Sweet Nothing In My Ear and Forum
Jeff Daniels And Marlee Matlin Star In Sweet Nothing In My Ear
Laura and Dan Miller (Matlin, Daniels) have been happily married, as well as best friends, for many years, but their relationship begins to change when their only son, Adam (Noah Valencia), loses his hearing at the age of four. Laura, who is deaf herself, sees this occurrence as a minor problem, something that she has dealt with her whole life. Dan, on the other hand, at first agrees with her but starts to realize that, with surgery, his son could regain his hearing and live a more normal life.
Tempers flare and frustrations mount as Dan investigates the surgery and its pros and cons. Laura is dead set against it and makes that very clear, even as Dan begins to favor the procedure for his child. Locked in their own worlds, the couple must find a way to mend their differences and make the best decision for Adam’s future. For the full article, click seat42f.com - Jeff Daniels And Marlee Matlin Star In Sweet Nothing In My Ear
Commentary: Of course this show focuses on the controversy of cochlear implants and the Deaf Community. What’s new?
At the forum at this moment, there are 175 comments with mixed comments from hearing, deaf, and c.i. communities. As usual, a fair amount of misconceptions, stereotypes and misinformation from all three parties emerge. At the bottom, the majority of the comments is dominated by the parents of c.i. kids, describing the positive outcome of their kids with cochlear implants and educating both the hearing and the deaf the modern realities with the cochlear implants.
This time I detect anger in both Deaf and C.I. communities toward each other. The hearing parents of c.i. kids are becoming annoyed with the negative information from the Deaf Community on the devices and their dismissing the success of pediatric cochlear implants and the ability of the c.i. deaf kids to understand speech without any lipreading. Yet I observe a similar ignorance from C.I community about Deaf people with few critics harping on the low reading levels and poor writtien English skills with the implication that all Deaf people struggle with the poor literacy skills. Apparently the parents of C.I. kids aren’t aware of many successful Deaf people with excellent command in both written English and ASL.
The comment section is still open if any wants to leave their two cent’s worth. Both Deaf and C.I. Community have a lot to teach to each other. but it seems they aren’t listening to each other. MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Jeff Daniels And Marlee Matlin Star In Sweet Nothing In My Ear
Laura and Dan Miller (Matlin, Daniels) have been happily married, as well as best friends, for many years, but their relationship begins to change when their only son, Adam (Noah Valencia), loses his hearing at the age of four. Laura, who is deaf herself, sees this occurrence as a minor problem, something that she has dealt with her whole life. Dan, on the other hand, at first agrees with her but starts to realize that, with surgery, his son could regain his hearing and live a more normal life.
Tempers flare and frustrations mount as Dan investigates the surgery and its pros and cons. Laura is dead set against it and makes that very clear, even as Dan begins to favor the procedure for his child. Locked in their own worlds, the couple must find a way to mend their differences and make the best decision for Adam’s future. For the full article, click seat42f.com - Jeff Daniels And Marlee Matlin Star In Sweet Nothing In My Ear
Commentary: Of course this show focuses on the controversy of cochlear implants and the Deaf Community. What’s new?
At the forum at this moment, there are 175 comments with mixed comments from hearing, deaf, and c.i. communities. As usual, a fair amount of misconceptions, stereotypes and misinformation from all three parties emerge. At the bottom, the majority of the comments is dominated by the parents of c.i. kids, describing the positive outcome of their kids with cochlear implants and educating both the hearing and the deaf the modern realities with the cochlear implants.
This time I detect anger in both Deaf and C.I. communities toward each other. The hearing parents of c.i. kids are becoming annoyed with the negative information from the Deaf Community on the devices and their dismissing the success of pediatric cochlear implants and the ability of the c.i. deaf kids to understand speech without any lipreading. Yet I observe a similar ignorance from C.I community about Deaf people with few critics harping on the low reading levels and poor writtien English skills with the implication that all Deaf people struggle with the poor literacy skills. Apparently the parents of C.I. kids aren’t aware of many successful Deaf people with excellent command in both written English and ASL.
The comment section is still open if any wants to leave their two cent’s worth. Both Deaf and C.I. Community have a lot to teach to each other. but it seems they aren’t listening to each other. MZ
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
That doesn’t shock me at all. Nonesowhatever, that would remain a hostile war between hearing, CI-AVT (without ASL)and Deaf for a long time to come unless someone or something comes up with a compromise between us. It WON’T be that EASY! There always is a very long fork road with no end in sight BUT the end will be there eventually.
Speaking of those “hostile” hearing people kept pointing out on the Deaf’s English skills, they’re really missing the sights since obviously that Deaf with poor English skills’ schools system failed them in first place, not the Deaf’s. That has always the school system. There are the hearing people who have very poor spelling and English skills as well. Should the hearing people with poor spelling and English skills be blamed? No! It’s the school system! HELLO!
Misha
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Actually, you are not accurate. I would venture to say that it is not necessarily the schools that are creating the poor written language and reading skills. It’s the fact that reading and thus written language is based on the sounds one hears. In essence then English is a second language rather than the primary, ASL. The grammatical nuances are very different. The tenses, verb agreements, etc are not the same. That is why children who are graduates of AV programs record higher test scores in the areas of reading and written language. Of course various studies indicate similar but various outcomes. However, the evidence does suggest the children who have been trained to use their auditory skills early on do have skills on par with hearing peers.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I do think the *comparatively* low literacy levels of the Deaf community is a real problem. However, the way I see it, it is a product of both a school system that does not encourge Deaf kids to READ and PARENTS who encourage their Deaf kids to read.
I have a CI, but I got it when I was 6, so my english skills is not due to my CI. I have excellent writing abilities because I learned how to read early.
Unfortunately, I am starting to see a real socioeconomic split between the ASL and CI communities. The CI kids are predominantly white, middle-to-upper middle class, with stable families. So they have other factors contributing to their literacy levels.Where does that leave ASL? Many poorer kids from racial minorities are ASL users. Keeping in mind that Deaf kids, in order to master English need constant stimulation and interaction (which is true for all kids, but especially for Deaf kids), parents from poorer families do not have time or the resources for this.
