You seem to have been falsely informed that those who use ASL as a first language automatically have poor English skills, do poorly in school, and poorly in sports, and have limited opportunities for their future.

The ONLY thing that would limit an ASL user is the inability of others to be able to understand and accommodate them. A deaf child who has parents who refuse to learn sign to communicate with them, and then has poor teachers who also do not sign well will of course not be as competent as children who have parents and teachers who sign fluently.

Also…it is proven that deaf children who use ASL as a first language, develop spoken language quicker once implanted then those who did not use ASL as a first language.

And of course…there is the Swedish model that proves that bilingual/bicultural education can be very successful, as long as parents and teachers sign fluently. Sweden now has a mandatory law that requires parents of deaf children to learn sign, and for teachers to be fluent in sign. The result is that deaf children who sign are equal if not more advanced then their hearing peers.

Also, those who use ASL and are bilingual/bicultural can and often do also use CIs and hearing aids, which gives them even more access to both worlds.

I’m sorry you’ve been misinformed. But English and ASL can both exist in a Deaf child, and the Deaf child can be fluent in both and be completely successful in both school and sports, and whatever career they eventually get into.

Please refer to one blog, and it is a professional observation and statement from the AVT therapist…

“It hasn’t even been two months yet since his activation, so the (AVT) therapist is naturally pleased with his progress, then she something really interesting. She said that he was catching on quickly and that she’s starting to notice that consistently kids who have signed before their CI catch on more quickly than kids who don’t, probably because they have a language base. To which my thought is duh. I love that she is noticing this empirically, though. And then she said, “it’s a difficult position [being a parent]. I always thought that if I was in that situation I would just go to listening, but now I’m not so sure.”

http://covblogs.com/diber/archives/022140.html

If this AVT therapist is noticing this empirically, and I do really want to see research published on that, and unfortunately the fact is that most research are one-sided and favors one specific ideology.

I will assure you that there will be research data coming up which will support this AVT’s observations.

Thank you for asking me where is ‘your appropriate data?’ and please keep your mind open and explore possible benefits of having visual language early as possible, just like babies who can hear benefit getting Baby Signs early as possible.

Never in my videoclip that I said that Deaf children who receives AVT approach are “broken”, and I am emphasizing the importance of language development at early age as possible.

We both are genuinely concerned about the child’s language development, however we have a different views.

I believe that children who are exposed to sign langugage, especially American Sign Language as early as possible along with the AVT approach can be considered the logical thing to do for a child.

I am surprised that you would say “from what I understand signing can be learned at any age”, and indeed it happened for so many years that Deaf children who were subjected to restrictive oral approach first, then two or three years later, they were unable to continue to make a progress. Then teaching sign language later is a very cruel thing to do with a child, because this child is missing the window of opportunity to acquire a language! Many of us are struggling with it right now.

Language is not a learned thing for everyone, it is supposed to be a natural phenomena for all of us to be exposed/acquired.

You are emphasizing that listening and speaking are superior than sign languages just because the expectations of the child to assimilate to the society where they expects Deaf children to act just like all of us. I’m sorry I don’t buy this anymore. It is just wrong.

More findings indicate that Deaf children who were exposed to American Sign Language first, then received cochlear implant at age of 2 or 3, and undergone the AVT sessions, are speaking much faster, clearer and made quicker progress than other Deaf children who are not exposed to ASL first.

What is WRONG of having BOTH at the earliest possible age? No one is able to refute this yet, with appropriate data findings from an actual studies. All I’ve been hearing that ‘if you expose the child any visual cues (speechreading, lipreading, sign language) during the AVT approach) will impede the development of auditory channel.

OH PLLLEEEAASSSEEEEEE!

That is the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard and I’ll definitely question the validity of the data findings that comes up with this kind of conclusion.

Lastly – what is WRONG of adding ASL to the AVT process?

Amy Cohen Efron