Dare to comment? Observe the rules!
The deaf community claims everybody is welcome, but I don't buy that. They only welcome the CI failures who repeatedly lash out against the CI establishment, and use them to further their ASL agenda.
Hence, the continued question of mine, "unity for whom?"
Yeah.
There will always be some people who keep twisting ideas around, trying to pull other people down, etc...and be wiling to be living "martyrs". *Shrug*
To me, unity means acceptance of all kinds of people, regardless of their backgrounds.
It is interesting at how the definition of unity varies among people... that unity should be based on certain conditions.
Such as we have seen at how one commenter again and again stresses that the full acceptance of ASL should be a major condition for the complete unity of all deaf people...did not say directly though. What is saddening is that that commenter is quite scornful of Rachel and Melissa, failing to acknowledge that the parental involvement is the key for any child's success 
Right, Karen. Unity is not about conditional requirements. It's about supporting and respecting each other because there is no one shoe size fits all. Not about "Deafhood" in the attempt to make some sort of a political statement out of it, not about "ASL only preferred method of communicating," not about demonizing people for their decisions on how they prefer to communicate, and not about who is the most victimized of all the groups out there in a pissing contest. There are people who are way, way worse off than we are, deaf or hearing. We're just a bunch of spoiled people who have these great services, support and technology that have helped us become more independent than ever before.
Unity is conditional for most deaf people. For them, it actually defeats the meaning of "unity" in the first place.
Ergo, there will never be true Unity in the deaf community, except, in certain passion felt commonality within a certain selected category of sub-sub-group of the deaf community.
Look at the latest protest, even then, the theme was "unity", Unity it wasn't. There were many who contradicted others as the protests went on. Kind of confusing and muddled at best.
There will be at least ONE and it just takes ONE person to create a discourse.
So, it's a lost cause....for now and perhaps forever?
So give me example of unity.
Fraternities and sororities?
Armed forces?
In history... people got together to accomplish something, such as black rights in 1960's; Americans rising up against England in 1770's, etc...
What else? So it seems to me that unity has to occur on certain conditions.
So we have several opinions of what unity for deaf people means... as Candy said, can be felt in subgroups.
I strongly feel the AV approach to deny ASL is wrong. I think it's wonderful to give deaf children a spoken language, but it can't hurt to give them a visual language as well.
I don't feel as strongly about "deaf identity" as much as giving them the tools to communicate when the technology malfunctions, when batteries die, etc. Further, recent research has shown that ASL (like other languages) has proven to stimulate language centers of the brain, so ASL increases language comprehension in BOTH ASL and English and whatever other language the child may later learn.
I feel the Deaf have a point. However, some of them go about it the wrong way. Attacking Melissa and Rachel doesn't help. Melissa didn't have access to this research twenty years ago. It hadn't been done! She did the best she could with what she knew at the time. It's water under the bridge. Mostly what upsets them is the way Rachel and Melissa express their opinions, which seem to come off as audistic.
There's a communication disconnect going on-- which began several months ago. Everyone needs to stop and take a deep breath. Maybe reframe how they say things. Because all words are being scrutinized to the nth degree.
eh, i want to point out that i notice that there has been a lot of wonderful comments made between the recent postings of Racheal (of CI online) with the rest of the deafread community.
I think that we are simply black and white sometimes and can only meet together in the grey area if we choose. What I have learned in the last year of skimming the deafread community between the two extremities is that both of them have their own bad apples that make everything look bad for all of us. I also learned that so many people are willing to speak for the rest of us, when in actually one is just speaking for themselves.
what bugs me the most is that people keep referring to each other's rivals as "they" and "them". I challenge any blogger/vlogger to use the word "us".
haha i noticed that i used "them". pardon me, i meant to say ".. between two extremities, both of US have their own bad apples..."
DF, exactly. What it doesn't hurt is to acknowledge those that did work for them and are successful with their particular mode of communication or approach. We need to remember that there is no one size fit fall category. I try and advocate that we need to come into the middle and stop with these nit-picking and fakery.
Hi Kim,
As to your AV comment, there are a lot of independent studies that show that the AV method has the highest success rate for verbal language of all methodologies available, for CI kids implanted prior to age 3.
The catch is that it is VERBAL language only. So they are sacrificing sign language to achieve the verbal success.