It’s a really sad commentary on American society that the CI-ASL debate has become more polarized among socioeconomic lines.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Justamom,
EXCUSE me….just because a deaf child receives AVT training thus acquiring grammatical skills “more on par with hearing peers,” to quote you, is a fallacy.
I am just one instance that proves this fallacy. I am profoundly deaf, ASL user since infancy, never received auditory training (attempted, yes, never sucessful), yet, I scored SAT scores equivalent to college freshmen by the time I was in 8th grade compared to my 6 classmates who were “hard of hearing,” all who were capable of speech, had a lot of residual hearing, and wore hearing aids. They scored significantly lower but still higher than the average deaf student.
What you are trying to promote tells me you are limited in your scope and experience about deafness in general. Learn this: hearing DOES NOT equal intelligence. My 16 year old son who is HEARING is not academically intelligent. He writes okay but not “on the par” with his 10th grade classmates. What does this say? Just like deaf children, hearing children also vary in their learning processes and language acquisition. My son has hearing but yet cannot be described as “intelligent.” He doesn’t use proper grammar. Perhaps you need to research more on your OWN people in the public schools. You’d be AMAZED just how many of them write poorly, and how many of them write like many deaf students.
Cochlear does not indicate the potential of acquiring better language skills. It only emits sounds more powerfully than traditional hearing aids - language acqusition is a whole another ballpark. I have plenty of students with cochlears - they hear well, identify sounds, recognize the voices (some of them do, not all), but most of them don’t speak, use ASL, and write/read 3 to 4 grades lower. Ironically, it is my highest functioning class who are not cochlear kids - all of them wear traditional hearing aids with exception of one who doesn’t wear one due to profound hearing loss. They are on grade level. None of their parents subscribe to the idea of cochlear because their hearing aids “work just fine.” These parents understand that hearing does not equalize intelligent level. It is the COMMUNICATION ACCESS that is the key to language acqusition, development, and higher academic performance. So it is the FAMILY DYMANICS that is essential to successful academic performance, not the cochlear device.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Actually it is not a fallacy. However you are correct in saying that family dynamics is essential to academic performance. My son who does listen and speak was a hearing aid user until Dec. 07, and he now uses a cochlear implant and hearing aid….so I never said that the cochlear implant was essential to academic performance. But I’m sure if I quote statistics and studies, some will say they are biased, etc.
I’m actually not an idiot, Cy. I, too, am a teacher. I do know the importance of a family’s influence on their child’s education. I never said that hearing equals intelligence. The problem is, Cy, that I was commenting on the first response which stated that the schools cause the problem. When you as a fellow teacher know that is not the case. You can not debate that the basis of reading is phonemic awareness. So what I said is actually not a fallacy. You on the other hand would like to just bash me for my opinion rather than having a civil debate. It again comes down to a parent’s choice for his or her child. Why is it so difficult to accept that if a parent or family chooses AV for a child, really becomes involved which is what you advocate, and the child flourishes, that it’s great. That this choice was what worked for that particular child.
I am assuming that you teach in a school for the deaf. I am also assuming that you are not speaking of children who have had AV training. These children, like my own, for the most part are in mainstream classrooms.
The bitterness and nastiness needs to end. I’m not here to promote anything. I’m here to learn and share. My child happens to be an AV child. If I state this, I’m speaking from experience as are you. It does not equate promotion. Obviously sharing anything such as this is not ok with you.
Actually, Cy, whether you want to admit it or not, we have a lot in common. It might behoove us to learn from each other or are you set on only me learning from you?
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
justamom,
I’m not exactly clear by your point that written English is based on sound. It seems to me that you are saying that you need to hear English to master the language. I hope you’re not saying that, because there are many, many deaf people who have mastered English, including Cy and me who have never heard a single word.
As for the test scores: the fact remains that we continue to see AVT/CI failures. Where do the failures go? Residential deaf schools.
It is only then natural that you would see the end result of the AVT test scores being better than the residential ones.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Justamom,
Well, it seems you are biased yourself as well. Everyone is biased, actually.
My students DO get AVT training. Not all, granted, but many of them do. All they managed to acquire is identifying the sounds, locate the origin of sounds and recognize the voices…pretty much similiar to hearing aids, with exception, as I understand it, that cochlear kids are better at locating the sound origins than the hearing aid wearers.
Some of them actually master some speech skills. Enough to be able to communicate with their families.
Again, this is NOT language. Just communication elements. They still can’t write well or read. As part of AVT, phonetic reading is part of their program and yet they still fail to make connection to the words they hear to the words they read. It is because there is no essential meaning to those words they hear. Their thinking and learning process are different from those born with hearing and/or still have hearing.
AVT therapists like to claim that cochlears re-establish the pathway of sounds to the brain which is the way sound works in a normal hearing person when the sound comes , the hairs, and ear drum to feed the information to the brain. With hearing loss, all that is gone. Cochlears are supposed to bring all that back but the reality is it doesn’t. Cochlear is just another hearing aid tool. It doesnt bring back the same pathway that the hearing person has in order to acquire language the way they do as opposed to a deaf person without that pathway - they become visual learners and always will be, compounded with some kind of hearing aid tool, that being traditional devices or cochlears. Thus the essence of keeping ASL as part of language acquisition and development rather than AVT therapy alone. Very few succeed with just AVT therapy, and I notice it is mostly due to the family’s persistence and determination that their children be “normal.”
True, statistical data is not available, but I am part of the deaf community, and I’ve seen way too many cochlear failures. I believe the reason why there is no statistical data is the cochlear industry and AG Bell KNOW the truth that cochlear is one big failure and is not keeping any data because if they do, they stand to lose support and purse strings.
