We Need Current Info Before Writing Off Cochlear Implants

[rick48]

I can see both POVs here (Boult's and Shel's) and it can go either way. I tend to agree that the probability of knowing sign could have helped here but we can never really prove that one way or another.

You are correct Shel that we really can't know who the superachievers are until later on. One can sometimes can get enough clues from the child to think maybe, maybe this child can be one. The longer I have been around the block, the more I realize these types are not found often.

I can see both sides also that is why I believe the parents have to be on top of the situation and closely monitoring their child's progress. Taking Shel's example and assuming that the child has been deaf since birth or at most infancy, by age 4-5 they should be trying other strategies or methods other than oral only.

On the flip side are the kids who are not getting an oral therapy. For them it will always remain a big unknown as to whether they could have developed their oral language skills but did not because their parents denied them that opportunity.
Rick

 

[shel90]

I can see both sides also that is why I believe the parents have to be on top of the situation and closely monitoring their child's progress. Taking Shel's example and assuming that the child has been deaf since birth or at most infancy, by age 4-5 they should be trying other strategies or methods other than oral only.

On the flip side are the kids who are not getting an oral therapy. For them it will always remain a big unknown as to whether they could have developed their oral language skills but did not because their parents denied them that opportunity.
Rick

I understand your POV on the last statement but shouldn't we be more worried about the children's language development? Even if deaf parents deny oral exposure to their deaf children, at least their children will have full access to language. I think u r more worried about deaf children acquiring oral skills and I am more worried about deaf children having access to language 100% of the time and be ready to learn to read and write at 5? Pls correct me if I made the wrong assumption about u.

I am all for deaf children being exposed to speech and lipreading skills. I just see them as a great tool and if it helps the child more with reading and writing, sure. My school offers speech class to all of the students who show an interest and motivation. If I had a deaf child, I would have him.her go speech therapy classes to see if he,she develops oral skills but I know that if they don't, they will be fine as long as they develop proficiency in literacy skills. Why not? I would never deny my deaf child the chance to develop speech skills but I would let my child decide on whether he or she wants to continue with speech therapy or not. If my child starts protesting against speech classes or throws a fit during speech classes, I will stop sending him/her.

I used to protest going to speech classes but my mom said that it was my responsibility to go and if I was good, I would get rewards. I was just fed up with them by the time I was around 7 or 8. Oh well, at least I got rewards out of it.

 

[Drew's Dad]

I can see both sides also that is why I believe the parents have to be on top of the situation and closely monitoring their child's progress. Taking Shel's example and assuming that the child has been deaf since birth or at most infancy, by age 4-5 they should be trying other strategies or methods other than oral only.

I agree here with Rick and Shel as well.

It goes back to my original post in this thread regarding the need to know how involved the parent(s)/caregivers were, as well as the other background regarding the child before making an assumption on whether CI's (or any particular educational method) is viable or not.

I've noticed a lot of discussion about probabilities and possibilities in this thread, and I think that's helpful for readers to understand the different options.

 

[shel90]

I can see both sides also that is why I believe the parents have to be on top of the situation and closely monitoring their child's progress. Taking Shel's example and assuming that the child has been deaf since birth or at most infancy, by age 4-5 they should be trying other strategies or methods other than oral only.

On the flip side are the kids who are not getting an oral therapy. For them it will always remain a big unknown as to whether they could have developed their oral language skills but did not because their parents denied them that opportunity.
Rick

I understand your POV on the last statement but shouldn't we be more worried about the children's language development? Even if deaf parents deny oral exposure to their deaf children, at least their children will have full access to language. I think u r more worried about deaf children acquiring oral skills and I am more worried about deaf children having access to language 100% of the time and be ready to learn to read and write at 5? Pls correct me if I made the wrong assumption about u.

I am all for deaf children being exposed to speech and lipreading skills. I just see them as a great tool and if it helps the child more with reading and writing, sure. My school offers speech class to all of the students who show an interest and motivation. If I had a deaf child, I would have him.her go speech therapy classes to see if he,she develops oral skills but I know that if they don't, they will be fine as long as they develop proficiency in literacy skills. Why not? I would never deny my deaf child the chance to develop speech skills but I would let my child decide on whether he or she wants to continue with speech therapy or not. If my child starts protesting against speech classes or throws a fit during speech classes, I will stop sending him/her.

I used to protest going to speech classes but my mom said that it was my responsibility to go and if I was good, I would get rewards. I was just fed up with them by the time I was around 7 or 8. Oh well, at least I got rewards out of it.

U know what's funny? Whenever 3 of my students go to the "hearing" room for thei "CI time" 3 of my other students who have no CI nor speech skills are telling me that they want to learn how to speak and "hear". I referred them to the speech specialists and they will bring it up with their parents. See what happens. It is cute watching my CI users show them how to mouth some words and them trying to copy them.