I'm not advocating any specific method, just pointing out that there are arguements for as well as against it. There is a reason that it is being used.
Again, it needs to be a decision made by the parents.
K.L. - would you kindly point out at least 5 sources of research studies proving that sign language hinders the success of verbal language? I am not interested in vague statements, like: "there are independent studies..." and the like.
Thanks so much!
Research about the A-V approach - Much is summarized and cited at http://www.auditoryverbaltrainin...%
20Preprint.pdf
In addition, from "Factors Affecting the Development
of Speech, Language, and Literacy
in Children With
Early Cochlear Implantation," Geers et. al. 2002, I quote the following:
“Use of an oral communication mode contributed significant variance to all outcomes except for spoken and signed language. The greater the emphasis on speech and auditory skill development the better the outcome. Type of classroom reflects amount of time spent in a mainstream class. This variable was significant for speech production, language and reading.
“…Children whose educational program emphasized dependence on speech and audition for communication were better able to use the information provided by the implant to hear, speak and read. Use of sign communication with implanted children did not promote auditory and speech skill development and did not result in an advantage for overall English language competence even when the outcome measure included sign language. Oral education appears to be an important educational choice for children who have received a cochlear implant before 5 years of age.”
Brenster,
Please note, I said that the Auditory Verbal method has shown to be the most successful with CI kids. I did not say that sign language hinders the success of verbal language. I don't know specifically WHY AV works so well, just that it does.
However, here is one AV research study.
http://www.auditoryverbaltrainin...%
20Preprint.pdf
Kim,
To address what you wrote about why my husband and I made the decisions that we did at the time about choosing the A-V approach and a CI - It was not an uneducated choice at all but,rather, a very well researched one that included reading reams of professional research and meeting with and talking with families practicing the oral approach, the A-V approach, TC, and a family that had chosen to immerse their child in the deaf culture with only ASL and no spoken language.
The research in support of the A-V approach (See above), in addition to our personal experiences over the years, would lead us to choose exactly as we did 20 years ago to follow the A-V approach with our girls. Also, why should we second guess our choices now? We have two wonderful, happy and successful daughters. They are very grateful to my husband and me for making the choices that we did. So, I can very truthfully say that we would still not choose to teach them ASL today. That doesn't mean that I take issue with parents that do, only that this was and still would be our choice as the best fit for our family.
Hi KL--The studies indicating the benefits of ASL are recent, so I'm not sure that the AV method took those studies into account. As I mentioned to Melissa in Rachel's blog, I believe the AV method was based on sound science. It's just that new information comes along all the time.
Bilingual children normally lag behind a little in the early years, then they catch up and surpass their peers later, no matter what language is learned besides English. It makes sense that kids only exposed to English speak English better at three-years-old, than those who speak both English and ASL, or English and Spanish. What they are finding is that by second grade, those who were exposed to the second language surpass their peers in language arts and continue to do so throughout the school years. They pick up new vocabularly and reading skills in both languages and others languages more quickly because their language center was stimulated at more levels early on. This throws a different light on the AV method, doesn't it?
Being late-deafend, I can't help but place a high value on the need for a visual language for those times when the CI isn't on, or when it's not working. Now with this new information, it seems wrong to ignore it.
What's the rush to get them speaking English perfectly at such a young age? Parents of bilingual hearing children don't fret over it so much?
A year ago, I never knew this part of the Deaf Community was around. I am shocked at how strangers are so interested in cochlear implant failure, embrassement, and isolation.
Boy do they have it wrong, at least my philospophy is these are upgraded hearing aids. They just work better. They enable me to live my life to a better degree then I did before my implants. I enjoy my career. I enjoy my quality of life.
I am learing ASL. I am failing. I am just not able to do it. I am not giving up, I am frustrated. How do you change almost an entire life of lipreading, well the answer is you don't. I am giving myself permission to take it slow and back off and learn slowly.
now
Why is a community is focusing on failure of cochlear implants and not success. You see if one part fails then don't we all fail?
Valerie, I can completely relate. Why is AGBell and CI-proponent community always focus on failure of sign language, and that signing Deaf people are isolated, and many other negative aspects of the Deaf community.
Now, you understand.
oh craps! is/are but whatever!
