Why adults choose CI's for their children

[web730]

That was my erliar point. You can't just snap your fingers and become a fluent signer. That takes years and it might be another reason a parent would opt for a CI. If the CI is successful then the child may be exposed to a fluent language earlier on.

It doesn't require hearing parents to learn 100 signs in a year of time because the deaf baby could learn up to 20 signs by time when he/she becomes a year old so it sure give them (parents) enough time to pick up along. So it shouldn't be a problem either.

But if they refuse to learn, that is another problem for the child... delaying his/her language skills even more.

Say if they opt for the CI, it requires several years for the deaf child to learn English therefore it is already delayed.

 

[jillio]

Yes Cheri, I do get it. You were making the point about TC failing some and not all. I understood your point. Thank you! Perhaps kids with CI's may have better chances for success in a TC program.

The failure was not the students. The failure was the program. Putting a kid with a CI in the classroom does nothing to correct the methodological flaws in the program.

 

[shel90]

It doesn't require hearing parents to learn 100 signs in a year of time because the deaf baby could learn up to 20 signs by time when he/she becomes a year old so it sure give them (parents) enough time to pick up along. So it shouldn't be a problem either.

But if they refuse to learn, that is another problem for the child... delaying his/her language skills even more.

Say if they opt for the CI, it requires several years for the deaf child to learn English that is already delayed.

Right...

 

[rockdrummer]

But my question is, is it better to have a hearing parent implant a child and have that child be whatever level of successful with a shared language with the family, being able to interact, communicate and learn from the parents OR have a child without access to sound and questionable results using ASL, because they were provided no language at home, unable to communicate with their family, feel completly shut out from their parents, and having no common language at all?

Which is the greater evil?

CI oral only child or non-CI signing child, with a family who can't sign...

Good question. If a parent opts for a CI, as I mentioned before, my guess is that acquiring spoken language would be a primary goal. That said, I would also have to imagine that exposure to spoken language at home and in the educational environment would be promoted. To answer your question, if the family can't sign then I would guess a CI oral child would have greater and faster exposure to language provided the CI proves beneficial.

 

[web730]

Also that it is often easier for hearing parents to learn sign language than for their deaf child learning to speak and hear words using CI or HA.

So it's why we stress them to learn ASL at the earliest possible since it's the ultimate early intervention tool there can be offered for them to use.

 

[jillio]

Aren't they all really just wait and see approaches? Since we are discussing accessibility in the classroom. What about language accessibility in the home? Deaf kids born to non signing hearing parents obviously won't have the same exposure to language as deaf kids born to fluent native signing parents. Since you can't just snap your finger and become a fluent signer then deaf kids of hearing parents are at a disadvantage until a.) the parents become fluent signers or unless b.)the child has some ability to hear. If the CI is successful, I would guess that exposure to fluent spoken language would occur faster than exposure to fluent sign language due to the delay it would take parents to become fluent signers.

Guesses usually do not take into consideration all of the variables, and tend to be made on less than sufficient evidence. That is why I prefer to use valid research. It removes the guesswork and actually provides data that can be used to make a determination.

And, no, all approaches are not "wait and see" propositions. This has already been discussed numerous times.

 

[shel90]

Good question. If a parent opts for a CI, as I mentioned before, my guess is that acquiring spoken language would be a primary goal. That said, I would also have to imagine that exposure to spoken language at home and in the educational environment would be promoted. To answer your question, if the family can't sign then I would guess a CI oral child would have greater and faster exposure to language provided the CI proves beneficial.

And that's too bad cuz too often kids are put in spoken environments in the educational setting where they sometimes dont have full access to and put at risks for missing out or falling behind. Like I have said again and again, that's exactly why we get so many older kids referred to our program as a last resort cuz they fell so far behind. Some of them have pretty decent spoken English skills but on the recieving end is where the problem lies. That was what happened to me too so why put kids in risks for language delays or falling behind for the sake of spoken language?

What about knowledge, literacy skills, abstract thinking and etc? Is spoken language so important that it is the primary before those skills? Just curious to why..

 

[faire_jour]

If so, can a child with a CI hear everything that is being said in a large classroom full of hearing kids debating, answering questions, and etc at a rapid pace? If not, then the child gets left out and access to education is taken away from the child.

If the child can process spoken English like I did but has a one-on-one teacher for every class all the way to high school, great..then all the problems are solved but unfortunately, it is not realistic especially with the budget cuts happening lately.

I believe the latest stats on early implanted kids states that around 90% of them attain intelligable speech. And since those kids use AVT they must learn to listen and understand before they are able use speech. The whole point of AVT is to learn to comprehend spoken language rather than just parrot.

http://tinyurl.com/5n2uod



It is possible to have that kind of success. I think the problem is that so many people are viewing the idea of learning spoken language through the technology of the past. Today's children have access that could never have been imagined a generation ago. Isn't it possible that since they are hearing in ways that the deaf never have before, that they can succeed in ways that were impossible (or nearly so) in the past?

 

[rockdrummer]

That's a question that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, particularly without an operational definition of success.

