I know. But one thing leads to another, you know? By now those behind setting up hearing screening are no doubt aware how crucial identification is to language acquisition. And to it turns out that Baby Signs might have a much bigger impact beyond the original intended use for them… a good thing, but it’ll take some effort from us all to see those benefits realized…

Newborn screening was designed *just* to identify deaf babies shortly after birth. The screening doesn’t concern itself with language acquisition, neural networks etc. The screening seeks to make sure that the parents are aware that their child is deaf. (Of course the hospital will then refer the parents to audiologist and the rest happens at pretty much predictable pattern.)

Second, the Baby Signs thing was originally intended to make it easy for parents to deal with babies under 1 year old. The idea was to just give them a couple of key signs (for “milk”, “eat”, etc) so that babies wouldn’t have to cry their hearts out in frustration at not getting what they want.

Baby Signs was never intended to supply babies with grammar, etc. Just a couple of basic signs for functional purposes.

As for the rest of your points…I’ll allow non-supporters (or half-hearted) of ASL to handle them. ;-)

“Selling is about a transference of emotions, not a presentation of facts. If it were just a presentation of facts, then a PDF flyer or a website would be sufficient to make the phone ring.”

I think a lot of people have too much emotional investment in their current beliefs to be swayed by a single presentation of any given message. We have to keep working on ways to make that emotional transference easier. I personally think that means lessening the fear that if a child learns ASL, he’ll become part of some semi-literate backward insular culture of embittered deaf people, and it also means lessening the anger that goes along with believing that anyone who gets an implant or learns to speak is a sell-out. All of us together are already paying dearly for the negative impact of BOTH of these faulty beliefs. Even if some of us don’t fully recognize that yet.

Bravo! Loved how you said all of that. But here’s an analogy in which I side with you (and Noelle on her finer points): Why offer a child a cookie when you can offer two (ASL/Eng in our case) or more if the child’s learning experiences will encompass a voyage of discovery way beyond parents, political rights, and moral beings dictate.

Hope I make sense…

That deaf school with predominantly black kids even drove out this highly intelligent and bilingual deaf African American, who has a lot to offer to the deaf children and their families. You don’t see any deaf African Americans like him working at the school and that bothered me a great deal. Most of them are in lower position and can’t read/write well. The school has a way of making it hard for these highly qualified/bilingual strong deaf people, who they can’t manipulate or get to play their dirty game, in an attempt to drive them out.

Those with a strong deaf person at the top and strong deaf people under her/him can be found deaf schools like ISD, CSDF, CSDR, MSD, TSD, NMSD, etc. I don’t really blame many deaf employees or deaf families who flock to these schools. Who wants to deal with day to day oppression, not only with hearies but also deaf enablers/Uncle Toms, in a place they supposedly call home? It is bad enough that we accepted the reality of dealing with it in the hearing world.

There are still people who are arguing that because there is a wide range of deafness and deaf children with varying needs, it follows that it isn’t necessary to teach some of them ASL AT ALL.

But we’re talking about Baby Signs here, so I don’t understand that argument and here’s why:

1) Newborn screening isn’t getting the job done. So that neural network for learning language isn’t being activated in time.

2) CIs don’t work for everyone. So that neural network isn’t being activated in time.

3) Even in cases where there is so much hearing (mild and moderate cases of deafness) ASL isn’t considered by some to be technically necessary, it’s STILL beneficial for the same reasons that it’s beneficial for hearing babies… it allows them freedom of expression much earlier than speech would. And the reception/expression they get through signing helps activate that network.

4) Since we’re talking about neonates here, how can Cued Speech and AVT still be strong options at that age? The necessary musculature/control required for speech hasn’t developed yet (even in hearing children!). That’s why Baby Signs are having the impact they are.

So in the face of all that, to still be arguing that there are cases where it shouldn’t/need not be taught at all seems extreme to me. It seems just as extreme as arguing that ASL must be the ONLY approach in ALL cases concerning deaf children.

Can anyone respond to that point by point and help me understand?

However, despite my belief (which I’ve already expressed in your and Shane’s articles) that opposites are MEANT to exist in nature and that it’s best to ignore AG Bell and work on areas that have reasonable chance of succeeding (e.g., setting up more Bi-Bi programs)…I will join with you in your letter campaign.

Put that letter up as an article and instead of having people leaving comments, have them sign their posts. Then forward that to AG Bell.

On the other hand, AG Bell, on their website, makes it clear that they support auditory learning (as opposed to visual learning).

“Perhaps cued speech would be appropriate. Or the use of auditory-oral would be enough. Maybe ASL only. Or a mix. And so on.”

And there are instances when ASL is NOT needed or applied.