Smart Solutions

Program Description

Core Components for Model Fidelity

ASL Classes: Hearing parents, caregivers, or educators of children who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) participate in ASL classes taught by a fluent, licensed educator. Best practice is for the instructor to be Deaf, hard of hearing, or have proximity to the Deaf community. Classes have the parent-child relationship in mind and focus on promoting parent skills in communicating with their child and bolstering their confidence in supporting their child’s development.

Languages Materials are Available in

English, Spanish, Other*

*Contact purveyor about additional available languages.

Delivery Mode

Classes are ideally delivered in person but can be held virtually based on the needs and interests of participants.

Dosage

ASL classes include 15-20 hours of instruction delivered once a week for 15-20 weeks or twice a week for 8-10 weeks.

Program Implementation

Infrastructure for Implementation

Space: Meeting space with ample room for group meetings.

Other: If virtual, access to adequate technology and the internet is necessary.

Staffing Requirements

At minimum, the instructor is a Certified Deaf Interpreter or licensed interpreter and has an ASL Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) score of at least 3. Preference given to instructors with an American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA) teacher credential. Best practice would be for the instructor to be Deaf, hard of hearing, or have proximity to the Deaf community.

Cost and Purveyor Information

Contact Information

NC DHHS: Sign Language Interpreter/Transliterator Directory

North Carolina School for the Deaf (NCSD)

Eastern North Carolina School for the Deaf (ENCSD)

Many local community colleges also offer ASL classes for adults.

Cost Estimates

Cost estimates vary.

NCPC Reporting & Evaluation

NCPC Evidence Categorization

Evidence Informed – Industry standard.

Research

Research Summary

A few of the most relevant publications on the impacts of exposure to American Sign Language from an early age include a cross-sectional observational study,¹ a longitudinal observational study,² a systematic scoping review of the literature,³ a brief from Head Start on the importance and relevance of using ASL in early childhood education settings,⁴ and an article detailing the foundation principles of Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families.⁵

These studies found that earlier exposure to ASL was associated with language development similar to DHH children with DHH parents. For example, their comprehension and academic achievement scores typically started lower than DHH children with DHH parents, but they tended to catch up by 4th grade and continue to overlap through high school with no significant differences between groups. Some findings reported greater variability in the vocabulary development of children exposed to ASL at later ages; although these children tended to score lower than their peers exposed to ASL at an early age, they could make significant gains. Parents enjoyed reduced stress; improved confidence, responsiveness, and knowledge of ASL; and improved parenting practices regarding reading, engagement, and managing child behaviors. Early intervention was associated with language competence comparable to hearing children, and earlier exposure was associated with better performance than children exposed to early intervention at a later age. Head Start further emphasized the importance of using ASL in early childhood education settings, as ASL is the only language that is always accessible to DHH children, and it is associated with language, literacy, cognition, and social and emotional benefits for all children.

Finally, foundation principles of FCEI-DHH are early intervention following identification and family-EI provider relationships. Early intervention following identification is early, timely, and includes an equitable provision of supports. “Early” refers to existing understandings that a child’s earliest experiences are foundational to their development. The World Health Organization also advocates for global implementation of newborn hearing screenings and provision of EI services as early as possible following identification as DHH. By “timely,” the authors refer to the “1-3-6 plan” benchmarks for screening established by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing which emphasizes completion of a hearing screening by 1 month of age, a diagnostic audiologic assessment by 3 months, and enrollment in EI no later than 6 months. EI providers need to be involved in the transition from identification to EI services to promote family support and consistent implementation. Finally, “equitable provision of supports” assures that children have access to all service options to have the greatest possible opportunity for quality early childhood education. Family-EI provider relationships are characterized by partnerships, engagement, capacity building, and reflection. Partnerships must be centered around mutual trust and respect, cooperative rapport, and clear communication. “Engagement” reflects the value of family involvement. EI providers engage with different family members in different ways, depending on their role and involvement. Engaging with families also requires cultural competence and humility. To build capacity, EI providers practice a strengths-based, individualized, collaborative, and context-driven approach to family support. Their goal is to bolster the family’s confidence and ability to help the child thrive. EI providers must also value reflection as they consider the experiences, thoughts, and feelings of families connected to the FCEI-DHH partnership. This is related to other skills of EI providers, including cultural responsiveness, empathy, and humility. The article includes recommendations for EI providers, family activities and outcomes, and programs/services and systems processes.

