POLICY BRIEF

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PRESCHOOL

FOR DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING: PROMOTING ASL- ENGLISH
BILINGUAL AND BILITERACY POLICY

By: Kim Misener Dunn December 13, 2015

Foundations of Policy and Legislative Perspectives on Bilingualism Implications for ASL/English Bilingual for 0-5

The brief outlines language planning for ASL-English bilingual and biliteracy policy for the preschool
classroom at the South Carolina School for the Deaf and the Blind (SCSDB). The intended target audience is
SC Department of Education, school administrators, early childhood teachers, parents and advocates from the
Deaf community. Research shows that young deaf and hard of hearing children continue to experience
linguistic and cognitive deprivations in early childhood education which leads to academic difficulties and
underperformance when they enter elementary school which occur from the local Community, State to
International (Grosjean, 2001; Humphries, Kushalnagar, Mathur, Napoli, Padden & Rathmann, 2014; Reagan,
2010). The purpose of this policy brief is to convince the target audience to address the lack of language policy
at the school and the urgent need to design and implement an appropriate language policy to improve preschool
performance and thus become a new priority and standard for education at SCSDB.
Statement of Issue
It takes a village to raise a child which is a poignant African
proverb (Clinton, 2006) with a clear agenda: the community has
a role in the social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic development
and well- being of young deaf and hard of hearing children in
the preschool at SCSDB. Traditionally, parental involvement
was characterized by volunteers assisting in the classroom such
as holiday events and chaperoning students on field trips.
Parents, deaf and hearing professionals working together to
reach a goal by helping their children learn and grow (Benedict
& Sass-Lehrer 2007).This model has not yet been incorporated
or upgraded to the newer inclusive approach which consists of a
school-family-community partnership working to achieve goal
oriented activities. Research finds that this approach supports
and builds a higher level of self-efficacy and positive motivation
for students to attend school, succeed in academic achievement
and enter higher level programs (Jeynes, 2003). Hence, high
quality prekindergarten education has a positive effect on
childrens long term success in school and society.

A preschooler on a field trip at Niven's Apple

Farm. Kim Misener Dunn

Why is this issue important?

The SCSDB preschool is designed and funded with the aim of striving for successful outcomes for young deaf
and hard of hearing children before entering elementary school. How success is viewed depends upon the
desired outcomes and the interventions that are outlined in each childs Individualized Education Plan. The
schools mission statement reads, Our mission is to ensure the individuals we serve realize maximum success
through high quality educational programs, outreach services, and partnerships (www.scsdb.org). SCSDB has
no clear statement or language policy used in the preschool classroom or at the school.

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

What does research tell us about the

population trends in Deaf Education?
Approximately 96% of young deaf children of
hearing parents (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003) from
non-signing homes have not yet developed basic
interpersonal communication skills, BICS (Cummins,
1979), leaving them without the linguistic foundation
to enter school and build cognitive academic
language proficiency, CALP. The majority of parents
of preschoolers who attend SCSDB lack
communication and full ASL discourse with their
children which limits the childrens language
development. Teachers report that parents often
assume that it is the schools responsibility to teach
deaf and hard of hearing children language. Hence,
this assumption needs to be dispelled when
addressing the language and literacy development
issue. Therefore, it is recommended that SCSDB
develop and implement an ASL-English policy to
ensure the parents have access to and become
involved with their deaf / hard of hearing childs
language exposure and development.
Language Issues
Research finds that the number of words a child is
exposed to between ages 0-3 is significantly
correlated to the childs ultimate IQ and academic
success (Hart & Risley, 1995). Historically, deaf
children arrive in preschool without having the
language accomplishments consistent with 3 year
olds due to misguided and misinformed principles,
policy, and ideology (Allen, Clark, & Morere, 2012;
Humphries et al. 2013; Reagan, 2010). Deaf
children frequently arrive at Kindergarten without
adequate language skills to undertake academic
challenges (Andrews & Wang, 2015; Simms, Baker
& Clark, 2013). Increased parental communication
with their children is essential to expand
vocabularies and raise IQ test scores (Hart &

Page 2

Risley, 1995). The ASL Checklist was deemed by SCSDB

staff inappropriate because teachers were not proficient in
ASL to use the checklist. Instead, they use Brigance Early
Childhood Screen III to evaluate each child at the
beginning of a school year. They subsequently evaluate
their students quarterly for progress reports. ASL is not part
of the schools evaluation program to monitor the students
language growth/development.
Research supporting ASL/English bilingual in Early
Childhood Education
1. Early access to ASL is the best predictor of
academic achievements, and spoken language
outcomes (Marschark, 2001; Yoshinaga-Itano &
Sedey, 2000).
2. Exposure to two spoken languages or signed
language from birth does not cause a child to be
language delayed or confused (Petitto & Kovelman,
2003).
3. Brain fNIRS suggests that the brain can handle
bimodal-bilingual development (Petitto, Katerelos,
Levy, Gauna, et al., 2001).
4. Lack of full access to ASL may result in delays in
childrens emotional, social, and cognitive and wellbeing (Grosjean, 2008; Humphries et al., 2013).
Exposing first language in ASL is a stepping stone
to develop higher thinking skills through
communication and reading. Reading has significant
effect on deaf preschoolers which metalinguistic
awareness and knowledge in ASL and English is
promoted.

