AV UK

[Chris Campbell]

Kirtsy. I don't think I'm suggesting that AV is for all - I don't think they would say so either. It just happens that here in the UK, AVUK are seeing a lot of ANSD children at present, hence wanting to draw attention to it.

We learned Cued Speech in the early days. It was the first thing we did when we found out about Alice's ANSD and achieved good fluency. The trouble here in the UK is that it has been driven out of most schools, so whilst it may help at home, it won't necessarily help in a school setting.

This is such a shame, but I don't want to start a discussion about the reasons why this has happened.

It is certainly easy to pick up and Alice used to Cue 'Wee Wee' beautifully when she needed the loo.

[claire]

I think the key to AVT as opposed to other forms of therapy is that it is highly diagnostic. Although it feels strange to be thinking about speaking through listening when the child's hearing is variable, a highly formal approach to understanding what a child can actually hear is very useful for parents. We were never sure whether Alice could ever hear anything (she still has moments when we wonder) and the only formal record we had was from her audiologist. Another pair of eyes (ears) in the process can be extremely useful. Additionally pre-implant and pre-speech AVT focuses on non-verbal as well as verbal communication. The key to all of this if you want a verbal child you need to get language into them any way you can.

[heike]

This was precisely our rationale for using AV pre-implant and pre-speech, we were looking to find out precisely what our daughter could or couldn't hear (she always tested as severe-profound). I spent a lot of time thinking about Cued Speech in the early days because of the excellent feedback from the US and the proven link with early attainments in literacy. Ultimately, all we want for our daughter is independence and full acess to the national curriculum, and we felt that going totally oral from very early on was the best long-term option to achieving this aim rather than changing modes of communication along the way. I am fully aware that this is a controversial attitude. Besides, we met with so much resistance and heard every excuse in the book to delay implant assessment (my daughter always tested as severe-profound, she was a very prem baby with severe, TPN-induced hyperbilirubinaemia ... we always doubted that her ANSD was a maturational issue), I simply feared that if I used Cued Speech and she did well with that they would delay making a decision on her actual hearing even more. Yes, my daughter is speech-delayed and I have to live with that every day and work as hard as I possibly can to bridge the gap ... her non-verbal communication is actually very good, which helps (and the verbal bit is coming along now, too).

AV isn't for every family, just as a CI isn't the solution for every child with ANSD, and I think no one is trying to talk other people into accepting either as the gold standard, but AV is a very powerful approach (because it puts the family at the centre of the habilitation) that still isn't widely known or easy to access in the UK. When we first started out on this journey, my ToD told me that signing was the only option ... no mention of cued speech, AVT or the natural aural approach for those who find AV too " pushy" - I intend to prove her wrong. Having said all that, I totally respect those who choose to cue (or sign).