^ See Caselli et al. (2021). This cross-sectional observational study investigated ASL vocabulary development for children who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) who have hearing parents. The study sampled 88 hearing parents of 78 DHH children located in the US or Canada. Children were ages 8-68 months (M = 35). Exposed to ASL before 6 months (Early Exposure, n = 69) or between 6-36 months (Late Exposure, n = 19). Parents were predominantly female (55%), White (78%), not Hispanic/Latinx (88%), and well-educated (88.5% of caregivers had some college education). The authors compared early and late exposure groups with a normative dataset of 104 DHH children of DHH parents. Outcomes were assessed via the ASL-CDI 2.0, an authorized, validated adaptation of the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory, as well as calculations of language age (chronological age minus age of ASL exposure). Exposure to ASL before 6 months was associated with a greater likelihood to fall within the normal range (16th to 84th percentiles) for language age compared with DHH children exposed to ASL after 6 mo. However, early exposure to ASL was also associated with a significantly smaller receptive vocabulary size (p = 0.03), indicating that the receptive vocabulary of DHH children exposed to ASL before 6 months was not as robust as that of the normative group. Nonetheless, the early exposure group’s expressive and receptive vocabularies were developing at an age-appropriate rate. Later exposure to ASL was not associated with any statistically significant differences for expressive or receptive vocabulary size. However, the rate of expressive vocabulary growth was significantly slower than the normative group (p = 0.01). There was greater variability in the vocabulary size and growth of the late exposure group, but they could make significant gains. Study limitations include the reliance on parent-reported measures, small sample sizes, sampling bias, lack of generalizability, and the failure to assess long-term outcomes.
^ See Finton et al. (2025). This longitudinal observational study monitored ASL proficiency and academic achievement for students at the California School for the Deaf, Fremont (CSD-F) over 4 years. The sample included all students at California School for the Deaf, Fremont (CSD-F) between 2014-2017 (n = 797). CSD-F educates D/HH children from kindergarten through 12th grade with additional early childhood education programming. The current study compared outcomes for children with hearing caregivers who entered CSD-F before age 3 (Early Entry, n = 67), children with hearing caregivers who entered after age 3 (Late Entry, n = 529), and children with Deaf caregivers (Reference Group, n = 201). For analysis, the study focused on children who completed at least one Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment (Early Entry, n = 20; Late Entry, n = 406; Reference Group, n = 143). Participants were primarily White non-Hispanic and Hispanic/Latino. Children in the Early Entry and Reference groups were more likely to be White non-Hispanic while children in the Late Entry group were more likely to be Hispanic/Latino. Outcomes were assessed using the MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) scores in Reading, Language (referred to as “Writing” in the study since they used multiple measures of language), Math, and Science. The authors also compared children’s ASL skills, which were assessed using an in-house, grade-leveled ASL comprehension test that CSD-F uses to inform student placement and instruction. This test is administered twice a year (within 6 weeks of the start and end of the academic year). The Early Entry group’s ASL scores were lower than the Reference Group upon entry but caught up by 4th grade and overlapped through high school with no significant differences between groups for ASL proficiency or MAP scores. The Late Entry group, on the other hand, had widely variable ASL scores that were significantly lower than the Reference Group (p < 0.001) and scored significantly lower on all subjects of the MAP (p < 0.01). These findings remained the same when comparing outcomes for White non-Hispanic children with Hispanic/Latino children, and for students in the general and alternate curricula. ASL proficiency was associated with higher academic achievement scores in all subject areas. This partially explains why children who entered CSD-F early achieved academic outcomes similar to the reference group of D/HH children with D/HH caregivers. Study limitations include sampling a single site (may not be generalizable to other settings), failure to include information about students who left CSD-F, using an unvalidated assessment for ASL proficiency, and failure to capture bilingual skills.
^ See Wright et al. (2021). This systematic scoping review identifies and synthesizes findings from early interventions for Deaf infants and their families. Studies included in the review sampled parents with Deaf children 0-5 yr who were identified as being mild to profoundly Deaf (40-140db in both ears on the audiogram). The studies were grouped by design and themes (language and communication; parental wellbeing and empowerment; parental knowledge and skill; and parent-child relationship). The review ultimately included 54 studies that met all criteria. Prior to beginning the review, the researchers held national workshops with service providers and scholars regarding services currently offered to parents of Deaf children ages 0-5 years old. Discussions included good practice, eligibility criteria, barriers to practice, gaps in research. The researchers also held a meeting with parents to gather info about their experiences with the support received. Of the 29 studies focused on language and communication, 17 reported statistically significant effects though methods quality varied greatly. Outcomes included but are not limited to an increase in the parent’s use of communication support strategies; greater gains in child’s pre-linguistic skills; increase in pre-post scores for parent responsiveness; improved parent skills; and more developmentally mature communication and interactions from children. The studies also reported increases in parent management of child behavior and increased feelings of empowerment, self-efficacy, and wellbeing. Parents reported reduced stress and improved their techniques in interactive reading and engagement. Early intervention was associated with language competence similar to hearing children, and earlier exposure was associated with better performance than children exposed to early intervention at a later age. Limitations include the small number of randomized control trials (RCTs, n = 5), and no RCTs evaluated social-emotional development. Only 12 studies were published between 2014-2019. There are concerns about the lack of generalizability, little to no long-term outcomes, and possible risk of bias in some studies.
^ See Head Start (2025). This brief from Head Start describes the importance, relevance, and benefits of ASL for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. ASL is “the only language that is 100% accessible all the time to deaf and hard of hearing children,” and it is also associated with positive outcomes for the language and communication, cognition, and social and emotional development of all children. Learning ASL in early childhood supports children’s language and literacy skills. It is the earliest mode for expressive communication and is ideal for infants and toddlers. ASL involves motor movements which can help the child’s developing brain to remember and recall language from a very early age. Using ASL can reduce frustration for children who are dual language learners or have difficulties with spoken communication. According to Head Start, exposure to and use of ASL supports pre-literacy skills like letter recognition and is associated with increased English vocabulary growth.
^ See Moeller et al. (2024). This article is part of a series of articles comprising a special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families. This article details the two Foundation Principles of FCEI-DHH: early intervention following identification and family-EI provider relationships. Early intervention following identification is early, timely, and includes an equitable provision of supports. “Early” refers to existing understandings that a child’s earliest experiences are foundational to their development. The World Health Organization also advocates for global implementation of newborn hearing screenings and provision of EI services as early as possible following identification as DHH. By “timely,” the authors refer to the “1-3-6 plan” benchmarks for screening established by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing which emphasizes completion of a hearing screening by 1 month of age, a diagnostic audiologic assessment by 3 months, and enrollment in EI no later than 6 months. EI providers need to be involved in the transition from identification to EI services to promote family support and consistent implementation. Finally, “equitable provision of supports” assures that children have access to all service options to have the greatest possible opportunity for quality early childhood education. Family-EI provider relationships are characterized by partnerships, engagement, capacity building, and reflection. Partnerships must be centered around mutual trust and respect, cooperative rapport, and clear communication. “Engagement” reflects the value of family involvement. EI providers engage with different family members in different ways, depending on their role and involvement. Engaging with families also requires cultural competence and humility. To build capacity, EI providers practice a strengths-based, individualized, collaborative, and context-driven approach to family support. Their goal is to bolster family’s confidence and ability to help the child thrive. EI providers must also value reflection as they consider the experiences, thoughts, and feelings of families connected to the FCEI-DHH partnership. This is related to other skills of EI providers, including cultural responsiveness, empathy, and humility. The article includes recommendations for EI providers, family activities and outcomes, and programs/services and systems processes.

