Hard-of-hearing or Language-deprived ?

A thought that crossed my mind - actually, it didn't cross, it got caught, is that the way we look at children with CI might be wrong. Wrong in the sense of what kind of support we give compared to the support they need.

Historically, CI's were the next step from HA's. And with that, CI's are many times still regarded as such. A hearing aid. Working in a different way, but still, an aid to hear.
People with CI are therefore still regarded as Hard-of-hearing since "obviously" they use an aid to hear.

This might very well be true in many cases, but a new generation CI-users is emerging. Children that are implanted (often on two sides) before the age of three that do not conciously grow up deaf. CI is giving them sound that enables them to speak and understand language.
The "problem" these children have is not lack of hearing. They hear very soft sounds, they understand and reply with whisper. In that sence they are not hearing impaired. (Keep in mind... I have Lotte in mind. I know results can be different.)

They ARE however behind in language and therefore cognitive thinking. The older the child, (1, 2, 3 years old) the more this is true. This is where the supportsystem should focus! On gaining on the lost language. Because language defines us.

Obviously, the situation depends from child to child. 1 CI will make undrestanding in noisy environment much more difficult, and with that, there is a hearing impairement. But think of children that do well with bi-lateral CI. These children need language, speech and above all, comprehension.

Example,
Lotte is now in an all-hearing kindergarten, and with the language she has, she is behind compared to other 4-year olds. (We are not worried about that. She only has two years of sound, so obviously she's behind - and catching up nicely...) She is not able to master communication with children that otherwise would be her "equal" because the others do not understand her. The result is that she will look for other children that either ar younger but at her speech level, or children that are more fysical that communicative. (e.g. boys, playing outside... where screaming and actions goes a long way.)
Focus should be on making sure Lotte is understand. (And this is being done in her kindergarden..)

It seems that for the children, focus is actually on communication and speech.
But what about the parents...
In Norway, the parents are offered sign-laguage classes free of charge. BUT, the focus is only on that. Sign. WE, Lotte's parents, do not have a need for that. Lotte does not use it any more. We need information in speech and language development. How does it work. What are the milestones... What to look for, how to play, what to do, what NOT to do.
BUT since children with CI are still looked at through "DEAF" glasses instead of "Language deprived" glasses, that support is not available. Only "DEAF" therefore "Sign" support...

How is that elsewhere..??
Is the support sysem different.
Like, AV-therapy. It's not available here in Norway, but I have a feeling that there the focus is on educating the parent.... Correction, it's not available where we live..
Anyway... have to do some more research on it.

2005-02-23 - Regarding learning

2005-02 - (February) Education
(From AllDeaf)
I'm Mous and I'm new on this forum. I have three kids, the eldest two are hearing, and I've got a wonderful daughter of 2 1/2 yrs old, that was born deaf. She got a bilateral cochlea-implant last october, and the sound was turned on in November. Our daughter just loves her CI. In the beginning, whenever she would hear a new sound, she would sign "listen!", and all of her face would radiate with pure joy, her whole being would lighten up with excitement.

I'm not writing to you because I want to start a discussion about whether or not to choose CI for children. Here in Norway where I live, that is not so much a discussion anymore. The Deaf community here is in general quite positive towards it, they don't think it will threaten their culture so much, but are aware that it will definitly change it.

However, the discussion going on in this country is about in which way these children should be educated. There is a big contradiction between to groups: one says the kids should only be taught speech (oral), versus an even bigger group that goes for a bilingual speech-development, i.e. Norwegian and Norwegian sign-language. (And there of course is the mixture of spoken language with sign as support, but I don't wish to categorize this as sign-language).
We have chosen for our daughter to be able to learn both languages, so that she later on in life can choose in which arena (hearing or Deaf) she wants to be.
I'm doing an education in sign-language at the university.In addition to that i follow a course that all parents of children with severe hearing-loss get, which is in all 40 weeks of sign-language tuition, over the course of 16 years (or until the child becomes 16). (Paid leave from work.)For the university education I'm writing a paper now, which is about belonging to different cultures (Deaf/hearing), whether this is possible, and what are important factors for a bilingual education to being successful. Lets face it, we do not want the child being half-competent in either of the two languages. Our goal is that the child becomes fluent in both. (In addition to that, we speak a third language at home, dutch).

My question is, are there any people who either have had an implant as a child and have grown up bilingual, or parents who chose an implant for their child and chose the bilingual education for their child in stead of only oral, and what are your experiences? I would love it if you would want to share that with me.
Mous