Which Choices of Communication should Hearing parents use for their implanted child?

[dreama]

I vote sign and speech.

Since I don't aprove of a child being implanted until they are old enough to make their own choice then they would be raised using sign language from 6 months onwards. They would also learn to read and write and speak using hearing aid or vibrating system (if HA didn't work) although it seems unfortunate that vibrating systems seem to be going out of busness thanks to CI.

 

[Miss-Delectable]

I agree with most of the posters on here.
Using many tools to help your child is the best way to go instead of restricting to one tool.

Too many parents didn't think about using a full toolbox, like deafdyke mentioned.

 

[Cloggy]

........... Also those deaf children with CI that don't know how to sign was bullied by those are deaf that knows sign is the truth. For example, one girl during my high school, she have the CI and don't know how to sign. She really want to learn sign, so she came to the deafies group and I have been hearing lot of deaf people say bad things about her just like she is other hearing person................

Finally the effort is made to have a child with CI in a Deaf environment, and this happens.... (And I know it's no an incident...)

Sad....

Bye bye bi-bi

 

[shel90]

Finally the effort is made to have a child with CI in a Deaf environment, and this happens.... (And I know it's no an incident...)

Sad....

Bye bye bi-bi

That problem is happening less and less since there are many CI users who are using the BiBi approach along with non CI users so they have had exposure to both. It is nice to see that happening at my school and that is my goal. Acceptance of each other.

I know one deaf girl who went to a public school and she expressed that the deaf kids with CIs do not know sign and they bullied her calling her deaf and dumb or deaf and mute. Pretty sad huh?

 

[Cloggy]

That problem is happening less and less since there are many CI users who are using the BiBi approach along with non CI users so they have had exposure to both. It is nice to see that happening at my school and that is my goal. Acceptance of each other.

I know one deaf girl who went to a public school and she expressed that the deaf kids with CIs do not know sign and they bullied her calling her deaf and dumb or deaf and mute. Pretty sad huh?

It is!

Here's another sad example...

 

[shel90]

It is!

Here's another sad example...

I agree and it all needs to be changed from both sides.

 

[Cloggy]

Deal !

Back on topic:
(BTW... why is there no "Speech Only" option ??)

Communication is the main thing. When a child cannot hear, sign will be the mode of communication (after touch and vision)
But remember that at the very young age, signlanguage or ASL is not established. It will be separate signs, without grammar.
When a decision is made for CI, signs will be an important tool in order to stay in constant communication with the child, but in my experience, sign-"language" will might not evolve. It might stagnate at the level where the child prefers speech over sign. It will call you from another room, it will ask questions, and reply to questions with it's back turned to you. It will want to talk on the speakerphone with the grandparents, and with the normal phone later on.
We went through these stages, and were happy to see that Lotte chose her own direction. For now, it is speech. Both in Dutch and Norwegian, and sign for her is something that does not have structure... For her signs are iconics. After all, that's how she used them just before she stopped using them...

But the main thing is to have the communication. When we notice that she is not developing her speech, we might want to add cued speech (being closer to speech.) and if all fails we will add signs, and even sign-language.

For now, we - as in us (the parents and siblings) and Lotte - use speech and it works well. With family, friends, and strangers....

 

[Cheri]

Deal !

Back on topic:
(BTW... why is there no "Speech Only" option ??).

You must be blind, It's right on top of the voting poll "Cued speech and Speech communication a language development tool for deaf children."

 

[jillio]

That problem is happening less and less since there are many CI users who are using the BiBi approach along with non CI users so they have had exposure to both. It is nice to see that happening at my school and that is my goal. Acceptance of each other.

I know one deaf girl who went to a public school and she expressed that the deaf kids with CIs do not know sign and they bullied her calling her deaf and dumb or deaf and mute. Pretty sad huh?