Valerie--I'm taking it slow too. The ASL I mean. I've come to realize that I may never become fluent in ASL, but that's not the point. I don't even think I need to be. I'm well entrenched in the hearing community and I lip-read well too. ASL is a great way to enhance communication when lip-reading fails. I love it when people speak and sign at the same time. True-- not many do. But I believe if I keep practicing and learning, eventually I maybe be able to take advantage of ASL all by itself. It may take years, but I'm not THAT old that I can't spend years learning something. I'll benefit in the long run, even if it's just brain exercise.
Further, I've learned something else about ASL. Because of the emphasis on expression and gesture, it enhances one's public speaking and presentation skills.
I strongly support a parents' right to make decisions for their deaf children, but I believe parents' also have the right to ALL the information out the and I feel they aren't getting it-- or the support they need to help their deaf children develop fully.
It is interesting this notion of conditional acceptance. My own 15 year old who has a cochlear implant reads blog posts and comments from time to time. His overwhelming reaction to many comments is "why the heck are people so hung up on whether I know ASL or not? It is not that I think anything bad about sign language, it just isn't something I haven't learned yet. Who knows maybe in the future. BUT I am happy with who I am right now, so why are they so hung up me having to learn ASL?"
The continued pressure of conditional acceptance is actually turning him off from wanting to find out more about Deaf Culture and sign language. He doesn't want to be judged because he doesn't know ASL nor does he want to hear judgemental comments about the choices his parents made on his behalf, choices that he is very happy with.
Thankfully though, my foray and his, into blogs like Mike's and the opportunity to read comments from Karen and others has given us the opportunity to dialogue and gain a lot in understanding the differences within communities in a way that has been very respectful and engaging. It is these exchanges that may lead my teen to find out more when the time is right for him.
Dear Anothermum,
That's very exciting that your 15 year old son is involved in these issues and discussions. There does seem to be so much going on lately, and the fact that he is listening and reacting too, is what I derive from Mike's "Unity for Whom..." campaign...if not for him, then for whom? Mike, interesting post, as always...I miss all the action over here! Jodi
Conditional acceptance, unfortunately, will always linger around just as much as the word "but" linger around at the end of a sentence.
Sometimes it is best to wisely choose your own battles "laissez faire" (let live)
Tactile smile,
Patty ox
grandpa that had lost his hearing at the age of 77. is not Deaf but by default falls in to the 30 million deaf and hard of hearing. so this group is not representative of the 10 million Deaf and hard of hearing .AS for deaf not liking CI's I think that it sometimes does not work and the person has been negatively affected from this approch. and thus if the same person was raised with sign language this would not have happened .. but many many deaf people with CI's are succsessful . good for them! We all want people to have language.
but some deaf can only see the failure not the sucess look with negative eyes because of the failures. and these people will never catch up and is heart breaking and the blame is easy to place
Hi Kim,
I need to point out something. Mike's blog is about conditional acceptance. This is exactly what you are doing. You reject A-V as a viable method, and cannot understand why parents would choose it. Therefore, all deaf kids have no reason not to learn ASL. Therefore, you have just rejected oral deaf children and families.
My point was not to debate methodologies, but just to point out that A-V is a valid method, and families who go that route have educated themselves to all the options. Deaf Culture in general needs to begin to accept oral deaf people without requiring them to learn ASL first. Or ever.
How about the CI community needs to accept Deaf culture people without requiring them to learn to speak first, or ever, KL? Conditional acceptance is a two-way street. BTW Karen is late-deafened and oral, I was born deaf and am oral.
Well, Ann, NAD does not make any effort on identifying the needs that CI ought to be covered by insurance in their website. None whatsoever. They have, however, advocated that hearing aids ought to be covered by insurance.
Go figure. And NAD has the interest of 30 million deaf and hard of hearing people? Let's just say that they're just another one of those special interest group out there. Until they fully address the cochlear implant insurance issue then perhaps people may change their minds about the organization.
"Insurance Coverage
The NAD recommends that medical insurance carriers also provide fair and equitable coverage for hearing aid devices and associated support services."
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c...NKQMBF&
b=138140
NAD 2000 position statement on CI but no mention on insurance coverages except hearing aids?
Figures....
Strangely enough, most medical insurances cover CI's while they don't cover hearing aids. This is because the platform of medical insurance coverage is usally based on (can you believe this?) what Medicare covers, and Medicare covers CI's. If the federal government would extend their coverage to hearing aids, then most medical insurances would too. Medicaid covers hearing aids for school children I think, but I might be wrong about that.