I am not against cochlear as long as they are combined with ASL - natural language for the deaf because, frankly, cochlear kids are still deaf. Internally, physcially, and emotionally, they are deaf and always will be.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
justamom,
You should read about the difference between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). (Starting in the fourth section titled: “Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency”):
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Products/Sharing-Ideas/afirst/different.html
The kind of thing you are talking about (deaf children being taught listening and speaking skills) tends more to enhance their BICS skills, not CALP skills, but CALP is much more important.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:57 am
While you say that your children receive AVT, they do not. They might receive auditory training of some sort. They may even be receiving training that is called AVT by your therapist, but I doubt it is. What you are discussing is not what I and others know of AVT.
If the children you speak of are in a classroom with only other deaf children, again not a principal of AVT. AVT is actually one on one auditory training with parents/guardians one to two times per week under the guidance of a cert. AVT that is then implemented at home daily with one on on “lessons” and total immersion in language throughout the day. It’s like bathing a child in language. Same as you might do if you are teaching a child to sign. I would not doubt that what you describe is not working well. Those of us who have found AVT to be a great success are practicing the guiding principals of the program. You can find these online.
I have my experiences to share with you, and that is based on my years of AV experience with my own child. You have to also remember that the children who are showing this great success are not traditionally school age children beginning AVT, these are babies and toddlers. Their hearing loss was determined at a very young age like my son. He is 5, and his language skills are within normal limits. He can speak to us and hear us from another room. He carries on phone conversations with his aunt who has a different accent. He hears with his back to us. He’s mainstreamed with his community peers. It’s quite a different picture than you are experiencing.
So please understand that I am speaking our truth. There is no conspiracy. My son does not use ASL. It’s not to punish him in the least while you might see it as such. He is a listening speaking child who has not been deprived. I think even Mishka Zena can attest that we might be speaking of two different populations of children. I know that he is deaf. No one is saying that he isn’t, but just as you say deaf does not equal intelligence. Deaf does not equal ASL either. We, again, just have to agree to disagree. You may want to consider visiting an AV family, child, or center. It’s apparently not what you think it is.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Deaf Pundit,
Hi. I am not saying that children who do not hear can not master reading, but I do believe we will agree that reading is “easier” for those who do.
There are CI failures. We all know that, but it seems as if many believe that there is a 75% failure rate or something such as that. We know that not to be true as well.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Justamom makes very valid points. First, if you are teaching in a school for the deaf and you are speaking about students in your school, then what they are receiving is absolutely not AVT. By definition, AVT cannot occur in a school for the deaf because AV children are immersed in the hearing world. Second, today most AVT children who begin AV as babies or early toddlers are finished with their AVT by kindergarten because they have achieved age appropriate or better language and speech skills by then. For my AV center, this is the norm, and, at any given time, they have over 40 children at the center with 7-10 “graduating” ever year. Thus, you are not seeing the same population of children that I am seeing. I should add that almost all children who start at my AV center also finish with successful results. The only exceptions are those who have significant other disabilities, such as brain damage from meningitis or severe apraxia, or those whose parents are willing to commit the time and effort required of them for their children to be successful in the program.
As for reading - Reading has to follow language, and it is easier for a child to learn to read in their primary language. In addition, while sight reading is certainly a way that some children learn to read, most children need a combination of phonics and sight reading, and phonics and being able to sound out words is based on hearing the individual sounds. I certainly know that deaf people can learn to read and that by no means all fall into the 4th grade reading level stereotype. However, that doesn’t change the fact that phonemic awareness and understanding is based on hearing.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Correction - That was supposed to be those whose parents are UNwilling to commit the time and effort.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Yes, there are two distinctly different groups of c.i. kids. The first group are implanted at a very young age, infant and toddler and aggressively treated with heavy involvement of parents, AVT, appropriate mappings and supportive environment. Most are responsive, but not all.
The second group don’t do so well for a variety of reasons, late implantation, lack of parental involvement, poor implement of aural and verbal therapy, inferior mappings and chaotic environment. Just like Melissa said, some aren’t responsive due to secondary handicaps. They end in deaf programs with supportive visual communication in the elementary schools.
However, Melissa and justamom, I have been hearing reports of some successful c.i. deaf kids doing well in elementary schools only to struggle later in middle and high school programs, transferring to deaf schools and starting to learn sign language These encounter problems with linguistic acquisition, even though they could use cochlear implants. They are unable to benefit from using c.i. in classrooms, now that the teachers are using more complicated language and introducing difficult concepts to the discussion.
Many deaf schools are dealing with the c.i. kids being dumped from mainstreamed middle and high schools. These are the students Cy refers to.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I’d love to get statistics of the academic settings the CI students excel or/and fail, the ages, etc. So far I am told at least 1/3 of CI students are placed at the deaf schools while 2/3 of CI students move forward in the mainstreaming and what percentage of them excel/fail in the mainstream settings….
So far all I hear is hearsay, soooo…
April 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Mishka Zena,
I don’t have any information about children entering deaf schools in the middle grades. The children I know who graduated from the Center we use have not had this experience. I can only speak from what we know.
Karen,
Again what I speak of is not hearsay on my part. I’m speaking from experience. I recently visited our State’s school for the deaf, and I asked about the reading levels of graduating seniors. I was told 4th grade. So I can speak to the statistics in my State when it comes to our school for the deaf.
I, honestly, saw no children with CI’s when I was on campus. So I’m not sure if there is any data to collect regarding CI failures. I think the fact remains that we have so many factors to consider. When I as a parent categorize CI failure, I’m thinking in terms of a device failure. I think that many are thinking in terms of the effectiveness of the CI. It is what is put into it. Just as the communication abilities of children who sign. I’m sure you see that within the Deaf community.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
When children were implanted at age 2 or later, they had already missed 2/3 of the critical early language learning years. Rachel was one of these as she was implanted at 2 years 7 months. She maintained a slight language delay throughout school. That she was in classes with very bright students meant that the difference was beyond the slight delay that she had as they were all very advanced. Yet, she held her own and did beautifully in high school. As with the younger children, I attribute parental involvement to her success. I remember my husband coming home from a long day of work and reading “Fahrenheit 451″ with her day after day, going over every paragraph to ensure that she understood it. In addition, we made sure that she had the support that she needed in school. She had a HI resource teacher who hand-picked her teachers in middle school and another one in high school who was also terrific. These women looked after her, making sure that she not only had excellent teachers but that they were teachers who were willing to go the extra mile for Rachel if they had to. In addition, Rachel learned early on how to advocate for herself and to take advantage of the times that teachers said they were available before or after school for one-on-one help. So, while Rachel was fully mainstreamed for her classes, we never sent her off to middle or high school telling her she was on her own.
