I find captions invalidate lip-reading personally. There is clear evidence sign language and lip-reading is unable to 'compete' with text.
Courses and classes are too random in the UK e.g. to make lip-reading effective or viable. Most learners don't get assessed first to see if the capability is there TO master lip-reading and class make up is reliant ON useful hearing which means when the aid fails, so does your lip-reading and you are back to square one. Had they removed hearing aids at the start that would help validate it, but would the classes then be viable at all?
There is the trauma aspect as well that requires more than a bit of useful hearing to address. Age is an issue too for the student. The UK doesn't publish any 'success' rates because nobody is tested. The educated guess is less than 3% succeed to gain any fluency. I'd be interested to see how they assess learners and how many manage to lip-read effectively after? Without clinical assessment and ability/age etc taken into consideration, it just means one difficult student to teach can invalidate the entire effectiveness of the class, and 40% drop out rates are already the norm after 2-3 weeks. People tend to polarise via db too leaving those who are struggling are still struggling.
I don't underrate lip-reading but the reality is, the acquisition is very difficult to obtain and a class at the end of the day isn't the street the family or even watching your own TV set. It's not taken seriously and it shows. By comparison, you need to pass 'levels' in sign language and show proficiency. Educated guesswork is not really the way to do things. It requires a background you may not have.