In Response to a Comment on Cued Speech and ASL: Clarifying Language Access, ASL, and Cueing

I want to be really clear. I am not, and have never been, saying that ASL isn’t the natural right of every Deaf child. It absolutely is. ASL is a full, rich, visual language, and Deaf children deserve access to it from the very beginning, regardless of whether their parents are Deaf or hearing.

What I’ve been trying to draw attention to is the serious access gap. Families are often told to “use ASL,” but they aren’t given access to fluent models, Deaf mentors, immersive environments, or the kind of consistent support that helps them build a true language base at home. When kids don’t make progress, it’s not because ASL failed. It’s because we didn’t apply it with the structure, consistency, and community it deserves.

I wrote more about that here:
https://www.drraestout.com/blog/asl-didnt-failwe-failed-to-apply-it-with-the-commitment-it-deserves

Just to clarify, I also support cueing in some cases. But cueing is not a replacement for ASL. ASL is a complete language. Cueing is a tool for accessing spoken language, and for some children it can help, especially in developing phonemic precision. ASL and cueing serve different purposes, and access to ASL should never be considered optional. Families should not be forced to choose between them when both could be helpful.

That said, many children are growing up in environments where they are not receiving full, consistent access to any complete language. When parents are learning ASL slowly, inconsistently, or without community support—especially in resource deserts—children may not get enough exposure to develop a strong foundation in their first language. Without that, literacy in a second language becomes much harder to build.

Cueing can help fill that gap. It gives children visual access to English structure and phonology directly, without requiring translation. When used thoughtfully alongside ASL, cueing can provide consistent linguistic input during critical developmental windows while parents continue building their ASL fluency. The intention isn’t to replace ASL or suggest cueing is superior, but to prevent language deprivation when full ASL access isn’t yet possible.

I understand that in Deaf history, English and hearing-centered approaches were often prioritized at the expense of ASL. Children who could access spoken English or who showed potential for speech were frequently denied access to ASL, as if English was more valuable. But spoken English is not inherently better. It’s just more widely used in written form. Because ASL doesn’t have a standardized written form, most of the world’s academic, scientific, and cultural content is stored and transmitted through spoken and written languages like English.

There’s currently a low level of literacy among many Deaf students, which clearly shows the need for stronger support. But this literacy gap is not the fault of ASL. It’s the result of how poorly ASL has been implemented—without consistency, equity, or enough support for families and educators to use it effectively. The solution is not to walk away from ASL. It’s to make sure Deaf children have access to both visual language and literacy tools so they can thrive in both worlds.

There is research showing how ASL proficiency, fingerspelling, and visual phonological awareness support reading development in Deaf children. Strong ASL skills help build the linguistic foundation needed for English literacy. McQuarrie and Abbott found that Deaf children with strong ASL phonological awareness—being able to analyze features like handshape and movement—performed better on English word recognition and reading comprehension tasks.

Padden and Ramsey showed that fingerspelling helps bridge ASL and English print by allowing children to visually map English letters onto something they already understand linguistically. Ormel and colleagues found that speech-based phonological awareness and fingerspelling both independently predicted reading fluency. That means even if a child doesn’t have strong auditory access, fingerspelling still supports decoding and recognition.

Wang, Trezek, and others emphasized that phonological knowledge is key to reading success, regardless of how it’s accessed. Whether a child uses speech, visual phonics, cueing, or fingerspelling, the goal is to make English patterns accessible in a structured way. Deaf children don’t need to translate ASL into English to learn to read. They benefit from direct access to how English works as a system, supported by teaching that builds on their strengths.

Cueing is also different from cross-language strategies because it doesn’t require translation. It provides a direct visual representation of English phonemes, grammar, and structure. It moves from English to English. Cueing helps children understand language at the phonological level, and that foundation supports reading in other languages too.

It can be used with English, Spanish, French, and more—which is especially valuable in multilingual homes. Cueing gives access to families who don’t speak English at all, allowing children to build literacy in their family’s native language, not just in English or through Deaf culture. This supports the family’s linguistic identity while also giving the child structured access to language.