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Page 3

Promoting Students to use ASL as first language L1- for

Communication and Reading
1. Encourage parents (and/or students) to read and/or tell/retell
stories in L1 in the home, both as a means of expanding L1
knowledge into literate spheres and also expanding general
world knowledge (Bailes, 2001; Bailes, Erting, &ThumanPrezioso, 2009).
2. Establish foundational guidelines within the family for
ongoing communication with the child (Benedict & SassLehrer, 2007).
3. Ensure that the school library has a good Laurent Clerc
National Deaf Education Centers Shared Reading Program
for students to read at school and for both student and
parents to check out for at home reading.
4. Invite community members to come to class to read and/or
tell stories in ASL-English as in a bilingual classroom.

Adults motivating deaf preschoolers to engage

in discussion during ASL read aloud.
Photographed by Dede Ward.

Challenges
Arguments against ASL-English bilingual and biliteracy for deaf students center on how reduced time
learning English often results in lack of academic success in English, or illiteracy in two languages. While
this argument has been widely rebutted (Cummins, 2000), counter-arguments persist, and as a result, research
proved invalid (Bailes, 2001; Enns, 2006; Lange, Lane-Outlaw, Lange, & Sherwood, 2013). Education for
bilingually-educated students at one of the Charter schools for the Deaf has demonstrated that students
increasingly meet English and Math learning targets as they advance and moved on to higher grade levels
(Lange et al., 2013). Therefore, research shows the multiple benefits of early exposure to ASL which leads to
higher thinking skills, and higher academic content.
What is the next step? Language Planning and Policy!

Call to Action

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) reaffirms

its position that all deaf children, including hard of
hearing, have the right to full access to quality
education through visual modes and visual sign
language (www.nad.org). This position is supported by
several international conventions of the United Nations.
NAD supports the position notion that parents, families,
Deaf adults and professionals should collaborate for
Traditionally, there are three dimensions of language
better achievement. The NAD asserts that every deaf or
planning:
1. Status planning is the allocation or reallocation of a hard of hearing child has the right to a natural, visual
language as a human right. Thus, this brief calls to
dominant language such as speaking English.
action South Carolina School for the Deaf and the
2. Corpus planning deals with a standardized norm
Blind, the Board of Trustees, Faculty, SC Department
language, English, focusing on the writing of
of Education, the Deaf community and advocates to
grammar, standardization of spelling and
show leadership by demonstrating the importance of
composition.
3. Language acquisition planning allocates and accepts ASL-English bilingual education as a priority in
ASL as a language and literacy through learning and language planning and policy.
teaching (Reagan, 2010)
Again, it takes a village of community leaders, scholars and
administrators to make the decision on the right to use ASL
as the dominant language in the deaf and hard of hearing
classroom. This positive decision will promote and nurture
visual language which intern respects the rights of the deaf
and hard of hearing child.

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Page 4

Action Plans for Language Planning

1. Establish Language Planning Referent Committee with 6. Implement ASL-English Bilingual Policy.
an approval from SCSDBs Board of Trustees and the
Superintendent.
7. Invite trainees from Laurent Clerc Center for
Visual Communication and Sign Language
2. Initiate contact with SC Association of the Deaf for
Checklist to train teachers from preschool through
advocacy and leadership in designing and
elementary school.
implementing ASL-English Policy.
8. Recruit local, regional and national members of the
3. Present Language Planning and Policy Outline with a
Deaf community to support and implement
Deadline to implement before the Board, educators,
language policy.
administrators, parents and advocates from the Deaf
Community.
9. Initiate contact with SKI-HI Institute for Deaf Peer
Role Models/Deaf Mentor Program.
4. Recruit teachers who are fluent in ASL- English,
understand the theories of bilingualism, and have
10. Recruit mentors from ASL/English Bilingual
backgrounds in Early Childhood Education.
Professional Development (AEBPD) for training
teachers about ASL-English teaching and learning
5. Revisit and upgrade the Early Childhood Curriculum.
principles.

