I hate to recycle posts, but I was just blogging over at one of my other bloghomes, DeafDC.com, about an anti-ASL article decrying the illiteracy of deaf Americans I found over at blogcritics, and I thought I’d mention another comment I’d found written by a commenter named “Fact check:”

There are no programs that I know of that teach ASL as a “first” language in the sense of postponing English instruction.

There ARE programs that use the “bilingual” approach in which Deaf children are taught BOTH English AND ASL. Good quality bi-lingual programs (and the key phrase here is “good quality”) generally produce students who read near, at, or above grade level.

Most deaf education programs, unfortunately, do not produce these results — but most are not bilingual programs. Most of today’s deaf adults grew up with (and many of today’s deaf children are still taught in) programs that are either still oral or use some form of signed English. This is not to say that oral, signed English, cued speech or other forms of instructions can’t lead to successful students — sometimes they do. But for you to claim that bilingual ASL/English instruction automatically leads to failure for large numbers of students shows quite clearly that you have simply not done your homework. You seem to conflate different types of programs (and possibly different threads of research) in trying to make your point.

Note the mention of cued speech.  Love it!

I really think one of the unexpected side effects of the protests over at Gallaudet last year was that the protesters, in an effort to show their diversity, touted the inclusion of cuers in their number.  And that led to even more recognition of cueing as a viable communication modality.  More, more, more!

Btw, if you want to know what I had to say about that horrible anti-ASL article, here ya go: Dissecting “The Uneducating of America.”