 

[deafdyke]

On the flip side are the kids who are not getting an oral therapy. For them it will always remain a big unknown as to whether they could have developed their oral language skills but did not because their parents denied them that opportunity.

On the other hand, those kids represent a VERY small population. Most dhh kids DO get oral language therapies. And yes.......I know the debate over whether or not TC really does concentrate enough on speech. I think the trouble that a lot of hearing parents don't realize about TC vs. oral programs, is that a lot of the effectivness of oral programs is simply the private school effect. Like the really talented speech therapists tend to be attracted towards private practice (like the private oral programs), so public school programs really don't get the talent. Even the auditory verbal programs can be incredibly expensive. Yet, there are kids out there who've learned how to speak with minimal hearing, through the auditory verbal programs.
Oh, and there are some kids for whom oral language is an impossiblity......like I know some hoh kids who can't speak b/c they have tracheostomies.

 

[R2D2]

I used to protest going to speech classes but my mom said that it was my responsibility to go and if I was good, I would get rewards. I was just fed up with them by the time I was around 7 or 8. Oh well, at least I got rewards out of it.

I never had formal speech classes - it was all play therapy and later on as I got older the teachers of the deaf would just visit my school and we'd talk about interesting things like what was on TV, holidays etc. I was really into writing my own stories at that time too as a hobby and my teacher took a big interest in that and we'd read out my stories together. The teacher would make suggestions and positive comments. It was a lot of fun and not hard work at all. I think they were the kind of oralists that didn't believe in formal speech therapy but rather in making speech as natural as possible.

I think I would have had the same reaction as you to formal speech lessons .

 

[R2D2]

On the other hand, those kids represent a VERY small population. Most dhh kids DO get oral language therapies.

I would tend to agree with you there. Oral skilled deaf people are considered to be "less expensive" to society than sign only skilled deaf people in monetary terms. I read somewhere that they consider CIs to be the second most cost effective medical procedure ever. When you consider the cost of CIs and that CIs in children do still have relatively variable results it indicates how much money it costs to run deaf schools, fund terps, etc etc.

 

[momtotoes]

This is a very interesting thread!

I very much relate to what Drew's Dad and Cloggy are saying.

And I really appreciate reading what the others have to say in response.

My daughter (21 months, activated 6 months ago) has very few signs. Our intent was to start using it in the home and at school, but she has been doing so well in developing her oral ability that we have no yet found the need.

That being said... we would like to get Erin into a solid ASL program. We are limited by the educational options in our area, though. So we are looking into how to best go about this. It hasn't been easy.

Ironically... for my deaf child, ASL is likely to become her second language.

 

[deafdyke]

Our intent was to start using it in the home and at school, but she has been doing so well in developing her oral ability that we have no yet found the need.

That being said... we would like to get Erin into a solid ASL program. We are limited by the educational options in our area, though. So we are looking into how to best go about this. It hasn't been easy.

Ironically... for my deaf child, ASL is likely to become her second language.

Wish there were more parents like you. It's good to start developing ASL skills early on b/c there are kids who while, they do OK one on one, they still need 'terps in the educational setting (especially when content gets harder)
I'd contact the NAD in your area. Maybe they know of resources. Are there any TC programs or whatever in the general vinciety? We could advise and steer you towards resources and things like that! Good to know that Toes is gonna get ASL exposure even thou she's an "oral sucess" ..........that's AWESOME!

 

[sr171soars]

I would tend to agree with you there. Oral skilled deaf people are considered to be "less expensive" to society than sign only skilled deaf people in monetary terms. I read somewhere that they consider CIs to be the second most cost effective medical procedure ever. When you consider the cost of CIs and that CIs in children do still have relatively variable results it indicates how much money it costs to run deaf schools, fund terps, etc etc.

Exactly! Lots of people forget this fact in terms of economics. This doesn't necessary make it right but that is the reality.

This is one reason why I never really run into roadblocks in my career over my "deafness". It has simply never been an issue to any of my employers. Even more telling, is the fact I don't need any accomodation. It is one of several reasons I went the CI route...to maintain that independence I always had and that I could never get needing additional accomodations...

 

[jillio]

picky picky picky

chill out jillio!

You only consider it picky because it disproves your position. Its not picky--its accurate.

 

[jillio]

Alas, jillio finally admits the prior high-horse diagnoses of speech patterns and "failure" of oral language (which were not witnessed personally) were ASSUMPTIONS.

You read a post by Cloggy and immediately assumed that oral language was failing, and presented it as fact in your reply. If you would've even hinted that you were making an assumption, or even partially acknowledged that the child may have only experienced a current lack of skill in utilizing a certain word, your thoughts would've appeared much more credible.