Most of the kids you are seeing now in high school and even in middle school were not implanted until age 2 or later because of the former FDA guidelines. When Jessica was implanted in 1996, the FDA guidelines still specified age 2, but we were fortunate to have a surgeon who was willing to implant her “off label” at age 15 months. The kids I am seeing now who were implanted at 12 months and even younger are a whole different breed. Their language catches up so quickly. Jessica tested age level to two years above in her language skills by age 6. She gets resource help, but not for her hearing or language. She has some minor learning disabilities in addition to her deafness.
So, while you can still find some kids today in the upper grades who may have begun to struggle, I am willing to bet that their numbers will drop significantly over the next ten years. Jessica is 13, and, again, the FDA guidelines still specified age 2 when she was implanted. So, it will be another 5+ years before you see a significant number of children in middle and high school who were implanted at age 12 months or even younger.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
What do people mean by CI ‘failures’ in schools? (I’ve read people commenting about CI failures being ‘dumped’ in deaf schools and taking down average scores)
Are we talking about a child who received a CI and has stopped wearing the processor and does not use spoken language?
Or a child who wears a CI but performs no better than a deaf child without a CI in spoken language skills?
Or something else?
April 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Valid questions.
Hopefully we all will finally see the whole picture soon.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
justamom,
It’s not meaningful to mention English literacy levels of deaf students without also referring to their ASL literacy levels.
As for English, it’s not meaningful to blur the distinction between BICS and CALP. (See link in comment #8).
Your portrayal is much too vague.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Barnum (1984) refers to the distinction between BICS and CALP in discussing the common misconception that speech skills in deaf or hard of hearing children equal solid language competence.
Have you visited an AV program? It is not speech therapy. My child was taught to listen and speech then followed naturally. It’s completely about language acquisition. So, no I’m not blurring the distinction.
It might be wise to really investigate Auditory Verbal Therapy because from where I sit, I don’t think that many who speak so lowly of it truly understand it.
What I do know is that as a parent it was important to investigate the English literacy levels of our State’s school for the deaf. It was very important.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Brian Riley
While I understand your comments, and would agree that one does not equal the other. How would you suggest that data be collected to substantiate and validate the competency level of students?
The link mentioned in comment #8 refers to a study of preschool bilingual children who “hearing loss is mild enough that both languages can be learned through natural processes of interaction (rather than training)”. It also said, “Although these children were diagnosed with fairly mild hearing losses, it is important to note that their parents, who agreed to be part of the study, began learning and using Sign Language very soon after the childrens’ hearing loss was discovered.” It also said, “Rather, for those hard of hearing children who do have enough access to the spoken signal to acquire speech naturally, the benefits of early bilingualism in the spoken language of the home and the signed language of the Deaf community are considered to be an asset for the child.”
Perhaps this portrayal is much too vague.
How does this study relate to the children who could not benefit from hearing aids and who have a CI? This study does not address profoundly deaf children who can not benefit from hearing aids or children who have CI(s) and have been trained with AVT. I base this on the fact that there was no mention of hearing aids or CI(s) in the referenced study. While I am not a professional in any field and have no idea how to go about collecting data I ponder this often and strive to educate myself on all sides of the issues. From what I have seen the blurring of the lines between AVT® and auditory verbal techniques will make this a monumental task. My hope is that we as the human race will continue to be thoughtful of each other and remember that we all must ultimately strive to bring about a better place for every individual. May we all learn to respect, reflect upon, and consider the views of others.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I define CI failures as the CI not being able to help the child acquire language through auditory means.
If you study the residential schools’ data closely, you will notice that as you go up through the grades, the more students the schools has. AND you will notice that those students who started at that residential schools test very well, whereas the transfer students do not.
It is THOSE transfer students who drag down the school’s average test scores.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
For me and mine,..skill in written English was acquired,..not by sound or speech,..but by the amount of reading in the English language, that was done by the person, who was learning to put the English words together!!
Both my son, who is hearing,..and I have wonderful vocabularies of English words,..but our spoken skills in using those words are limited in comparison to what we can write down on a piece of paper. Son is an honor student at KSU in Ohio. I have a college degree or two. And yet,..when people hear son and I speak,..they come up with totally different assumptions about what our mental abilities are in comparing our vocal skills and our writing skills!!
In retrospect: If you hear us speak,..we’re “dummies!!”
If you read what we’ve written,..we have gotten published!!
Go figure!!
April 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I do believe that if a parent chooses (speaking of infants and children) to have a child receive a cochlear implant, that they MUST provide appropriate auditory training. For us that was Auditory Verbal Therapy. Our surgeon doesn’t just implant anyone. There are strict guidelines he uses including what the parents’ plans for auditory training are going to be. If a parent isn’t going to provide this, then he will not implant the child. Of course, parent’s can say they will but don’t. Again it is truly a matter of parental involvement. I do know that there are a few children who don’t benefit from an implant. When parents like myself speak of CI failures, we are speaking of internal device failures.
Residential Deaf Schools are public institutions. If you say “those” students bring down the test scores, you may want to quantify it with some data. That would be difficult in that there are many factors that may require a student to enroll. It’s not necessarily because they were oral etc. I know of no children in my son’s program past or present that now attend a residential school for the deaf.
Maybe you could post the data about the residential school’s test scores or point us in the right direction. It would be interesting to see.
