Again, au contraire! Many deaf institutes are not using ASL like they could. They actually use English and some are oral (i.e. St. Louis, etc.). I think only a few are actualy using bi-bi curriculum. Many deaf institutes work hard on the English question, but again there are assumptions that deaf children should be taught English like a first language instead of teaching English as a second language. That is where the problem comes in.
Actually, SEE has had more of a fair chance than ASL bi-bi programs. With the English-only attitudes in this country, it is very hard for people to get bi-bi programs accepted in the schools. I will say this. Success in the classroom does not equate to success in the real world. I learned that the hard way. So do many graduates of deaf programs. Cued Speech may be nice, but unless hearing people will learn to use it, I can't see it being more than a fringe group.
For bi-bi programs to be successful, the teachers must be fluent in ASL, and the teachers must know how to teach English using ASL. ASL can be used to teach English just like Spanish can be used to teach English. There is no difference. Remember ASL is a language in its own right just like any spoken language.
Let me be very clear. By written ASL, I do not mean English words written in ASL word order or some such thing. I mean ASL written with a writing system that is designed for writing sign languages. Personally, I feel SignWriting comes the closest to being a viable everyday writing system for sign languages. I believe written ASL is a tool inside the deaf community. I do not expect hearing people to learn it (except those who are interested in using ASL). I also believe written ASL will give us a tool to compare ASL and English and use that to help deaf people improve their English by comparing it to a language they can acquire easily.
Again, let me also say that you are making the assumption that my position is monolingual. On the contrary, I believe that deaf people should be and must be bilingual. Where possible, they should be fluent and literate in the national spoken language and their own sign language. I am vehemently opposed to the concept of monolingualism and forcing deaf people to be English only. I think that is the height of hearing arrogance and oppression.
English is a spoken language. As such, it will always be a struggle to acquire. Some will succeed but more will struggle. It is logically unreasonable to expect and require a community that is auditorally impaired to be monolingual in an auditory language. It is far more reasonable to expect a visual community to embrace a visual language as their heart language, but still develop fluency and literacy in the national spoken language.
I never said deafness is an excuse not to learn English. I said ASL is the bridge by which English literacy is more possible. You continue to put your monolingual assumptions on me, which are inaccurate. I always argue for bi-literacy. But I object to English-first approaches. I believe ASL-first approaches are simply common sense.
Thanks,
Stuart
