Karl White who is the Professor of Psychology at Utah State University and the founding Director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) discussed recently with an ASL interpreter in the YouTube comment section of his TEDx video (currently over 10,000 views) regarding parental informed decision, deaf children, ASL, and cochlear implant:
KW: As noted in my TED talk, when CI users remove the CI, they are still deaf. I agree that sign language can be a useful "back-up" language in such situations and I agree that children need access to as much language as possible. It is very important though that parents be able to choose how they want to communicate with their child. The job of professionals is to fairly & completely inform and then support parents in their choice. We should never impose our beliefs on parents.
For newly identified deaf babies, well-informed parent choice is the primary goal. Parents should be educated about all options and then be given excellent programs no matter what they choose. It is not appropriate to say all deaf children should learn ASL any more that it is appropriate to say all deaf children should have cochlear implants — those decisions should be made by the parents after they have been fairly and completely informed about options, pros/cons, risks/benefits, etc.
ASL Terp: Hi! I agree we should not impose our beliefs. There needs to be a balanced, full disclosure approach that shows research on the bell-curve? of CI users. Some do not benefit, some remove over time, some do benefit and some thrive. In addition there needs to be a positive encouragement by professionals for consistent visual language access which is not detrimental to development...and is actually beneficial for bi-lingual, bi-cultural personhood of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing/DeafBlind individual.
How about this...include in your talk an interview with a family who did approach with sign language from onset of deafness/hearing loss, who did implant, the implant was not successful (for whatever reason) and the family expresses gratitude for having fully met their child's needs by providing consistent access to language both auditory and visual. This would demonstrate the value of always have an underlying visual language accessible regardless of the success or lack of success of the CI.
I bring this up because I've seen families who do not do any signing with their kids...get the CI...spend several years trying to educate (up to age 6-7?) the CI is not successful, language is not developing and the parents express shock, grief and guilt that their child has such a delay that was in a sense imposed. Why have families go through that? I think professionals have a responsibility to ensure all kids are successful to the extent possible with fully disclosed current information.
KW: I agree completely that professionals have a responsibility to fully and fairly inform parents and to work to help children achieve their full potential. There are certainly cases where hearing technology is not successful, just as there are cases where ASL is not successfully used by the family. We need to continue to improve the way we inform and support families as they decide how they want to raise their children.
ASL Terp: I think this is the crux of the controversy around your presentation. What is the basis for saying it is not appropriate for all deaf children to learn ASL? It is readily available to learn, does not harm the child, provides access to visual language, supports interactions with other human beings, provides increased intellectual stimulation. Learning ASL is a win-win. Win for child: 24/7 full access to communication. Win for intellectual and educational bilingualism + CI option.
KW: Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. I don't have a problem with any deaf child learning ASL - IF that is what the parents of that child choose. The key is informed parent choice. Some parents do not choose ASL and they shouldn't be forced to have the child learn ASL. Just like parents who don't want their child to wear a hearing aid or a cochlear implant should not be forced to have their child wear one. Any deaf child whose parents want him/her to learn ASL should be given support to learn ASL.
KW: As noted in my TED talk, when CI users remove the CI, they are still deaf. I agree that sign language can be a useful "back-up" language in such situations and I agree that children need access to as much language as possible. It is very important though that parents be able to choose how they want to communicate with their child. The job of professionals is to fairly & completely inform and then support parents in their choice. We should never impose our beliefs on parents.
For newly identified deaf babies, well-informed parent choice is the primary goal. Parents should be educated about all options and then be given excellent programs no matter what they choose. It is not appropriate to say all deaf children should learn ASL any more that it is appropriate to say all deaf children should have cochlear implants — those decisions should be made by the parents after they have been fairly and completely informed about options, pros/cons, risks/benefits, etc.
ASL Terp: Hi! I agree we should not impose our beliefs. There needs to be a balanced, full disclosure approach that shows research on the bell-curve? of CI users. Some do not benefit, some remove over time, some do benefit and some thrive. In addition there needs to be a positive encouragement by professionals for consistent visual language access which is not detrimental to development...and is actually beneficial for bi-lingual, bi-cultural personhood of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing/DeafBlind individual.
How about this...include in your talk an interview with a family who did approach with sign language from onset of deafness/hearing loss, who did implant, the implant was not successful (for whatever reason) and the family expresses gratitude for having fully met their child's needs by providing consistent access to language both auditory and visual. This would demonstrate the value of always have an underlying visual language accessible regardless of the success or lack of success of the CI.
I bring this up because I've seen families who do not do any signing with their kids...get the CI...spend several years trying to educate (up to age 6-7?) the CI is not successful, language is not developing and the parents express shock, grief and guilt that their child has such a delay that was in a sense imposed. Why have families go through that? I think professionals have a responsibility to ensure all kids are successful to the extent possible with fully disclosed current information.
KW: I agree completely that professionals have a responsibility to fully and fairly inform parents and to work to help children achieve their full potential. There are certainly cases where hearing technology is not successful, just as there are cases where ASL is not successfully used by the family. We need to continue to improve the way we inform and support families as they decide how they want to raise their children.
ASL Terp: I think this is the crux of the controversy around your presentation. What is the basis for saying it is not appropriate for all deaf children to learn ASL? It is readily available to learn, does not harm the child, provides access to visual language, supports interactions with other human beings, provides increased intellectual stimulation. Learning ASL is a win-win. Win for child: 24/7 full access to communication. Win for intellectual and educational bilingualism + CI option.
KW: Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. I don't have a problem with any deaf child learning ASL - IF that is what the parents of that child choose. The key is informed parent choice. Some parents do not choose ASL and they shouldn't be forced to have the child learn ASL. Just like parents who don't want their child to wear a hearing aid or a cochlear implant should not be forced to have their child wear one. Any deaf child whose parents want him/her to learn ASL should be given support to learn ASL.