Thanks
April 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
justamom,
“The residential school”?
Nearly every state has a residential school, and there are some states that have two or more. Which state do you prefer me to provide the test scores for?
April 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Oh come on. I know that. There again trying to act as if because I haven’t chosen ASL for my son that I don’t know anything. We have a residential school and a school for the deaf. You show what you want to show? I told you my State’ reading scores. It really doesn’t pertain to my son’s situation, but if you’d like to share, I’d be more than happy to read.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
We already have statistics showing that c.i. kids are not doing as well as proclaimed by the proponents of c.i. Yet I see the c.i. proponents saying give it few more years.
However, when we talk about c.i. kids being dumped in deaf schools during the middle and high schools, we are being asked to provide data.
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
It doesn’t matter if the surgeons have a strict policy.
I can asset with many deaf teachers, many I know personally, telling me the same thing. Many c.i. kids do end up in deaf schools in the middle and high school schools. The state schools have no alternative but take them in as it is publicly funded. According to the teachers first hand, these students do pull down the school averages.
However, as private organizations, many AVT centers do have the luxury to boot out c.i. kids not doing well. They can show the graduates doing exceptionally well. Duh. They already weeded out the nonfunctional prior to the graduation.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
A-V centers “weed out” kids well before middle school, in fact well before elementary school. So, these are not the kids you are seeing. If you came to an A-V center rather than a school for the deaf, you’d see a large group of kids all of whom are successful with A-V and CIs. At present, there are over 40 children at our A-V center, the majority of whom have CIs, and they are all doing beautifully. There are also a few hundred graduates of our A-V centers, 100% of whom are still in mainstream schools, some already in or even having graduated from their mainstream colleges.
There is a misconception among many of what A-V is. I suspect that many of the so called A-V kids in the deaf schools aren’t really A-V but are, instead, oral and were not trained properly to use their CI hearing.
The fact is that the numbers of students in the schools for the deaf is declining rapidly, and many of these schools have closed. Putting two and two together, it’s not hard to figure out that fewer kids are needing these schools, and CIs are likely the reason why.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“We already have statistics showing that c.i. kids are not doing as well as proclaimed by the proponents of c.i. Yet I see the c.i. proponents saying give it few more years.”
Give us those stats and sources
“However, when we talk about c.i. kids being dumped in deaf schools during the middle and high schools, we are being asked to provide data.”
Give us those stats and sources
I can attest to the many therapists I’ve spoken with (because the children I’m speaking of are not in deaf schools) that the children from our Center are not being “dumped”, as you so negatively put it, in deaf schools.
“According to the teachers first hand, these students do pull down the school averages.”
Give us the stats and sources
Our AVT center is private, but they don’t just “boot” kids out like you so negatively put it. If a child is not doing well and making progress it is not an appropriate program for him. Would you rather leave the child in the program and she not develop language of any sort? Remember that AVT centers primarily begin working with infants and toddlers who graduate by K or 1st grade…some much earlier.
boot….dumped….weeded……wow.
Again, please consider visiting an AV program or family. It’s truly not what you’re sharing.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:30 am
#21,
I was making the general observation that there are different types of English competency. Deaf students who learn ASL from a very early age are able to use that linguistic knowledge and transfer it to skills in reading and writing English at a deep conceptual level.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Brian,
That is also true of deaf children who use spoken language. Especially of those who have been properly trained to use their auditory skills thus providing a strong language base. For us, this was through AVT.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Hey Brian,
This was also my general observation. Thanks.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Brian
Thanks for clarifing that this was a “general observation” on your part, supporting your point of view. I am sure that justamom, Melissa, and others who have children trainded by AVT® have made a “general observation” that also supports their point of view.
Hopefully you and others will continue to make it clear when it is “general observation” or “personal observation”; so that, we who are trying to learn from both sides, can attempt to have an ‘unbiased’ opinion based on facts as well as personal observations.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water just to prove who is right.
My hope is that we as the human race will continue to be thoughtful of each other and remember that we all must ultimately strive to bring about a better place for every individual. May we all learn to respect, reflect upon, and consider the views of others.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
oops, trained
April 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
#31,
I’m not sure you understand the general point. The point is that deaf children have 100 percent access to ASL, and thus are able to develop normal cognitive skills through ASL.
Deaf children not have 100 percent access to the auditory channel and so if a parent chooses to prohibit their child from learning ASL and focus on the auditory channel only, then that is a mistake.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
# 35, how does a Deaf child of a hearing parent have 100 percent access to ASL?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
#36,
Because, as a visual being, a deaf child is not handicapped or disabled. The child can see everything clearly when the child is allowed to learn ASL.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
#36
Who is going to teach them ASL if the parent is not deaf? Even I, as a hearing person am a visual learner, but have ‘no’ ASL. The time it would take me to learn it fluently in order to pass it on to my deaf child may indeed find the window of opportunity closed. In the mean time what happens to the child who has neither ASL or spoken English with no true role model? Are they caught up in limbo, or can one or the other prevail?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I never mentioned the elementary or middle school programs when I referred to the weeding of ci kids from the AVT centers I mentioned only AVT centers. I understand how they work.
justamom, you may object to the wording weeding, however the practice does exist. This is how the privately-operated AVT centers are able to maintain their artificially high performance rates among its AVT graduates, something the c.i. proponents are keen to not to admit at all. The state-supported Deaf schools cannot weed out under performing c.i. students, so their statistics are dragged down.
By the way, you haven’t provide sources and data, either.
The dwindling of deaf schools are due to the popularity of mainstreaming made possible by the least restrictive environment federal law. Many parents prefer to keep their kids home with them and attend day schools, which I understand perfectly. This trend has already been established prior to the popularity of c.i.
According to the teachers I spoke with, the deaf kids with c.i.s transferred to Deaf schools were trained in the AVT method.
I am perfectly aware of the strong denial of the c.i. proponents about this trend. If they want to see the fact, feel free to go to the deaf schools. By the way, some of the c.i. kids have already removed the visible components of their c.i. so they are not readily identified as c.i. wearers.
