Reading, Special Education, and Deaf Children
Supalla & Byrne
A critical review of the English support and ASL support approaches takes into
consideration the concept of linguistic accessibility that accounts for the special status of ASL as
a signed language (see S. Supalla & Cripps, 2008). The concept of a natural language and signed
language structure are included in the examination along with reading methodological issues. The
consideration for the UDL principles in regard to the English support and ASL support approaches
includes attention to both the cognition and the deaf child's potential for learning. The evaluation
of the English support and ASL support approaches ultimately targets their face validity of reading
instruction and learning based on decoding and linguistic comprehension concerning deaf children
(see Scarborough & Brady, 2002 for the theoretical basis on the reading of hearing children).
The English Support Approach
Perhaps the best source for understanding the English support approach in teaching reading
to deaf students is Reading and Deafness: Theory, Research, and Practice by Beverly Trezek, Ye
Wang, and Peter Paul (2010). The book's organization suggests it is intended to serve as a textbook
for teacher of the deaf preparation programs. The premise the textbook authors have is: Deaf
children can and must learn to read English. The ramifications of the relationship between English
as a spoken language to of its written form are absent. While ASL is mentioned in the book, the
signed language is treated as simply a language other than English. The status of ASL as a signed
language that holds ramifications for linguistic accessibility is not part of the textbook's priorities.
The overriding concern the authors have is how deaf children experience English language-based
comprehension when reading and have the ability to decode, again in English.
It is necessary to first consider the authors' comment: "…there is no question that language
is important for reading. Specifically, it is the reciprocal relation between the conversational
(spoken or signed [emphasis added]) form of the language and the language of print that is
crucial…" (p. 10). At first glance, this seems reasonable and theoretically sound. Reading is
inherently tied to language. Should a language be signed, one would immediately think about ASL
and how print needs to represent that language. Signed language reading is highly relevant as it
takes into account that ASL functions as deaf children's oral language and that there is a "reciprocal
relationship" with written ASL, which is what reading entails. ASL gloss is part of this scenario.
Yet Trezek, Wang, and Paul (2010) have something different in mind in that "signed" refers to
Manually Coded English (MCE). This is where the authors steer away from ASL and focus on
English.
True to the special education framework, Trezek Wang, and Paul (2010) treat MCE as
'information'. In their view, deaf children simply need the information and then MCE will provide
access to the English language. However, the fact that MCE is not a natural language must be
taken into consideration. The psycholinguistic concerns over MCE are abundant and significant.
MCE has been described as cumbersome and too lengthy to use (e.g., Klima & Bellugi, 1979;
Wilbur, 2011). MCE is not efficient or structurally tuned to cognitive processing via visual
perception and manual production. Meeting the cognitive demands that all children and adults
possess is how linguistic competence is achieved and maintained. Perhaps the most important
research finding lies in how deaf children do not learn MCE as they do ASL. The literature clearly
demonstrates any effort to artificially create a sign system based on a spoken language, is futile
for the system would break down in terms of learnability and has significant limitations (S. Supalla
& McKee, 2002; Drasgow & Paul, 1995; Schick, 2011).
SASLJ, Vol. 2, No.1 – Spring/Summer 2018
40