WARNING...Loooong post but I need support from my “indie peeps”. I am “up in arms” with NPR (pardon the pun!) They ran a completely one-sided and negative piece recently on American Sign Language for hearing babies. I’m posting my response to NPR here to further get the word out about the inaccuracies of what they ran...harnessing the power of the mighty Biznikians! I also sent a similar letter to KUOW, the local NPR station that ran the piece and have also been in touch w/fellow Biznik Bellamy Pailthorpe of the other local affiliate, KPLU. We’ve been in contact a few times about a possible piece on Hop to Signaroo. If anyone has connections at NPR national or local KUOW, I would LOVE to her from you! Anyone know the pediatrician quoted in the piece, Dr. Sydney Spiesel of Woodbridge, CT, by chance? If I can track him down, he will be hearing from me, as well.
Sent to Alex Chadwick, “Day to Day” producer at NPR:
I am writing to in reference to the Day to Day segment “Should You Teach Baby to Sign?” which aired on 8/14/08. As a former special education teacher who has been very successfully teaching American Sign Language (ASL) to hearing families for the past eight years, I was extremely dismayed by this one-sided story which was filled with several inaccuracies and misleading comments. I recognize that Dr. Spiesel is NPR’s pediatric consultant, but I'm always amazed when the medical community simply dismisses "new" information that they have limited knowledge of. After listening to the piece, I believe the doctor has missed the main reason why families sign with their hearing babies, and I think it would be in NPR’s listeners' best interest to hear the counterpoint perspective on an upcoming episode of Day to Day.
The main reason parents sign with their pre-verbal babies is because it reduces their baby's frustration, and their own, before speech is possible. The intent is not to create linguistic super babies. Dr. Spiesel even acknowledged that babies do have the ability to understand and express language before they can speak, and that babies can routinely use at least 20 signs before speech is possible. Yet he never acknowledged the amazing benefits of this and went on to contradict himself by saying there are "no serious benefits". Ask any of my parent graduates...there are huge benefits when a pre-verbal baby is capable of signing basic needs such as "milk", "feed me", "diaper change", "my ear hurts", "help", etc. These basic signs are the focus with infants and toddlers and beyond that babies do comment on their natural interests, despite Dr. Spiesel's claims to the contrary. Many of my baby graduates added numerous signs like "music", "book" "bird", and "play" to their basic sign vocabulary. My personal favorite was the 10 month old who was obsessed with orangutans and his favorite signed phrase was "orange monkey"! Many of my little graduates progress to signing two and three word phrases to comment on the world around them, long before their vocal chords would allow them to verbalize the same observations.
The doctor's commentary focused mainly on the fact that research does not conclusively prove long-term linguistic benefits of signing with hearing babies and toddlers. That is not an accurate statement. Researchers have found that the "icing on the cake", after frustration reduction, has been long-term linguistic benefits when ASL is taught to babies. Additional research has found that children of all ages benefit from ASL instruction because of the unique right and left brain coordination it promotes. Some researchers have been following children who signed as babies for twenty years. Here are some links. (Note I included others but just included the one link to several articles on this Biznik post to keep it simple.)
Pharmaceutical companies don't even do twenty years worth of studies before releasing most medications, yet the proponents of signing with babies have, in some cases. So why does the medical community immediately discount something that parents in numerous countries have found to be extremely beneficial and several highly respected child development experts wholeheartedly endorse? On my website, you will find more than 200 testimonials from the 3000+ parents and childcare professionals who have attended my classes in the last eight years. Several are from parents months or years after they took my class, detailing how signing not only reduced their babies' frustration and their own but also aided long-term linguistic growth.
Moreover, as a former special education teacher, I would never devote 8 years of my career to developing classes and materials that would impede a child's development in any manner, as was implied by Dr. Spiesel’s comments about signing interfering with normal child development. I suspect the same is true of the child development specialists with Ph.D.'s who have worked for 20 years to create the programs referenced above. We are hardly the "vultures circling to take advantage of parents with expensive programs" that Dr. Spiesel claimed we are. What a dramatic, inaccurate and offensive way to end this very one-sided broadcast.
With that in mind, I would encourage you to have me on your program to share the positive and accurate benefits of and reasons for signing with hearing infants. I'm certain I could arrange to have some of my clients contribute and share their perspectives and positive results, families who have experienced recent success as well as families I’ve kept in touch with since teaching my first class in September of 2000.
I look forward to hearing from you and hopefully being granted the opportunity to inform NPR listeners about the many documented and highly legitimate benefits on signing with hearing babies!
Nancy Hanauer
Hop to Signaroo
Send Message
Add to network
Make an introduction
Give Referral
Send Compliment
Bookmark