I concede that some deaf kids with c.i. do well, but you are not willing to concede that some c.i. kids are not doing so well. So this makes this discussion impossible to continue.
By the way, if the parents are really motivated, they can learn ASL.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#39, AVT® or AV technuques? There is a difference from what I have read. Please clarify.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
AVT, not A-V techniques.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I concede that some deaf kids with CI are not doing well and some kids are doing well. Now where do we go?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Why don’t you tell the other c.i. proponents that they need to be honest and forthcoming, too? As long as others remain in denial, there is not much we can do.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ok, “CI proponents, you need to be honest and forthcoming too!”
“ASL prononents, you need to be honest and forthcoming too!’
Done, no what?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
oops, Now what?
April 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Love to knit, can you clarify please?
elizabeth
April 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
#38,
You should move to an area where there is a pre-school for deaf kids with teachers who use ASL.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Where do we go from here for the children’s sake?
April 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Here are some citations of professional research:
“Factors Affecting the Development of Speech, Language, and Literacy
in Children With Early Cochlear Implantation”
Ann E. Geers, Central Institute for the Deaf, St. Louis, MO LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 33 • 172–183 • July 2002
“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.”
Language Skills of Children with Early Cochlear Implantation
Geers, Ann E.; Nicholas, Johanna G.; Sedey, Allison L.
Ear & Hearing. 24(1) Supplement:46S-58S, February 2003
Use of a cochlear implant has had a dramatic impact on the linguistic competence of profoundly hearing-impaired children. More than half of the children in this sample with average learning ability produced and understood English language at a level comparable with that of their hearing age mates. Such mature language outcomes were not typical of children with profound hearing loss who used hearing aids. Use of a visual (i.e., sign) language system did not provide the linguistic advantage that had been anticipated. Children educated without use of sign exhibited a significant advantage in their use of narratives, the breadth of their vocabulary, in their use of bound morphemes, in the length of their utterances and in the complexity of the syntax used in their spontaneous language. An oral educational focus provided a significant advantage for both spoken and total language skills.
Use of Speech by Children From Total Communication Programs Who Wear Cochlear Implants
Ann Geers 1, Brent Spehar, Allison Sedey 2
1 Central Institute for the Deaf, St. Louis, MO
2 University of Colorado, Boulder” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.11 50-58 February 2002. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/006)
Results revealed a wide range of mode preference, with some children using primarily speech, some primarily sign, and some using both modes to varying extents. Not only did speech users achieve higher auditory speech perception scores and speech intelligibility ratings, but they also demonstrated better comprehension and use of English syntax than did children who used little or no speech. After 3 years with an implant, speech users were more likely than children who used little or no speech to be placed in mainstream educational programs.
Auditory-Verbal Graduates:Outcome Survey of Clinical Efficacy” Donald M. Goldberg, Carol Flexer”
J Am Acad Audiol 12 : 406-414 (2001)
“Graduates of auditory-verbal programs
appear to become the “”anonymous deaf.””
They are in our local schools and blend into
higher education and various jobs, professions,
and careers…. Mohr
et al (2001) concluded that “”aggressive and early
intervention to reduce the level of hearing
impairment may produce savings to society.””
They appeared to be referring to reducing the
“”impact”” of hearing impairment. Our findings
similarly suggest that graduates who began
their auditory-verbal program in the late 1940s
through the current date have indeed achieved
the stated goal of auditory-verbal practice : independence
in today’s mainstream society.”
Relationship Between Communication Mode and Implant Performance in Pediatric CLARION Patients
Mary Joe Osberger, Ph.D., Susan Zimmerman-Phillips, MS., Laurel Fisher, Ph. D., Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, CA”
Paper presented at 1997 5th International Cochlear Implant Conference, May 1-3, 1996, New York, NY.
The relationship between preoperative communication mode (auditory/oral or total communication) and postoperative performance on a battery of audiological outcome measures was examined in pediatric patients who received the CLARION cochlear implant. The results revealed that both groups of children (children who used oral communication and children who used total communication) showed significant improvement in performance postoperatively with the CLARION relative to their preoperative performance with hearing aids. The mean scores of the children who used oral communication, however, were significantly higher than those of the children who used total communication on all of the outcome measures.
Approach to communication, speech perception and intelligibility after paediatric cochlear implantation
S.M. Archbold, T.P. Nikolopoulos, M. Tait, G.M. O’Donoghue, M.E. Lutman and S. Gregory
British Journal of Audiologist, 2000, 34, 257-264
The present study revealed that, on measures of speech perception and intelligibility obtained three, four and five years after implantation, children using oral communication outperformed those using signed communication.
Classroom performance of children who are hearing impaired who learned spoken communication through the Auditory-Verbal approach
Wray, D., Flexer, C., & Vaccaro, V
The Volta Review, 1997, 99 (2), 107-119
Robertson and Flexer (1993) studied the performance on standardized reading tests by 37 school-age children, ages 6 to 19 years, who participated in various auditory-verbal programs. Their results revealed that 30 of the subjects (the majority of whom had severe to profound hearing losses) read in the average range or higher compared with their normally hearing peers. Schildroth and Karchmer (1986) reported nationwide reading-comprehension scores for 15 to 18 year olds with hearing losses who were educated in various settings and who used various communication modalities. The scores showed average reading performance at about the third-grade level.
Hi,
Here’s some research posted on Rachel’s blog by her mother, Melissa.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
#47, Who will support my family financially if I give up my job and move?
April 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Brian Riley - In response to #35
CIs do give kids full access to hearing spoken language. That is the difference between oral deaf education yesterday and AVT today. My girls learned language 100% through their hearing. They hear at about 20 db across all the frequencies and are able to discriminate through their hearing all the speech sounds. Kids raised this way have a very natural voice quality and very clear speech. Because they reproduce what they hear, their speech is very good evidence of how well they are hearing.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Quote: “CIs do give kids full access to hearing spoken language.”
