Why adults choose CI's for their children

[jillio]

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.

And you can't just snap your fingers and assume that a child will receive enough input from peripheral exposure to spoken language to become fluent, either.

 

[shel90]

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.

Why does learning ASL require the child to be sent away to school? It seems people think ASL is only limited to deaf schools...public schools can adopt BiBi programs. I believe Fairfax County Public schools in VA did and I heard it has been very successful.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

Very well said. That is what I mean about exposure to rich fluent language.

 

[rockdrummer]

And you can't just snap your fingers and assume that a child will receive enough input from peripheral exposure to spoken language to become fluent, either.

or peripheral exposure to sign language either.

 

[web730]

Why does learning ASL require the child to be sent away to school? It seems people think ASL is only limited to deaf schools...public schools can adopt BiBi programs. I believe Fairfax County Public schools in VA did and I heard it has been very successful.

Yep, it's all a common misconception.

I read somewhere that there is a California mainstream program which just started to converted into a BiBi program there, too.

Even there are some hearing people teaching ASL with their hearing babies, too.

 

[jillio]

Couldn't you say the same things for a access to spoken language if the CI proves beneficial.

You are ignoring the variability in response, and the fact that few CI users can function in an academic setting without the same supports that are required by HA users. So, the answer to your question is "no".

 

[shel90]

Yep, it's all a common misconception.

I read somewhere that there is a California mainstream program which just started to converted into a BiBi program there, too.

Even there are some hearing people teaching ASL with their hearing babies, too.

Oh I KNOW...the pure pure irony! Hearing kids get exposure to ASL but deaf children dont? I do NOT understand that!

 

[jillio]

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

And a hearing infant gets exposed to Shakespeare from the moment of birth? There are developmental concerns that you are failing to take into account.

 

[faire_jour]

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

Of course not. My own child attends a voice off school. I believe that ASL was meant to be her first language and that she will always be a part of the Deaf community. I was just expressing something that I have noticed. As soon as I learned my daughter was deaf, we entered the Deaf community and began discussing all of the "hot topics" with Deaf adults. So many had horror stories of speech training and mainstreaming. And I do NOT discount their experiences, but we do not live in the same world we did 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. My daughter's speech/listening therapy is nothing like that of the past. She NEVER works on tongue placement or copying the sounds the therapist makes, or looking in the mirror to mimic sounds she has never heard. She works on LISTENING, because through hearing words and sounds properly she is able to correct what is coming out of her own mouth. We do not work on articulation, but on understanding instead. I worry that much of the anger and fear about "oral"-emphasis comes from a view that is still colored by the mistakes of the past and defeceit that remained with the old technology.

 

[shel90]

Currently (someone please correct me if I am wrong) there is not an abundance of choices for parents in the mainstream educational system regarding bibi programs. They are few and far between. That may change but you have to understand it is limiting for parents in areas where these programs don't exist. This may be another reason a parent would opt for a CI. Accessibility to deaf ed programs

and a parent can opt for a CI and still put their child in a BiBi program. I dont understand this way of thinking...it is either oral or sign..cant have both. Never will understand that way of thinking. What's wrong with having the best of both? Why does it HAVE to be one or the other? No matter how many times it is explained to me, I will never understand that mentality. No offense.

 

[web730]

Ah, it keeps going opposite on your/our beliefs as how they should be taught in this thread that we continue this debate here! lol

First of all, remember that majority of hearing parents know NOTHING as what to do with their deaf baby/toddler in the first place so naturally, they would opt for the CI mere oppressed by the audiologists/doctors who recommended them instead of recommending them to learn ASL. They think yes that it would be easier for them, but they don't realize how difficult it does for their deaf child to learn speaking and hearing without using sign language.

They are prone forgetting how 100% function their deaf baby's eyes have yet bother to improve his/her hearing instead is another issue here, too.

Therefore first focus on his/her eyes to teach ASL so they can communicate and use it as a booster advantage in learning English and for CI/oral skills afterward, too.

So do you get the concept (idea)?? I hope.