Absolutely. Since we are seeing an influx of childrenwho have been implanted at young ages into the educational system that are unable to keep up with hearing peers with only minimal accommodations in an oral only environment, we are also seeing a greater support of these children and the Bi-Bi method of education for these children. Support is gathering from the CI community......at least from those who are focused on their children's education and not just on their speech and hearing.

And the CI children who bully the non CI implanted children are picking up on the attitude of superiority from someone? Where do you suppose they are getting that attitude? I would suggest it is coming from their homes and their parents. They have to be taught to believe that they are superior to the signing deaf...it is not an innate idea. It is taught in many subtle and covert ways. The sad part is, that even though parents have instilled this attitude in them as children, when they reach adulthood, society will quickly convey the message that perhaps they are not as superior as they have been led to believe. It is a sad awakening for these kids to discover that, even with CI, and even though they have been given the message throughput their childhood that they are now a part of the hearing world, the hearing world will be quick to point out the fact that they are still perceived as different. Let the adjustment crisis begin!

 

[jillio]

Deal !

Back on topic:
(BTW... why is there no "Speech Only" option ??)

Communication is the main thing. When a child cannot hear, sign will be the mode of communication (after touch and vision)
But remember that at the very young age, signlanguage or ASL is not established. It will be separate signs, without grammar.
One must also remeber that speech inthe hearing child develops in exactly the same way. No child speaks grammaatically correct sentences untilthey reach the stage of development oallowing for such. They begin with one word approximations, move onto two words, etc. This is a natural stage of develpment in language acquisition. To say that a child is not using grammatically correct ASL is not an indication that sign usage has stalled, but simply that it is progrssing as is developmentally epxected.

When a decision is made for CI, signs will be an important tool in order to stay in constant communication with the child, but in my experience, sign-"language" will might not evolve.
But it willcontinue to evelove with continued exposure.
It might stagnate at the level where the child prefers speech over sign. It will call you from another room, it will ask questions, and reply to questions with it's back turned to you. It will want to talk on the speakerphone with the grandparents, and with the normal phone later on.

Please, cloggy, perhaps it is cutural differences, but please refrain from referring to a child as "it". He/she is much mre appropriate and less offensive.
We went through these stages, and were happy to see that Lotte chose her own direction. For now, it is speech. Both in Dutch and Norwegian, and sign for her is something that does not have structure... For her signs are iconics. After all, that's how she used them just before she stopped using them...

But has she had continued exposure to more? The point is, and I am not criticizing you but simply offering suggestions......had she been exposed to consistent signing models, her sign would have continued to develop at the same rate as her speech, or possibly even faster. It is not neccesarily the lack of need that has stalled her signing, but lack of exposure. Without a proper model, or consistent exposure, she has no way to follow the developmental pathways awailable.

But the main thing is to have the communication. When we notice that she is not developing her speech, we might want to add cued speech (being closer to speech.) and if all fails we will add signs, and even sign-language.

There it is. That one statement conveys the message that speech is pereferable to sign, and if you believe that Lotte is not picking up on that attitude, you are sadly mistaken. As well, that is the belief that keeps the oral philosophy alive. The very philosophy that is responsible for the denial of adequate education for our deaf children and permits discrimination against signing deaf.
For now, we - as in us (the parents and siblings) and Lotte - use speech and it works well. With family, friends, and strangers....

I'm glad that it appears to be working well at this point in time. But I might ask, from whose perspective?

 

[deafmama78]

I voted for sign language & speech.

 

[R2D2]

I voted sign language and speech as well but I wouldn't use them simultaneously together as per traditional total communication. I would use them separately as you would if you were raising a bilingual child, because fluency is important and both languages are quite different in structure. The only way I'd combine them is with the "sandwich" method, for clarification purposes.

 

[R2D2]

I'm very curious, who voted "sign language only" and why?...

I notice there are no votes for oral only.

 

[deafskeptic]

I voted sign language and speech as well but I wouldn't use them simultaneously together as per traditional total communication. I would use them separately as you would if you were raising a bilingual child, because fluency is important and both languages are quite different in structure. The only way I'd combine them is with the "sandwich" method, for clarification purposes.