Since one out of three people over sixty-five has hearing loss, I think it's a crime that our government will not provide hearing aids to our elderly retired folks in their medical plan. After paying taxes all those years, they've earned the right to better medical care and hearing aids.
Hearing aids I understand though not all insurance cover CI, and that's the thing. I hear families had to fight tooth and nail to have their son or daughter get CI coverage from their insurance though the coverage rate is about 90%.
http://www.shhh.org/magazine/
200...rticleFinal.pdf
I agree about hearing aids. It should be totally covered. 18 million hearing aids were sold in 2007. Insurance companies are reticent to pay for hearing aids because it is quite costly overall on just sheer volume alone on the number of hearing aids sold and the people who need them. Hearing aids make a bigger dent in the insurance overhead cost than cochlear implant on sheer volume alone per year.
NAD can't enforce insurance companies to do coverage of either CI's or hearing aids. It takes public policy changes in major federally funded programs like Medicare before other insurance companies will follow suit. There have been much lobbying by HLAA (formerly SHHH) to get insurance co's to cover hearing aids and CI's. Many of those insurance co's still are dragging their feet-- Kaiser covers CI's, but others haven't. Ugh, and I've paid a fortune in hearing aids over my lifetime.
I think HLAA and NAD are joining forces. Most Insurance companies will eventually pay for a CI. There's an organization called letthemhear.org set up to specifically fight insurance companies who won't pay. They don't have a legal leg to stand on and they known it. Both mine and my husband's insurance pay for it, but not hearing aids.
I was going to add the orginally premise some insurance companies use for not covering the CI is that it's "experiemental" They simply can't say that anymore, which is why they MUST pay.
A lot of insurance companies, mine included, put hearing aids under the prosthesis clause, which they won't pay for. One of my friend's insurances had hearing aids under a "vanity" clause, as if hearing aids made you more attractive. Riiiiight. They're SO beautiful. hahaha. SIGH. YEP. I've spent thousands on hearing aids. Gawd. What I could have done with that money.
Ann_C,
Did I ever comment that I wouldn't accept people who sign? We used SEE sign while my daughter was younger, and I fully expect that she will learn ASL at some point. I admit that conversing with a Deaf signing person without an interpreter can be difficult and slow, as we both need to write down a lot of stuff. But that is nowhere near the same as saying I don't accept them as they are.
K.L. Because I am late-deafened and oral I place value on both oralism and ASL. I reject the AV approach because it requires parents to discourage ASL. I'm glad your daughter learned S.E.E. I think that's GREAT!
I'm not judging you as a parent. If I had been in your shoes, I probably would have done the same thing as you. In my opinion the IDEAL program hasn't yet been developed. I realize the support and options are few and you had to make tough choices based on the recommendations of doctors, educators, and other specialists you trusted. I'm sure you researched and saw more than one doctor, more than one program before deciding what to do. Please don't take my criticsm of AV as criticism of you as a parent. It might feel like that to you, but that's not my intention at all.
We're still working towards improving the education of d/Deaf children. With new information, there's always room for improvement. In fact, this is the same for hearing children. Sometimes I regret I didn't know certain thing when my children were growing up that I now know. Things I could have done that I didn't. That's life. We all do the best we can with the information we know at the time.
Maybe it's time for AV to take another look at their program. What could be the harm in signing with Deaf children at two thru ten months and beyond? We know many signing babies are able to express themselves at four months. Of course laying this foundation early would make it easier to learn English later as well as S.E.E.
Kim,
Those of us who very much believe in the A-V approach don't have to "take another look at their program." The fact is that there is research that supports the approach, and many many children out there like my girls have experienced tremendous success with the approach. As I said in a previous comment, I would do everything exactly the same as we did before with the exception that we would have started with an A-V therapist rather than spending the first year in an oral program, and we would have had Rachel implanted right at age 2 rather than waiting until she was 2 years 7 months.
Why can you not accept that the A-V approach is a very effective and proven approach that does not need changing? No one is saying that it is for every child or family or that you have to agree with it, but you don't hear me saying that the TC programs should drop sign because I can provide you with research that says this. It is insulting and disrespectful to say that a valid approach should be changed. How about instead saying that you would opt for a different approach with your child? It is not up to anyone to do away with an approach, but it is an individual's choice to opt for a different one if they don't agree with it.