Researched Population

Hearing parents of Deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) children
DHH children of DHH parents
Families located in the US or Canada
Children exposed to ASL at various ages
White non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino families
Educators of children who are DHH, dual language learners and children who have developmental delays, communicative disorders, or disabilities

Citations

Caselli, N., Pyers, J., & Lieberman, A. M. (2021). Deaf Children of Hearing Parents Have Age-Level Vocabulary Growth When Exposed to American Sign Language by 6 Months of Age. The Journal of Pediatrics, 232, 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.01.029

Finton, E., Hall, W. C., Berke, M., Bye, R., Ikeda, S., & Caselli, N. (2025). Age-Expected Language and Academic Outcomes for Deaf Children with Hearing Caregivers. The Journal of Special Education, 58(4), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669241257699

Head Start (2025). Using American Sign Language for Early Learning. HeadStart.gov. https://headstart.gov/publication/using-american-sign-language-early-learning

Moeller, M. P., Gale, E., Szarkowski, A., Smith, T., Birdsey, B. C., Moodie, S. T. F., Carr, G., Stredler-Brown, A., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Holzinger, D., & the FCEI-DHH International Consensus Panel. (2024). Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Foundation Principles. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 29(SI), SI53–SI63. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enad037

Wright, B., Hargate, R., Garside, M., Carr, G., Wakefield, T., Swanwick, R., Noon, I., & Simpson, P. (2021). A systematic scoping review of early interventions for parents of deaf infants. BMC Pediatrics, 21, Article 467. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02893-9

NC State Partners

NC DHHS