#50
Where are the studies to prove this? I don’t think it is true at all.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
#50 Thank you for your comments. I can see there is a difference between oral deaf education yesterday and AVT today.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
CI kids have audiograms that are equivalent to normal hearing to a mild hearing loss. That is a fact. With proper AV training, CI kids quickly learn to recognize and discriminate all speech sounds. Thus, they have full access to spoken language.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
#53,
I’m afraid that you have been deceived in a major way. To say that they “have full access to spoken language” is simply not true. Not only is it not true, but it’s an extremely harmful false claim that has the potential to disrupt thousands of deaf children’s lives.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
for love to knit and other parents concerned about access to ASL, here is a blog from barb that you may find useful: http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/2008/04/hearing-parents-can-learn-asl-how.html
April 6th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
#55 Thanks, I’ve already been there.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Mishka Zena
I’ve also visited http://www.auditoryverbaltraining.com/AV%20Research%20Outcomes%20Final%20Preprint.pdf
April 7th, 2008 at 12:27 am
As much as c.i. proponents don’t want to admit, c.i. kids with 100% AVT background are still ending up in deaf schools. This had been repeatedly acknowledged by teachers at the deaf schools. Many of the teachers I already know personally.
It is very frustrating to see the denial about this pattern. Not all c.i. kids are successful, even to this day. Not all are like Melissa’s daughters and the c.i. kids she sees. Not only is it happening here, it is also prevalent in Canada where AVT is mandatory for c.i. kids.
The data can be twisted to suit the agenda of the researchers. What cannot be denied are the presence of the c.i. kids in deaf schools. Go there and find out for yourself.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I’m sure all data can be twisted to suit the agenda of the researchers. But so to can the personal opinions.
I will continue to search and learn. The one thing I do know is that I am responsible for my children not others.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Personally I am neutral about cochlear implants. I am interested in seeing the whole picture, not just one side, as so many people are prone to.
April 7th, 2008 at 2:49 am
MZ, I’m amazed you continue doing this. It’s utterly masochistic. No matter what the Deaf Community says, it gets brushed aside, because today’s different than the past. To them, it doesn’t matter that today would not exist without the past.
And never mind the fact that the Deaf Community supposedly know squat, despite living with the consequences for years. To those people, we’re crazy, uneducated militants who need to be brought into the light.
This whole debate reminds me of religious arguments. It’s so dogmatic, and there’s hardly any evidence that can withstand serious scrutiny. From what I’m seeing here and from past blogs, those people are not going to stop until they convert us into the belief that the CIs are a miracle, therefore practically 99% of the children should have it.
I’m amazed you still bother with this. This kind of dialogue is getting us nowhere. *shakes head*
April 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I can only speak from experience. At my AV center, there are no children present or past graduates who attend a school for the deaf. I’m not twisting anything. I’m just stating what I know to be true.
I also know that the Center we attend follows the guiding principals of AVT to the letter. It is why this is the case. The major component of any good AVT program is the DEMAND for parental involvement. I can not stress this enough. We sit together daily and play (skills hidden in the fun), and we live an AV lifestyle. This includes taking every opportunity to introduce language concepts throughout the day.
So with this said, I will agree if a child is not part of a “good” AV program and is not provided with “good” parental and family involvement, it may result in insufficient results.
It’s just not what I have experienced.
I posted some research, but it’s being moderated. I believe love to knit posted as well. Someone up above asked for some. Hope to see it soon.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Unfortunately a big discrepancy exists between the statements of the c.i. proponents and the c.i. parents and what the Deaf Community is actually seeing first-hand in the Deaf Schools. All I can say is that something isn’t kosher here.
Where are these c.i. kids with minimal language acquisition ending at Deaf Schools coming from? They were trained in the pure AVT approach. Some may be communicating passably, but speaking orally doesn’t mean a definite language acquisition.
These statements remind me so much of the old system where the oral failures were swept under the carpet as they were rejected from oral schools, with nary a remark about these cases from the oral proponents. ‘These kids didn’t come from my oral programs’ In fact, I do recall my oral school practicing this deception to the public and the prospective parents when I personally witnessed the oral graduates going to Deaf schools. The parents of the successful oralists didn’t want to discourage the parents of the prospective oral kids, so they kept quiet.
Remember Amy. aka Susanna, the mom of two c.i. sons, telling me it may be good for the Deaf Community to hear the failures of the c.i. cases, but it’s not good to have prospective parents to read these failure stories as they may be scared off? As if the parents don’t deserve to hear the whole story? She went so far as to try to invalidate the story of the first c.i. case. That was a big eye-opener for me and confirmed the Deaf Community’s insistence that these c.i. sob stories were covered up.
Is history repeating itself all over again? I strongly suspect as it is very uncomfortable for the c.i. parents to hear the not so successful stories.
The AVT centers will have better credibility if they acknowledge both the successes and failures. After all, these AVT-trained c.i. kids at deaf schools didn’t come from nowhere. The parents deserve to know the full truth.
Deaf Pundit, yes, sometimes I do feel this way
April 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
This is the damning quote from a strong c.i. prononent.
“Mishka, I think it’s possibly beneficial for the deaf community for you to post these blogs. But it may be entirely detrimental to parents who come across them in the early stages if they even consider choosing against a CI for an infant. That is my personal opinion. I am not neutral, I am speaking in favor of the choice which allows deaf infants to avoid such painful situations as Aaron described in his childhood.” Susanna http://blog.deafread.com/mishkazena/2008/01/18/ci-detrimental-to-tell-parents-the-full-truth/
April 7th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Why won’t you post the research from justamom? If you feel that the data is inaccurate then say so, but don’t say ‘Personally I am neutral about cochlear implants. I am interested in seeing the whole picture, not just one side, as so many people are prone to.’ and then choose not to be.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The data I’ve received have already been posted earlier.
I’ve not had a chance to read the data as I’m not feeling well. I will when I feel better.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
First, thanks for your reply and I hope you feel better soon.