And, Melissa, I suspect that you did in fact make an *informed* decision with Rachel and her other sibling when she was a baby by including the possibility of signing (ASL, SEE, manual, etc), cued speech, and so on but opted instead on the decision to go through the A-V/oral route and a CI?
Mike,
You are correct. We spoke with several families using all the approaches, went to the library (This was in the pre-internet days) and got many books on deaf education and the controversy, and researched the literature in the professional journals, which we were fortunate to have easy access to because my husband was in his surgical residency when Rachel was born and so could get all the journals from the medical school library. What really swayed us, though, were the kids themselves. We met and spoke with A-V kids of all ages, and they wowed us. We also met an 8 year old who had meningitis at age 3 so well after she'd already had some established spoken language. Her parents said the hearing aids were a pain and stopped using them and were raising the girl solely with ASL. She lost all of her spoken language abilities and could not speak at all. As hearing parents, I think it is understandable that when we met her vs. the A-V kids we were influenced as we were.
Melissa,
You choose to take offense. I have made it clear not once, but several times now, that I respect your choice. Since you didn't develop the AV program, I don't see why you personally feel offended.
I've made it clear that the research I'm referring to is relatively new and wasn't available when your girls were in AV.
Here's something I found on the net. There is tons of information in books on language development out there.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~cstein/
r...references.html
They've discovered so much about how babies learn, especially language development, just in the past few years. Of course the AV program should be changing all the time as researchers discover new relevant information.
I'm sick of this discussion. I'm in the middle. I got reamed out by Aidan in Jodi's blog for defending Jodi and now it seems you're attacking me, because I believe deaf babies could benefit from sign BEFORE they're implanted.
**This is my personal belief.**
**I never said YOU made a mistake or should have done it MY way.**
**I have a right to my opinions like anyone else.**
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Hold on, Kim. There's possibly a bit of a miscommunication here. I don't think Melissa was attacking but merely asking a question about the acceptance of AV.
Secondly, whether it's ASL, SEE, baby signs via homemade signs or whatever, even cued speech, visual communication to both hearing and deaf baby can benefit from visual communication until their vocal cords and muscles mature to the point of being able to talk (including those with CI) and convey their simple wishes like wanting more milk or cookies and stuff like that. But A/V has a different set of philosophy and belief that based entirely on auditory input and not sign. With CI technology it changes everything. Still, until vocal cords develop signing visually wouldn't hurt any more than to a hearing baby/toddler. And then drop signing altogether if that's the preferred route.
Kim, sorry you got pushed out by Aidan for defending somebody else. Just get some rest and maybe a warm tea would help clear the air (and mind).
Sorry...no, I don't do yoga.
Any warm tea for me? For an already clear air (and mind).
Mike,
She took my words personally, then twisted them out of context when I didn't even write them to her. My response was to K.L. When I said AV needed to take another look at its program, I was talking about those who administer the program and/or the program developers, not HER personally.
Secondly I NEVER said the AV approach was 'ineffective.' I said the perfect approach to deaf education hasn't yet been developed. I don't think there is such a thing as perfection, and I believe/hope deaf education will continue to evolve forever as long as we continue to make new discoveries about infant brain development.
Melissa said-- "It is insulting and disrespectful to say that a valid approach should be changed. How about instead saying that you would opt for a different approach with your child?"
I have never said I would have taken a different approach. I'm not sure I would have. I have consistently said over and over that I don't know what I would have done in her shoes, but I think I might have done the same thing as her. Read my message to K.L. Yet-- she STILL somehow feels "insulted and disrespected."
It doesn't sound like she's 'questioning' to me, Mike. She's taking offense where none was meant.
I'm tired of all this negative energy in DeafRead. I need a break.
Kim,
I apologize if you took my comments for an attack on you personally. You made the point that the research that is out there now was not present when I made my decision, and implied that I would likely have done things differently. That was making an assumption that was incorrect and presumptuous. There is also a great deal of research about the A-V approach, especially A-V with CIs, that was not there 20 years ago either. I can and have cited lots of research that supports the A-V approach and concludes that adding sign not only does not add to the child's acquisition of spoken language but actually detracts from it. You may choose not to agree with it or to cite differing research, but the fact is that it is absolutely not conclusive that adding sign to A-V is beneficial to the development of a child's spoken language - Note the spoken - That's what I'm talking about.
