While we have continually learned throughout the program that it has been proven that sign language does not inhibit spoken language acquisition, it still brings me sadness that it was "forbidden" to use at one point because of the thought that the child wouldn't speak. It makes me wonder how many more parents would take the time to learn sign language and use it with their new born baby if the argument/theory of delaying spoken language was never brought up. My theory is that more people would have been exposed and learned sign language.

Exactly what Mrs. Metcalf has been telling us for the past few semesters. We have to push for parents to use sign language at birth. Even if their decision is to implant their child, this shows that sign language is still a huge benefit and cannot do harm to child like language deprivation can.

Having just been around my first exposure of language deprivation and seeing the effects that will probably be undoable is heartbreaking. The child tries so hard in school but the lack of exposure during the critical years catches up and behavior outbursts sometimes happen. With me being new to the school and the environment, it's a huge shock for me to see how the behavior is handled and I want to help and be so patient with them but it then hinders the other children.

After doing a quick google search (which isn't concrete evidence), approximately 65% of the population are visual learners. Yet, parents are being told not to use baby sign language, don't expose your child to sign language, etc. and parents with children who are deaf are also being advised not to use sign language. But approximately 65% of the population are visual learners and we have a visual language that is being advised against exposure so their child will be able to speak. That absolutely baffles me.