ASL: Access, Benefits, and Quality
Rosen
gestural languages such as ASL. These included locations that are noisy or quiet, or those with
great distances between individuals who wish to communicate.
Quality Assurance: Challenges and Issues
While the benefits of ASL for deaf and hearing students may be great, the overall quality
of how sign language is introduced remains an important consideration. This consideration leads
to an outlining of some of the challenges and issues regarding L1 and L2/Ln teacher development
and curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Families and Schools with Deaf Children
Recall that many deaf children are born into a non-signing environment with hearing
parents. This poses a challenge all its own. Had American society been both spoken and signed as
reported for Martha’s Vineyard, the situation of deaf children and their families with hearing
parents would be radically different. According to various studies on the demographics of the deaf
student population, about 92% of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not sign at least
initially, and 8% have deaf parents (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2013; Mitchell & Karchmer,
2005). According to Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI), 23% of family members regularly sign
and close to 72% of the families do not sign (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2013). Statistics
compiled by the GRI showed that their deaf parents tended to communicate in sign language with
their deaf children. This is understandable given that deaf individuals would most likely be signers
themselves. The fact that hearing parents tend not to communicate in ASL with their deaf children
is troubling. With spoken language predominant in society, hearing parents who find their child is
deaf face the task of learning ASL as a new language, and using it in the home in addition to the
spoken language already in use.
The integration of deaf children in local public schools is a priority for society, as evident
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and complicates the language
accessibility issues. An overwhelming majority, about 85 per cent, of deaf children have gone to
mainstream programs instead of attending schools for the deaf (Shaver, Marschark, Newman, &
Marder, 2014). Placed in a local public school where spoken language or English is used has
ramifications for the children. Special education's emphasis on integration creates unintended
consequences that undermine deaf children's access to ASL. Reports of poor sign language
competency among integrated deaf students (e.g., Maller, Singleton, Supalla, & Wix, 1999;
Padden & Ramsey, 2000) are understandable given that local public schools center on speaking,
not signing.
According to J. H. Cripps and S. Supalla (2012), the push for deaf children’s integration in
speaking schools comes with a heavy price. The common provision of a sign language interpreter
cannot be seen as good practice. As discussed earlier, deaf students need to undergo a bridging
process from ASL to English literacy, which can be addressed in a signing school. It is reasonable
to assume that only a school for the deaf has the capacity to see that deaf students be fluent readers
of English, for instance. J. H. Cripps and S. Supalla explained that what it takes to teach literacy
to deaf students would simply overwhelm a local public school. Deaf students are entitled to a
signing teacher as much as hearing students are entitled to a speaking teacher. If one comes to visit
a school for the deaf, the signing environment prevails and is frequently a rich one. Teachers and
other staff are expected to sign throughout the entire day. Deaf teachers are widely known for
SASLJ, Vol. 1, No. 1 – Fall/Winter 2017
18