A-V with sign would no longer be A-V. It would be TC because the absence of a visual form of communication is an intrinsic part of A-V. An approach can evolve and change, and, in fact, A-V has. You will find very few therapists using the hand cue anymore because, with the hearing that the CI affords these children, it's no longer necessary. We didn't use it with Jessica.
The fact is that A-V can evolve and change but can not add sign or it wouldn't be A-V, and I firmly believe that it should not add sign. I'm not talking about in the first 6 months before implantation (That is when I'd have a baby implanted now.) because A-V without hearing is also not possible. I'm talking about after implantation when I still would not use sign. I'd jump right in feeding in spoken language.
I probably should clarify my position also. We did not go the A-V route, for reasons that aren't important here. We used TC with SEE. What I am supporting is the individual parent's rights to chose for themselves. I have seen the studies, and believe that A-V is a valid option, and I fully support a parent's right to choose that method.
Kim, the only thing I was objecting to, was your comment "I strongly feel the AV approach to deny ASL is wrong."
Yes, I support your right to feel that way. I just wanted to point out that this is exactly the type of statement that causes people who use that approach to feel excluded. If anyone wants to be inclusive of all deaf people, parens of deaf kids, families, etc... they need to express things differently.
Does this help? Hope so.
Melissa,
I have re-read my message to K.L. at least a half-dozen times and do not see where I mentioned your name, made assumptions or implied anything about you. I accept your apology, though.
"Melissa didn't have access to this research twenty years ago. It hadn't been done! She did the best she could with what she knew at the time."
Kim,
This was the line I was referring to and is why I stated that, not only did we do extensive research early on, but I have continued to stay on top of the research, much of which I cited, and, therefore, would absolutely choose the A-V approach again for my girls, the only exception being an earlier CI for Rachel and going straight to A-V rather than spending a year in a traditional oral program first. What we did then was the best for us and would still be the best now for my girls.
Melissa-- I never said that and you know it. Now I'm feeling very irritated by your continued twisting of my words. If you can't even quote me correctly in here, it makes me wonder how well you understood the complex "research" you've read on language acquistion of implanted children in the past. I'm through with you and this discussion.
Kim,
The comments aren't numbered, but I actually cut and pasted that quote in from the 9th comment from the top.
Regardless, I'm not attacking you personally but, rather, am just trying to make the point that the A-V approach was and still is not only a very viable approach but also one that some of us believe is absolutely the way to go for our children, including not using sign. We're not saying that every parent should follow the A-V approach, only that its lack of inclusion of sign is based on sound and extensive research.
Oh OK It was further up where I was defending you, AND you took it out of context-- but you're right I DID say that so I apologize, though I won't be defending you again. But let's put it into the proper context. Because this is what I really said--
"Attacking Melissa and Rachel doesn't help. Melissa didn't have access to this research twenty years ago. It hadn't been done! She did the best she could with what she knew at the time. It's water under the bridge."
Sorry for making an "assumption" about you, that if this information had been available before, you might have done things differently-- such as signing with Rachel her first two-and-a-half years before implantation. NOPE. I understand now. No matter what, your girls would NEVER have been exposed to signs of any kind.
SIGH. Look Melissa. We just don't see eye to eye.
You mentioned before that Rachel is a "great lipreader." Why would she have developed such good lipreading skills if she has been implanted since age two? Does she need to lipread while wearing the CI?
Do you know the statistical facts about lipreading?
We taught Rachel lipreading from right before her 2nd birthday when she lost all of her residual hearing and used it through the first 6 months post implantation, during which time we used the "sandwich" approach to transition her language through lipreading, which was about 100 words at that point, to auditory comprehension only. She took to lipreading very easily. Over the years of not relying on it, she then lost some of her abilities. However, when her CI failed and she had to use lipreading for two weeks, she was able to quickly regain her skills.
Jessica, on the other hand, cannot lipread at all. I actually tried to teach her once she was older and could understand what it was I was asking her to try to learn. To this day, though, she can't lipread a single word. However, she consistently tests 100% in tests of auditory only comprehension and so does not need it, especially because she hears equally as well out of either ear with her bilateral CIs and so won't ever have to be totally without sound as Rachel was when her one CI failed.