Sign early. Mary LeCroy

teaches Paige a sign from
the book. Photographed by
Dede Ward.

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Recommendations for ASL-English Bilingual and Biliteracy

1. SC Department of Education will adopt a Visual Communication and Sign

Language Checklist for age birth-5 instead of using a phonological assessment.
2. SC Department of Education and SCSDB must acknowledge that a Reading
specialist with a regular education background from Department of Educations
Read to Succeed Act 2014 is not qualified to work with deaf children.
3. It is recommended that SCSDB hire an early childhood teacher specialized in
ASL-English bilingual and also an ASL specialist to work as a team.
4. Preschool /Early Childhood Educators to establish a Deaf Peer Role Models
Program for parents of deaf children.
5. The Deaf community must have a role in Deaf Education. Deaf children need to
see Deaf people as role models and mentors.
6. Parents are encouraged to pair with Deaf adults working together during a shared
reading program.

Lastly, this policy brief emphasizes that all school administrators, early childhood
teachers, and parents at SCSDB as well as advocates and leaders from the Deaf
community should advocate and recognize that deaf or hard of hearing children will
benefit both short and long term from sign language and visual learning modalities as a
cultural and linguistic minority group. Since the SCSDBs mission statement recognizes
high quality of educational programs, and outreach services and partnerships, this brief
policy promotes modernizing, establishing and implementing language policy to improve
preschool performance that establishes a foundation for a better standard of preschool
education at SCSDB.

Page 5

EDUCATORS, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Page 6

References
Allen,T. Clark, D., & Morere, D. A. (2012). Linguistic competency and socio-emotional development among deaf
children in the Early Education Longitudinal Study (EELS). Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.
Andrews, J. F., & Wang, Y. (2015). The qualitative similarity hypothesis: Research synthesis and future
directions. American Annals of the Deaf, 159(9), 468-483
Bailes, C. N. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts: Bridging paths to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1,
147-174. doi:10.1353/sls.2001.0002.
Bailes, C., Erting, C., &Thuman-Prezioso, C. (2009). Language and literacy acquisition though parental
mediation in American Sign Language.Sign Language Studies, 9 (4), 417-456.
Benedict, B. S., & Sass-Lehrer, M. (2007). Deaf Hearing Partnerships: Ethical and Communication
Considerations. American annals of the deaf, 152(3), 275-282.
Clinton, H. R. (2006). It takes a village. New York City, NY: Simon and Schuster:
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Enns, C. J. (2006). A language and literacy framework for bilingual Deaf education. Retrieved December 5,
2015 from the University of Manitoba http://home. cc. umanitoba. ca/~ ennscj/langlitframework. pdf.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing:.
Humphries, T., R. Kushalnagar, G. Mathur, D. J. Napoli, C. Padden, C. Rathmann & S. Smith. (2013). The right
to language. The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. 41:4
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., & Rathmann, C. (2014). Ensuring
language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do. Language, 90(2), e31-e52.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The right of the deaf child to grow up bilingual. Sign language studies, 1(2), 110-114.
Jeynes, W.H. 2003. A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority childrens academic
achievement. Education & Urban Society 35(2): 202-21.
Karchmer, M. A., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-ofhearing students. Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, 21-37.
Lange, C. M., Lane-Outlaw, S., Lange, W. E., & Sherwood, D. L. (2013). American Sign
Language/English bilingual model: A longitudinal study of academic growth. Journal of deaf
studies and deaf education,.
Marschark, M. (2001). Language Development in Children Who Are Deaf: A Research Synthesis.
Petitto, L. A. (2000). On the biological foundations of human language. In K. Emmorey and H. Lane (Eds.) The
signs of language revisited: An anthology in honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, N.J.:
LEA, pp. 447-471
Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levy, B. G., Gauna, K., Ttreault, K., & Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual signed and
spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual
language acquisition. Journal of child language, 28(02), 453-496.
Petitto, L. A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox: How signing-speaking bilingual children help us to
resolve it and teach us about the brains mechanisms underlying all language acquisition. Learning
Languages, 8(3), 5-18.
Reagan, T. (2010). Language Policy & Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Simms, L., Baker, S., & Clark, M. D. (2013). The Standardized Visual Communication and Sign Language
Checklist for Signing Children. Sign Language Studies, 14(1), 101-124.
South Carolina School for the Deaf and the Blind (n.d.). Overview. Retrieved December 7, 2015 from
http://www.scsdb.org/site/default.aspx?PageID=1
Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Sedey, A. (2000). Early speech development in children who are deaf or hard of hearing:
Interrelationships with language and hearing. The Volta Review, 100(5), 181-211.