Late ASL Exposure and a Kindergarten Language Profile
Maya is a 5-year-old deaf child in a mainstream kindergarten. She received bilateral cochlear implants at age 2;6 and began consistent ASL exposure at 4;0, when her hearing parents enrolled her in a signing program. Her oral preschool used spoken English only. The school team reports that Maya understands about 40 spoken words, produces roughly 25 signs, mostly nouns, and rarely combines signs. She uses pointing and pantomime to request objects, repeats phrases from a favorite video, and does not yet use classifiers or spatial verbs. Her parents ask whether ASL will slow her English and whether her language is behind. The DHH teacher has 30 days to complete an eligibility review and recommend services. The district's only ASL assessment is a vocabulary checklist, and the interpreter observes that Maya watches signs intently but often looks to her mother for confirmation.
1. Interpret Maya's profile relative to known timelines for first-language acquisition in ASL and spoken English. What can and cannot be concluded?
Read the worked answer
What the profile suggests. Maya's history includes late, inconsistent access to a visual language and early spoken-language input through cochlear implants. Her production of about 25 signs, mostly nouns, with few combinations at age 5 is not consistent with typical ASL acquisition in deaf children of deaf parents, who usually begin signing in infancy, produce first signs around 10-12 months, and combine signs in the second year. But the profile alone does not establish a language disorder. It could reflect language deprivation or restricted input, not an intrinsic deficit. I would not compare her only to hearing English norms or to a single vocabulary checklist. I would want a language sample in both ASL and spoken English, dynamic assessment, and information about her hearing history and exposure. The safest conclusion is insufficient evidence for a disability diagnosis; the team should document opportunity to learn before labeling.
2. Recommend a 6-month plan for assessment and service delivery. Include at least two different assessment methods and one family-support component.
Read the worked answer
A 6-month plan: (1) ASL language sample with a Deaf adult model, coded for utterance length, verb types, classifiers, and repair strategies; (2) dynamic assessment in ASL, teaching a new spatial verb and seeing whether Maya generalizes; (3) spoken English measures from a speech-language pathologist, kept separate from ASL scores; (4) parent-reported communication inventory and home video. Services should include direct ASL exposure with fluent models, not just interpreter access, and family sign classes. I would re-evaluate at 3 and 6 months, with the goal of increasing functional communication and monitoring whether gaps close with access. The eligibility question should be answered after the team has data on both languages and on opportunity to learn, not from the vocabulary checklist alone.
3. The parents ask whether learning ASL will impede English. Respond with reasoning suitable for a school team meeting.
Read the worked answer
I would tell the parents that the evidence does not show that learning ASL harms English development; for a deaf child, accessible visual language can support overall communication and learning. I would avoid promising that ASL will fix English or that it is the only option. The relevant question is whether Maya has full access to at least one language. Her current spoken English is limited, and her ASL exposure is recent; withholding ASL would reduce her access further. A bilingual approach-ASL and spoken English, with appropriate amplification-gives her more than one route. I would frame this as a team decision with monitoring, not a loyalty test between languages.