As for my using sign - Had the CI not come along for Rachel when it did, we likely would have added some sign but kept her primarily oral. However, as I said before, today I'd have my baby implanted at age 6 months, and I would not add sign.
Well I'm confused by this because I thought you said that time Rachels' CI failed for two weeks, it was no problem not to a have visual language because she's so good at lipreading.
Now you're saying she's not good at lipreading.
Also if she can't lipread, what does she do when her CI isn't on, like when she's in a pool swimming?
Or when she just gets out of the shower and her hair is wer?
Or when her batteries die?
What would she do if she were in the hospital having an operation and couldn't wear them?
Are you aware that lipreading is about 60-70% guesswork with no sound?
Rachel has very good lipreading skills. However, her ability to comprehend language without hearing is greatly reduced when all she has to rely on is lipreading. When her CI failed, her school got her CART reporting and even let her keep it for the 6 weeks before the school year ended while she was still adjusting to her new CI. My point about her lipreading skills is that they are adequate enough for me to give her basic information if her CI is off. We cannot hold a prolonged conversation. For both girls, we can also use reading and writing to get a message across. The point is that the times for both girls when they are without hearing is minimal, and we have never had a problem working through these instances. Jessica did have knee surgery a year ago, and, she wore her processors into the OR. The surgeon removed them once she was asleep and passed them on to the recovery room after her surgery was over. The recovery room nurses them put the processors back on Jessica so that they could speak to her when she woke up.
I've been thinking about all the times my husband and I are in bed and I'm without hearing aids. We like to talk at night. I'm nearly deaf without them. I lipread pretty well, but it's nice when he can sign a little too. I'm only a beginner at ASL and teaching him signs as I go.
He often makes breakfast on Sundays. This morning I was getting ready for work. He came into the bathroom while I was in the shower and signed "ready"-- meaning my breakfast was ready. I don't expect to become fluent in ASL at my age, though I intend to take as many classes as I can. Most of my friends and all of my family is hearing or deaf-oral. My husband is losing his hearing now. He's in his mid-50's.
We talk orally for most all of our communication, but there are times I miss what he says and it's good when he can sign a few words to fill in the blanks while talking. Because I'm late-deafened, I learned to speak just fine, so it has nothing to do with how well either of us speak.
I've had four surgeries in the past year. I had the option to wear my aids, but didn't want them on. I was concerned someone might forget to take them off when I was under, or maybe they would get misplaced or get wet. One of my surgeries was on my sinuses and I didn't want my hearing aids to become damaged. Most medical staff know nothing about hearing aids or CI's. It's surprising how little they know. I just don't trust them with my expensive hearing aids. I have been in hospital operating rooms in the past, interning as a dental hygiene student long ago.
My hypothetical question wasn't what you would do now. With baby sign being so popular now and all the support and benefits researchers are discovering with it, if you had had the opportunity and support to teach Rachel some signs as a small infant back then, knowing it would lay a good foundation for future language learning (doesn't matter if it's verbal or not, because studies show ASL stimulates the same language centers of the brain)-- would you have taught her signs then? Before she was implanted? I realize it wasn't easy then like it is now, with all the DVDs and CD-Roms available today. But if it had been easier like it is today, would you have done it?
I'm talking about from birth to two-and-a-half when she was implanted. Many babies start signing at four months-- just little words like milk and mama, but it gives them a way of expressing themselves long before they gain speech-- which is why it has become so popular with parents of hearing babies.
The answer is that I would not have taught Rachel signs. It is incorrect to use data about baby signs with normal hearing children and apply it to hearing impaired children because a normal hearing child will still be easily picking up spoken language through osmosis. Second, Rachel had residual hearing, and so we were using the A-V approach with her until she lost all of her residual hearing, which was confirmed right at the time of her 2nd birthday. At that point, we got a vibrotactile aid and taught her lipreading. As I said before, we would have added some sign had the CI not come along, but it did. Knowing what I know how, which includes the extensive research study showing that oral communication is an important determining factor in the access of spoken English skills by a CI child, I would have focused on using Rachel's residual hearing and then had her implanted right at age 2 as soon as she lost all of her residual hearing.
Commenting by HaloScan
