the required context areas not to ensure that the children become spoken English users. In my opinion, full access to the curriculm is much much more important than speech skills.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I did... but if you think CI babies can keep up with hearing peers, then what the harm of teaching them ASL... unless CI in infant really does not work alone without therapy.
Click to expand...

There you go..living proof. FJ, will you argue with her? A CI user?
 
RonJaxon said:
At least it seems by what you're saying here that you agree that the argument that they should wait until the child is old enough to make the decision on their own is not always the best option.

I think I didn't do a very good job at explaining my point in the OP. This discussion has gone in so many directions and some of you seem to think I'm saying that kids should be implanted at a young age. That is not what I said at all.

My point was that the arguments about waiting till they are old enough to make the "choice" is not a good argument. Because as we've already established, in some cases waiting will do more harm then good.

My point was that when a doctor informs a parent that their child is deaf that they don't have to automatically look into ASL and deaf culture. They need to look into all options then make a decision that's best for their child and sometimes going with a surgery or device to give them the ability to hear is the right decision. No one should put them down for making that decision.

The argument that all HOH and deaf kids should learn ASL is not only applied to deaf and HOH kids. I'll agree that all kids could benefit from that. But let's come back to the real world where ordering food from a restaurant, asking a police officer for help, making a phone call when the car breaks down and ordering a pizza cannot be done with ASL. I'm simply saying that if a child can be given the ability to hear through a procedure or device then a parent should do it. Will it always work? of course we don't' know that. But where's the harm in trying?

I just can't stand it when I see or read about someone being put down because they are doing their best to give their child all they can provide. No one should ever be put down for that. If my child was born deaf I'd ask if anything can be done to give them the ability to hear. If there is and I get it and my child can now hear. Then someone tells me that I should have not done that and sent them to deaf school. I'd tell them to shut up and mind their own business because my child is happy and benefiting from that decision.

On the other hand if there is no way for my child to hear then of course I'd make sure they obtain all the tools they'd need to get along in this world. A world that unfortunately is not all that kind to us who are deaf. Most people really don't understand deafness. This is why we have deaf culture. In deaf culture we are surrounded by people who understand it. Deaf culture is more established then say blind and in wheel chairs. Sure, they have their schools, social groups and activities. But when is the last time you read about issues regarding blind culture or "Wheel chair" culture? Not nearly as often as you do about deaf culture. Because the world understands being blind or in a wheel chair more then they understand deafness.

It's unfortunate but it's true. It would be great is there was more deaf awareness out there.

Ron
Click to expand...

I suppose the argument regarding waiting until they are old enough to decide for themselves is dependent upon your view of deafness and the ways in which you address the problems of language delays in the absence of an implant, and how aggressively you manage those delays and tools. If a child is experiencing ralatively little language delay, is academically on par, and is functionally happy and well adjusted sans implant, then it is not unreasonable at all to use the "I will wait until they can decide for themselves" argument. After all, it is not my deafness. It is my child's deafness. As such, he has every right to decide how, exactly, he wishes to live his life with such.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I did... but if you think CI babies can keep up with hearing peers, then what the harm of teaching them ASL... unless CI in infant really does not work alone without therapy.
Click to expand...

You don't need to convince me. I use ASL, I advocate for it with all parents. But I am not the majority. If we want Deaf schools to thrive and stay open, we need to find a way to make them appealing to the rest of the hearing parents.
 
faire_jour said:
But, "oral skills" does not mean fluent spoken language. Most parents want their child to use spoken language fluently, how do we go about teaching that along with ASL?
Click to expand...

Just because that is what the parent wants does not mean that it is reasonable nor realistic for the child.
 
shel90 said:
There is oracy...spoken English classes. Doesnt the child get spoken English exposure at home as well. Why are the parents putting all the responsibility on the schools? The point of the schools is to educate the children in the required context areas not to ensure that the children become spoken English users. In my opinion, full access to the curriculm is much much more important than speech skills.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The point keeps being ignored that deaf children are exposed to oral language on a consistent and frequent basis without any additional effort. It is all around them in their environment. The question is, is it the best language for instruction when a child is learning complicated concepts in the classroom? Unless it allows for 100% access, then the answer is no. Period.
 
jillio said:
Just because that is what the parent wants does not mean that it is reasonable nor realistic for the child.
Click to expand...

