I think this is especially true when it comes to choosing the appropriate services and/or assistive hearing devices for a hearing loss. Every hearing loss is unique and every person is different. What works for one person may not work for another and vice versa. There simply is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to hearing loss.

My 16-year old son, Cody, has a severe to profound hearing loss, which means he hears very little without the amplification of his hearing aids. Throughout grade school and middle school, he used both an FM system and a sign language interpreter. (An FM system is a wireless setup in which the teacher wears a microphone and the receivers clip onto the student’s hearing aids. This allows the teacher’s voice to be transmitted directly into the student’s ears through their hearing aids).

As Cody transitioned from middle school to high school, he chose to eliminate the use of the FM system and rely on interpreters. This did not go over well with a certain individual in the school district. She was very upset about it. She strongly lectured Cody and came just short of demanding that he use the FM system. And while I believe she had good intentions, I also believe that Cody had the maturity to choose not to use the system based on what he knows works and doesn’t work for him.

One of Cody’s continuing educational goals has been to make an effort to advocate for himself and not solely rely on other people (Mom, teachers, interpreters) to advocate for him. I think we often view advocating as doing things such as choosing an appropriate seating arrangement, asking to have things repeated/clarified when needed, requesting captioning for videos, etc. However, I think advocating can, and should, include choosing or eliminating services so long as the choice is made for the right reasons.

Let’s say that Cody did not want to wear the FM system because it was a hassle for him or he was embarrassed by it. If that were true, it would not have been appropriate for Cody to chose not to use it and the other party’s concerns would have been justified. However, that was not the case. Cody chose interpretation as his service of choice mainly because it is easier for him to see rather than to hear. Seeing, for Cody, is basically effortless. Hearing, however, is not. Let me explain.

When Cody views sign language, his understanding and comprehension of it is immediate. The only effort it takes on his part is to pay attention to the interpreter. Hearing, however, takes a great deal of effort and concentration for Cody, even when aided by amplification (hearing aids, FM system, etc.) It can be extremely stressful and draining, especially in the school environment where everything is noisy and fast-paced.

But that’s not the only reason Cody chose interpretation over the FM system. With the FM system, Cody could only hear what the teacher said. When a student in the classroom asked a question or gave an answer, Cody would completely miss out on that verbal exchange unless the teacher repeated what was said (unfortunately, teachers don’t usually remember to do so). An interpreter, however, will sign the entire exchange. Therefore, with interpretation, Cody doesn’t miss out on as much and no longer feels isolated like he did with the FM system.

I am in no way trying to make a case for using an interpreter over an FM system. I believe the FM system is an exceptional tool that can greatly benefit hard of hearing people. Personally, if it were me in Cody’s situation, I would have chosen the FM system over the interpreter because I don’t know sign language well enough to follow an interpreter. Although my hearing loss is similar to Cody’s, my needs are different.

My purpose in this post is to recognize that every person is different and every hearing loss is unique. My goal is to try to bring unity and understanding between hard of hearing people and hearing people. I believe if we all work towards seeking understanding, respecting each other, and communicating effectively, we will make huge strides towards achieving that goal.