As would I. I don't like to speak and sign at the same time. The only time I do that is when I go to the Hearing Loss meeting where I live and that's for the sake of those late deafened or others who don't know sign.

 

[deafskeptic]

I notice there are no votes for oral only.

Yep. It's very telling.

 

[shel90]

Deal !

Back on topic:
(BTW... why is there no "Speech Only" option ??)

Communication is the main thing. When a child cannot hear, sign will be the mode of communication (after touch and vision)
But remember that at the very young age, signlanguage or ASL is not established. It will be separate signs, without grammar.
When a decision is made for CI, signs will be an important tool in order to stay in constant communication with the child, but in my experience, sign-"language" will might not evolve. It might stagnate at the level where the child prefers speech over sign. It will call you from another room, it will ask questions, and reply to questions with it's back turned to you. It will want to talk on the speakerphone with the grandparents, and with the normal phone later on.
We went through these stages, and were happy to see that Lotte chose her own direction. For now, it is speech. Both in Dutch and Norwegian, and sign for her is something that does not have structure... For her signs are iconics. After all, that's how she used them just before she stopped using them...

But the main thing is to have the communication. When we notice that she is not developing her speech, we might want to add cued speech (being closer to speech.) and if all fails we will add signs, and even sign-language.
For now, we - as in us (the parents and siblings) and Lotte - use speech and it works well. With family, friends, and strangers....

That statement that I bolded is the root of the literacy problems that many deaf children have. Their parents have said the same thing as u and when signs are finally introduced the window for language development usually has passed and those children will always continue with language and literacy skills for the rest of their lives unless they work twice as hard as those deaf who have been exposed to both since birth stimilateanously. Unfortunately, most of them are so frustrated with learning and lose motivation.

 

[Angel]

I notice there are no votes for oral only.

Yeah :smiling bigger:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yeah :smiling bigger:

 

[jillio]

That statement that I bolded is the root of the literacy problems that many deaf children have. Their parents have said the same thing as u and when signs are finally introduced the window for language development usually has passed and those children will always continue with language and literacy skills for the rest of their lives unless they work twice as hard as those deaf who have been exposed to both since birth stimilateanously. Unfortunately, most of them are so frustrated with learning and lose motivation.

There it is! The statement that is resposnible for the language deprivation and undereducation of so many deaf childre.......If all else fails. And under it is the covert statement that speech is superior to sign. And then the question is posed, why do CI kids look down on signing, non- implanted kids? The answer is simple.....they have been taught to do so by the covert messages provided by their home environment.

 

[deafdyke]

There it is. That one statement conveys the message that speech is pereferable to sign, and if you believe that Lotte is not picking up on that attitude, you are sadly mistaken. As well, that is the belief that keeps the oral philosophy alive.

Indeed, Cloggy. Although you and many other oralists are not "Oral is the best! Oral is the ONLY way "(like in the old days and like with a lot of oral extremists) you STILL have this attitude that Sign should only be for when speech methods aren't working.
Certainly Lotte doesn't NEED Sign, in the way kids who were deaf before CI, and who didn't benifit from HAs did. But the fact of the matter is that the gross majority of dhh kids are STRONG visual processors. Ignoring that fact, and just concentrating on speech only, is pretty much akin to taking a kid who's gifted in reading and writing, but not so good in math, and educating them by focusing solely on their math defiects!
Make sense now? Yes, some kids have done really really well and have gone very far orally...........BUT, MANY haven't. Maybe the reason why dhh people as a whole have not acheived too much, is b/c they've been denied the proper tools to REALLY honestly acheive.
As a whole dhh kids are underacheiving...............that's as a WHOLE.......that includes ORAL kids as well. It's NOT just TC kids.
Like if a dhh kid did oral only, they might just end up as an unskilled worker drone. (ie literate but not SKILLED) Whereas if they had other tools, they might become college professors, lawyers, doctors and so on!