Again, thanks and I will look forward to seeing the data soon.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
It seems you didn’t understand me when I stated that the data had already been published. It is at #49.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Thanks for the data in #49 and thanks to justamom for providing it.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
By the way, I don’t appreciate your insinuations. If I am truly not neutral, I won’t be publishing your comments along with others, including their propaganda. It’s already obvious not only are you working with others, too, but that you appear to be invested in promoting cochlear implants.
What’s more, the silence from the c.i. proponents about Susanna’s quote is still deafening since it was published some months ago. It’s very telling that there has been no universal condemnation among the c.i. proponent regarding Susanna’s deceit with the parents exploring the possibility of cochlear implants for their deaf kids.
This reinforces the Deaf Community’s assertions of cover-ups with cochlear implants failures.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
None of the papers in #49 claim that deaf children with CI’s have “full access” to hearing. If that were true, then these kids could hear 100% of all sounds and would behave like hearing children.
Some of the research is clearly biased, because it makes no distinction between ASL and other types of signing.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Hmmmmph! I can back up Miska’s statements…# 64… about the old “oral” programs not being willing to admit to their “failures,”..the students that just couldn’t “get” the old oral training!!
In Ohio,..twenty some years ago,,..quite a few of the “oral rejects”…kids,..who didn’t work out in the oral training programs in public schools,..were put into state hospitals for the mentally retarded!
Some friends of mine and I made careers out of picking those “oral rejects” out of those hospitals for the insane and mentally retarded and teaching those poor kids some form of language,..preferably ASL or signed English,..any form of communication,..and teaching those poor deaf kids some form of language!
Any form of language, whether it was spoken language or whether it was signed language!! As I have said online many times,..my hands are covered with human bite marks,..bite marks made by my “students,”..who were so terroized and traumatized by their experiences in “oral” education that biting and scratching and acting more like little animals than human deaf children,..wwere the only ways that those poor kids could express their frustration!!
So what are folks going to do with the kids, who don’t work out in CI training? Don’t send them to folks like me!! I am too old to teach so called “educational failures,..” who didn’t learn any kind of language though “oral” training programs and who are denied language training because of some “new” experimental break-throughs,”..which are supposed to turn deaf kids into pseudo-hearing kids.
A deaf kid is still a deaf kid when the C.I. is turned off and i do believe that a deaf child should have ASL training at the earliest possible point in their lives so that the child can learn, naturally,..visually,..ANY form of language!! No mechanical readjustment of a deaf kid’s physique with a C.I. will turn that kid into a 100% certified Hearing kid. The deaf child will still be deaf when the C.I. is turned off! That is just my opinion!!
And I do believe that the kids,..who were given C.I. implants,..which didn’t work out,..will be “hidden..or not admitted to by the folks, who are trying to sell the C.I.’s to the Hearing parents of deaf children. I saw the same thing happening with to the parents and children in the old oral programs!!
Under CERTAIN circumstances,…I am for CI’s being given to CERTAIN CHILDREN WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF HEARING LOSS. I would NEVER say to a parent, who just found out that their one or two year old child was deaf,..that a CI would be a 100% promise that the CI could “turn the deaf child into a 100% certifed hearing child!! That would be an out and out LIE! I don’t care what type of training program that the child is exposed to!!
(Goes off study the bite marks on the backs of my heands and wondering when folks, who God gave deaf children to will just admit that their child is deaf and needs to learn a language in the way that is most natural to the child!!)
April 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
[…] […]
April 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think CI’s can be beneficial as far as helping with speech and gaining access to environmental sounds… I am not against them. However, hearing parents must remember that speech is not language and signing still should be used along with auditory and speech training especially during the first few years of life. In my profession (Professional interpreter and teacher of ASL, MA in Special Education)I have found that most deaf kids do poor in school not because of CI’s or lack thereof, but because the parents think CI’s or hearing aids are enough and focus so much on speaking that they do not bother to learn ASL and sign IN THE HOME! This is a parental problem and I blame many “experts” who spew out that by signing to a CI child you will be hindering their ability to learn how to speak and “listen”. Age birth-5 years are the most critical and for anyone who has ever studied language acquisition…here is a simplified version. There are dendrites in your brain that must be stimulated in order to develop and mature. These dendrites in the language part of the brain need to be stimulated with FULL language (either visually or auditorally).The key word here is FULL. If there is any hearing loss whatsoever then the child is not gaining access to FULL auditory language. CI’s or hearing aides do not give a deaf person FULL language through their ears. They need the FULL language through the eyes to stimulate the dendrites and have a normal developing language part of the brain. If the dendrites are not stimulated FULLY then they do not continue to grow. Now you have a child with language delay, which is really the underlying disability of being deaf that is never put down on an IEP, and often ignored, and becomes almost impossible to overcome. Just throwing a deaf kid into a signing environment or with an interpreter after years of not signing does not make everything okay. You need early intervention from birth and parents willing and devoted to taking the time to learn ASL, sign at home, and then you will have deaf kids reading and writing at much higher levels.They will learn Written English as a second language taught from their first: ASL. You cannot learn a second language without a first, and you cannot learn a first and be fluent in that language if you do not have FULL access to it from birth. The speech and auditory training can be done at the same time, but is secondary only after this first crucial step has been achieved. All of this can be done whether you implant or not, aided or not. And I have seen successful college educated Deaf people, but most of them either had Deaf parents who signed from day one, or hearing parents who signed AT HOME and continued to learn ASL throughout their child’s life, and not just give up learning when the child started kindergarten (as most do). Many educated Deaf people I have met all have different degrees of hearing loss. Some use aides, some have CI’s and some use no aides at all. Some speak very well , some do not speak one word. The point: Speech is secondary to leading a normal life. You do not need to speak to be able to think and understand and reason. THAT is what is the most important when raising a Deaf child. Make sure the brain is developing properly so you can raise a healthy, vibrant, adult who can think abstractly and can reason intellectually. Speech or not!