They are the ones that get to choose language mode and educational placement, so they are the ones we need to convince.
 
faire_jour said:
You don't need to convince me. I use ASL, I advocate for it with all parents. But I am not the majority. If we want Deaf schools to thrive and stay open, we need to find a way to make them appealing to the rest of the hearing parents.
Click to expand...

They don't appear to be very appealing to you as a parent, given that you have made the switch to an oral school for your own child.
 
jillio said:
They don't appear to be very appealing to you as a parent, given that you have made the switch to an oral school for your own child.
Click to expand...

She was forbidden to use spoken language in the classroom. I understand why, (other children would not have access to the things she was saying) but I didn't think that was appropriate. Also, they said they could not track, assess or teach her spoken language, I didn't think that was ok either. It was not bilingual in the spoken mode at all. That was something we had to deal with, so I had to make the decision that was best for my child.

Plus, she wanted to change enviroments, I need to respect her as well.
 
faire_jour said:
She was forbidden to use spoken language in the classroom. I understand why, (other children would not have access to the things she was saying) but I didn't think that was appropriate. Also, they said they could not track, assess or teach her spoken language, I didn't think that was ok either. It was not bilingual in the spoken mode at all. That was something we had to deal with, so I had to make the decision that was best for my child.

Plus, she wanted to change enviroments, I need to respect her as well.
Click to expand...

Bilingual doesn't necessarily mean spoken. Bilingual means English and ASL. Spoken is a mode.

So, you have confirmed, once again, that bilingualism is not your priority, that education is not your priority, that access is not your priority, and that spoken language is your priority.
 
faire_jour said:
She was forbidden to use spoken language in the classroom. I understand why, (other children would not have access to the things she was saying) but I didn't think that was appropriate. Also, they said they could not track, assess or teach her spoken language, I didn't think that was ok either. It was not bilingual in the spoken mode at all. That was something we had to deal with, so I had to make the decision that was best for my child.

Plus, she wanted to change enviroments, I need to respect her as well.
Click to expand...



It seems like your priority for your child is spoken language.

My priority would be that my child has guaranteed full access to the educational curriculm and access to communication with peers and any teachers at all times. I wouldnt put my child what I went through growing up.
 
jillio said:
You already are.
Click to expand...

I love when you clearly show your ass. You just admitted that you believe that there is one single right way to raise a deaf child. You believe that no mtter what, everyone MUST attend a bi-bi school, otherwise they are damaging their child.

I hope everyone sees it clearly.

You have just implied that my child will be damaged by learning spoken language. She' not. She's doing wonderfully, but thanks for the judgement on something you know nothing about.
 
shel90 said:
It seems like your priority for your child is spoken language.

My priority would be that my child has guaranteed full access to the educational curriculm and access to communication with peers and any teachers at all times. I wouldnt put my child what I went through growing up.
Click to expand...

Yep. Someone else sees exactly what I see.
 
faire_jour said:
I love when you clearly show your ass. You just admitted that you believe that there is one single right way to raise a deaf child. You believe that no mtter what, everyone MUST attend a bi-bi school, otherwise they are damaging their child.

I hope everyone sees it clearly.

You have just implied that my child will be damaged by learning spoken language. She' not. She's doing wonderfully, but thanks for the judgement on something you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

I have implied nothing of the kind. Again, that is your distorted interpretation.

And, not to worry. Everyone sees it very clearly, indeed.:cool2:
 
shel90 said:
It seems like your priority for your child is spoken language.

My priority would be that my child has guaranteed full access to the educational curriculm and access to communication with peers and any teachers at all times. I wouldnt put my child what I went through growing up.
Click to expand...

No. My daughter is age appropriate in her academics, she can communicate with her peers and her teachers as well. She also has access to ASL everyday at school and at home. She is bilingual. She is reading, writing, and speaking English AND signing ASL.

How do you possibly get MORE bilingual????
 
Back
Top