I said that half tongue and cheek because we have discussed earlier in this thread about soft failures and the whole discussion about how success is defined. Starting on page 16 at around post 445 or so.

 

[shel90]

Also that it is often easier for hearing parents to learn sign language than for their deaf child learning to speak and hear words using CI or HA.

So it's why we stress them to learn ASL at the earliest possible since it's the ultimate early intervention tool there can be offered for them to use.

YES!!! I can use spoken English just like hearing person can but when others speak to me that's where I struggle cuz I dont have FULL acess to spoken language like hearing people do BUT they have full access to ASL just like we deaf people do cuz they have EYES that work! Even blind people can have access to sign language thru tactile sign language. *banging my head on the desk*

 

[rockdrummer]

It doesn't require hearing parents to learn 100 signs in a year of time because the deaf baby could learn up to 20 signs by time when he/she becomes a year old so it sure give them (parents) enough time to pick up along. So it shouldn't be a problem either.

But if they refuse to learn, that is another problem for the child... delaying his/her language skills even more.

Say if they opt for the CI, it requires several years for the deaf child to learn English therefore it is already delayed.

its not about exposure to some language but more about exposure to rich fluent language.

 

[shel90]

I believe the latest stats on early implanted kids states that around 90% of them attain intelligable speech. And since those kids use AVT they must learn to listen and understand before they are able use speech. The whole point of AVT is to learn to comprehend spoken language rather than just parrot.

http://tinyurl.com/5n2uod



It is possible to have that kind of success. I think the problem is that so may people are viewing the idea of learning spoekn language through the technology of the past. Today's children have access that could never have been imagined a generation ago. Isn't it possible that since they are hearing in ways that the deaf never have before, that they can succeed in ways that were impossible (or nearly so) in the past?

So do you propose for the banning of ASL in Deaf ed programs?

 

[rockdrummer]

The failure was not the students. The failure was the program. Putting a kid with a CI in the classroom does nothing to correct the methodological flaws in the program.

TC failed some and not all. I don't think anyone said it was the fault of the students.

 

[shel90]

TC failed some and not all. I don't think anyone said it was the fault of the students.

And it is those who were failed who lose out BIG and that is so wrong.

 

[web730]

its not about exposure to some language but more about exposure to rich fluent language.

Clarify this bit clearer, please?

 

[rockdrummer]

Also that it is often easier for hearing parents to learn sign language than for their deaf child learning to speak and hear words using CI or HA.

So it's why we stress them to learn ASL at the earliest possible since it's the ultimate early intervention tool there can be offered for them to use.

I agree that learning sign language should be part of the program regardless. It's just that it may take a very long time for hearing parents to become fluent and proficient.

 

[jillio]

That's the big reason why ASL is the best early intervention tool before teaching the deaf child anything else like practicing oral using CI or HA... and then learning English more efficient even.

So ASL provides the ultimate tool for the deaf child to learn anything, absolutely.

The earlier, the better of course. For those hearing parents who don't know signs... start learning ASL now and use ASL to teach their deaf baby immediately.

There you go! When you are talking to your hearing baby, you certainly don't say, "look at that big Golden Retriever over there." You say, "See the doggie?" ASL functions on the same p[rinciple. You communicate at the child's level, and increase your skills with time.

 

[faire_jour]

And that's too bad cuz too often kids are put in spoken environments in the educational setting where they sometimes dont have full access to and put at risks for missing out or falling behind. Like I have said again and again, that's exactly why we get so many older kids referred to our program as a last resort cuz they fell so far behind. Some of them have pretty decent spoken English skills but on the recieving end is where the problem lies. That was what happened to me too so why put kids in risks for language delays or falling behind for the sake of spoken language?

What about knowledge, literacy skills, abstract thinking and etc? Is spoken language so important that it is the primary before those skills? Just curious to why..

I think that the parents believe they ARE giving their children the opportunity for all those things THROUGH spoken language. They want a common language for their family as quickly as possible and they believe they can acheive that through a CI and spoken language. They fear that they will be unable to be an appropriate language model for their child in a language that they are just beginning to learn and that they want to be able to share songs and stories and special times with their child, and they don't know how to acheive that in a language they do not know.
They do not want to send their child away to school and never be able to interact with them. They want to be able to help with homework and talk about their day, and be able to have their child share their hopes and dreams and feelings with them. And they don't know how they can do that if their child uses a language that is different than their own.
It is through the technology of a CI, (which is wildy more successful than hearing aids for children with a profound loss) that they believe they can have communication and literacy and a life with their child.

 

[web730]

There you go! When you are talking to your hearing baby, you certainly don't say, "look at that big Golden Retriever over there." You say, "See the doggie?" ASL functions on the same p[rinciple. You communicate at the child's level, and increase your skills with time.

Bam, there you said!

 

[rockdrummer]

Clarify this bit clearer, please?

It would be like if a child is born to parents that are not fluent in English and could only express simple words and concepts. A child growing up in that house would not have access to rich fluent language.