 

[shel90]

Of course not. My own child attends a voice off school. I believe that ASL was meant to be her first language and that she will always be a part of the Deaf community. I was just expressing something that I have noticed. As soon as I learned my daughter was deaf, we entered the Deaf community and began discussing all of the "hot topics" with Deaf adults. So many had horror stories of speech training and mainstreaming. And I do NOT discount their experiences, but we do not live in the same world we did 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. My daughter's speech/listening therapy is nothing like that of the past. She NEVER works on tongue placement or copying the sounds the therapist makes, or looking in the mirror to mimic sounds she has never heard. She works on LISTENING, because through hearing words and sounds properly she is able to correct what is coming out of her own mouth. We do not work on articulation, but on understanding instead. I worry that much of the anger and fear about "oral"-emphasis comes from a view that is still colored by the mistakes of the past and defeceit that remained with the old technology.

That is offered in the BiBi programs too. Some people think it must be either oral or ASL only...that's where I am having trouble understanding.

 

[faire_jour]

Why does learning ASL require the child to be sent away to school? It seems people think ASL is only limited to deaf schools...public schools can adopt BiBi programs. I believe Fairfax County Public schools in VA did and I heard it has been very successful.

I didn't mean "sent away" in a physical sense, just in that they are going somewhere and discussing things the parents don't understand in a language they have no knowledge of.
Parents do not want their children to grow up without them a part of their lives, and that is what many here are suggesting. That it is better for a child to learn ASL and be unable to communicate with their loved ones (who don't learn for whatever reason, or learn too slowly) than to implant and attempt to teach spoken language. What sane parent would sign up for that?

 

[shel90]

I didn't mean "sent away" in a physical sense, just in that they are going somewhere and discussing things the parents don't understand in a language they have no knowledge of.
Parents do not want their children to grow up without them a part of their lives, and that is what many here are suggesting. That it is better for a child to learn ASL and be unable to communicate with their loved ones (who don't learn for whatever reason, or learn too slowly) than to implant and attempt to teach spoken language. What sane parent would sign up for that?

My parents CANT communicate with my deaf brother..they use me as the terp. It is not my brother's responsibility to learn oral skills because that is very difficult for a deaf person..it is MY parents' responsibility to learn the language that we both have full access to.

 

[faire_jour]

My parents CANT communicate with my deaf brother..they use me as the terp. It is not my brother's responsibility to learn oral skills because that is very difficult for a deaf person..it is MY parents' responsibility to learn the language that we both have full access to.

But what if there was a way to make it less difficult for him? What if there was a device that has been shown to work for up to 90% of those who use it? Would it be wrong for your parents to want to give that gift to your brother?

 

[rockdrummer]

I didn't mean "sent away" in a physical sense, just in that they are going somewhere and discussing things the parents don't understand in a language they have no knowledge of.
Parents do not want their children to grow up without them a part of their lives, and that is what many here are suggesting. That it is better for a child to learn ASL and be unable to communicate with their loved ones (who don't learn for whatever reason, or learn too slowly) than to implant and attempt to teach spoken language. What sane parent would sign up for that?

that's the prespective from a hearing parent with a deaf child. A deaf parent of a deaf child would say the same thing but it would be about learning sign. It's a different perspective. Both sides are valid IMO.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

How so? Do you mean kids with CI's that have gained no benefit AND their parents haven't learned sign?

That, or what about the child who is still trying to aquire spoken language? The cochlear implant isn't an instant success. It takes time to aquire spoken language. It can take months for the child to aquire enough language to be understood by the parents. What happens during that time?

Wouldn't it be better if the child were bi-lingual? Seems like a no-brainer, but so many parents go the auditory verbal route and drop sign. WHY drop sign?

 

[shel90]

But what if there was a way to make it less difficult for him? What if there was a device that has been shown to work for up to 90% of those who use it? Would it be wrong for your parents to want to give that gift to your brother?

We were born in the 70s. I benefit from my HAs so much that audis were amazed and he wasnt able to so I seriously doubt he would benefit from CIs. It all depends on our inner workings. I think I am more of an auditory learner than my brother so I think, even with a CI, my brother would still need a visual language.

We both were born with the exact same dB level.

 

[rockdrummer]

WHY drop sign?

I agree and have said that before that I believe you should be able to communicate with your deaf child during the times that the CI is off or is perhaps broken or if as in our case, the CI is not beneficial.

 

[shel90]

That, or what about the child who is still trying to aquire spoken language? The cochlear implant isn't an instant success. It takes time to aquire spoken language. It can take months for the child to aquire enough language to be understood by the parents. What happens during that time?

Wouldn't it be better if the child were bi-lingual? Seems like a no-brainer, but so many parents go the auditory verbal route and drop sign. WHY drop sign?

Exactly! What is so harmful about sign language? Shame, stigma, or denial?