That understanding connects directly to how most of the world’s written languages are built. Cueing also helps children learn the structure and patterns behind written language across spoken languages. The phonological and structural awareness developed through cueing supports a broader understanding of how language systems are organized and how written language reflects spoken language. That makes it a powerful tool for children who need clearer access to spoken English and other verbal languages.

ASL and cueing can complement each other. They are doing different jobs.

Deaf children don’t need to rely on memorization or translation. They need full access to ASL to build a strong internal language, and they need structured access to English print that matches how their brains and bodies process information. When we support both—rather than forcing families to choose—children thrive.

⸻

Afterword:

I didn’t plan to write another long post. I really didn’t mean to turn this into something bigger than it was. I just ran out of room in the comment screen and couldn’t fit everything I needed to say in one reply. So I’m going to answer here instead.

This is in response to a thoughtful comment and question about cueing and ASL (in reference to my previous post on Cued Speech), which is included in the image attached to this post. I appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation and clarify where I’m coming from.

Being autistic, I also tend to include all of my context to make sure what I’m thinking is clear and stated in a way others can follow. Sometimes that makes my responses longer, but it helps me be accurate and respectful in the conversation.

⸻

Original Visual Description (removed):

This original image was a screenshot of a Facebook comment written by a group member. Due to the importance of privacy, this image is not being shown and has been replaced by an illustration.

In the original image, the comment is addressed directly to “Rae” and begins with a correction. The member challenges Rae's previous post on Cued Speech which stated the idea that a Deaf child is “waiting,” because their hearing parents are not yet fluent in signing. She states this is not true and cites research showing that Deaf children can succeed academically even when their hearing parents are still learning to sign, so long as there is early exposure to ASL.

She emphasizes that early signing, even with non-fluent parents, is effective. She urges against spreading misinformation that might discourage parents from trying. She explains that hearing parents can learn sign language alongside their child, and with the support of Deaf mentors, community, and peers, the Deaf child will thrive.

Her final sentence states, “The Deaf child will BLOSSOM in visual language (ASL),” using all caps for emphasis on the word “BLOSSOM.” The tone of the comment is passionate, corrective, and supportive of ASL and Deaf cultural practices.

⸻

Visual Description of Cartoon Illustration:

This is a two-panel digital illustration showing two women facing each other in respectful dialogue, representing contrasting but complementary perspectives about language access for Deaf children.

Left Panel:

A woman with light skin and long, straight brown hair sits slightly forward, engaged in conversation. Her expression is passionate and sincere. She’s speaking from the viewpoint that early exposure to ASL, even by hearing parents who are still learning, can be enough for Deaf children to thrive. This figure represents the commenter from the original post, advocating strongly for ASL immersion and early language access.

Right Panel:

A woman with light skin and medium-length, curly dark hair, fuller in frame, appears thoughtful and composed. She represents Dr. Rae Stout, responding with a view that supports ASL fully but also advocates for cueing as an additional tool when ASL access is incomplete. Her hands are open in explanation, and her body language conveys respect and empathy.

The background is neutral and soft, allowing the focus to stay on the two women and their ideas. There is no text in the image. The illustration emphasizes respectful engagement, nuance, and mutual care for Deaf children, rather than opposition or debate.

⸻

References

McQuarrie, L., and Abbott, M. (2013). Bilingual Deaf students’ phonological awareness in ASL and reading skills in English. Sign Language Studies, 14(1), 80–100.

Ormel, E., Giezen, M. R., Knoors, H., Verhoeven, L., and Gutierrez-Sigut, E. (2022). Predictors of word and text reading fluency of deaf children in bilingual deaf education programmes. Languages, 7(1), 51.

Padden, C., and Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, and R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 165–189). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Strong, M., and Prinz, P. M. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 37–46.

Trezek, B. J., and Wang, Y. (2006). Implications of utilizing a phonics-based reading curriculum with children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(2), 202–213.

Wang, Y., Trezek, B. J., Luckner, J. L., and Paul, P. V. (2008). The role of phonology and phonologically related skills in reading instruction for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153(4), 396–407.