Ah, yes, but my assumptions are valid ones based on the years of research into the psychological and educational effects of not being provided adequate language models in the case of deaf children. I did not have to assume that oral language was failing. It was stated quite clearly in Cloggy's post.

 

[jillio]

doubletrouble,

Reminds me of the line by Groucho Marx "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you"! )
Rick

Posting to a public forum has as an inherent feature the risk of receiving replies that may contradict your particular viewpoint. If you are unable to accept this, then perhaps you need to limit yourself to those environments that are as limited in viewpoint as you yourself are.

 

[jillio]

I can see both sides also that is why I believe the parents have to be on top of the situation and closely monitoring their child's progress. Taking Shel's example and assuming that the child has been deaf since birth or at most infancy, by age 4-5 they should be trying other strategies or methods other than oral only.

On the flip side are the kids who are not getting an oral therapy. For them it will always remain a big unknown as to whether they could have developed their oral language skills but did not because their parents denied them that opportunity.
Rick

And, why is it again that oral language skills should be the first priority?

 

[jillio]

I agree here with Rick and Shel as well.

It goes back to my original post in this thread regarding the need to know how involved the parent(s)/caregivers were, as well as the other background regarding the child before making an assumption on whether CI's (or any particular educational method) is viable or not.

I've noticed a lot of discussion about probabilities and possibilities in this thread, and I think that's helpful for readers to understand the different options.

Pehaps you should re-read some of shel's posts. No where does she agree with the fact that one should wait until a child is 4 or 5 years old before exposing them to ASL. As a matter of fact, she advocates against waiting becase it serves nothing more than to create language delays that are detrimental to the child's development.

 

[jillio]

I never had formal speech classes - it was all play therapy and later on as I got older the teachers of the deaf would just visit my school and we'd talk about interesting things like what was on TV, holidays etc. I was really into writing my own stories at that time too as a hobby and my teacher took a big interest in that and we'd read out my stories together. The teacher would make suggestions and positive comments. It was a lot of fun and not hard work at all. I think they were the kind of oralists that didn't believe in formal speech therapy but rather in making speech as natural as possible.

I think I would have had the same reaction as you to formal speech lessons .

That's a wonderful situation, R2D2. It provides an atmosphere for natural language acquisition, rather than the forced sort of learning involved int he more formal therapies. And I'm sure you benefitted from it much more than you would have had you been sitting in formalized AV sessions.

 

[jillio]

I would tend to agree with you there. Oral skilled deaf people are considered to be "less expensive" to society than sign only skilled deaf people in monetary terms. I read somewhere that they consider CIs to be the second most cost effective medical procedure ever. When you consider the cost of CIs and that CIs in children do still have relatively variable results it indicates how much money it costs to run deaf schools, fund terps, etc etc.

Exactly!!!! But my concern is, have we, in the process, reduced the options for functioning at an optimal level?

 

[Drew's Dad]

Pehaps you should re-read some of shel's posts. No where does she agree with the fact that one should wait until a child is 4 or 5 years old before exposing them to ASL. As a matter of fact, she advocates against waiting becase it serves nothing more than to create language delays that are detrimental to the child's development.

Rick said "by age 4-5 they should be trying other (non-oral) strategies [if there is any problem indicated through close monitoring."

Shel thinks that non-oral strategies should be used, both before and after 4-5, with or without problems developing.

Rick and Shel both think that non-oral strategies should be used by age 4-5 if there is an issue.

 

[jillio]

Rick said "by age 4-5 they should be trying other (non-oral) strategies [if there is any problem indicated through close monitoring."

Shel thinks that non-oral strategies should be used, both before and after 4-5, with or without problems developing.

Rick and Shel both think that non-oral strategies should be used by age 4-5 if there is an issue.

Wow. Talk about twisting viewpoints! One says use sign if the child has proven to be an oral failure at age 4 or 5. The other says incorporate it from the very beginning to prevent language acquisition delays. Those are two very separate methods, and fall on opposite ends of the pole.

 

[Drew's Dad]

Ah, yes, but my assumptions are valid ones based on the years of research into the psychological and educational effects of not being provided adequate language models in the case of deaf children. I did not have to assume that oral language was failing. It was stated quite clearly in Cloggy's post.

In the prior post you say you made an assumption, in the beginning of this post you defend your assumption as "valid", and in the end of this post you state that you did not make an assumption.

You're just scrambling to find any possible way to avoid admitting that you took Cloggy's post and looked for any way you could to try to "prove" that your way is right and thier way is wrong.

You weren't there, made an assumption (or not), conveniently ignore Cloggy's later description and characterization of the event, and supposedly conclusively determine that the language has failed based on "years of research".

End of my input on this particular issue. Others can make up their own mind on whether a child using a sign when they haven't learned a word yet indicates a failure with oral language.