Editing Signing Exact English (section)

==Educational controversy==
In the United States, about two-thirds of teachers who have deaf or hard of hearing students instruct with some sort of sign language or manually coded system; this can include ASL, SEE-II, SEE-I, or Signed/Manual English, or a combination thereof.<ref name="Luetke" /> The debate is whether SEE-II benefits children enough to justify its teaching in place of ASL which is only used by 6% of children today. Proponents of SEE-II demonstrate through research that the system is useful in helping children learn to listen, speak, understand and use English as well as read and write English as do their same-age peers.<ref>{{cite book  |last=Stack |first=Kelly |year=1999 |title=Innovation by a Child Acquiring Signing Exact English II |type=PhD Thesis |publisher=University of California |location=Los Angeles |oclc=41560262}}{{page needed|date=April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Luetke-Stahlman |first=Barbara |year=1988 |title=The benefit of oral English-only as compared with signed input to hearing-impaired students |journal=The Volta Review |volume=90 |issue=7 |pages=349–61 |oclc=425071444}}</ref>  They further claim that SEE-II can exist as a practical alternative to ASL without hindering the learning of ASL,<ref name="Luetke2">{{cite journal |pmid=2346108 |year=1990 |last1=Luetke-Stahlman |first1=B |title=Can SEE-2 children understand ASL-using adults? |volume=135 |issue=1 |pages=7–8 |journal=American Annals of the Deaf |doi=10.1353/aad.2012.0454|s2cid=42095822 }}</ref> because it is easier to learn for native verbal English speakers, such as individuals with partial hearing loss or no hearing impairment.<ref name="Luetke3">{{cite journal |pmid=2091451 |year=1990 |last1=Luetke-Stahlman |first1=B |last2=Moeller |first2=MP |title=Enhancing parents' use of SEE-2. Progress and retention |volume=135 |issue=5 |pages=371–8 |journal=American Annals of the Deaf |doi=10.1353/aad.2012.0442|s2cid=26622426 }}</ref>  Opponents point to the logistical disadvantages of trying to promote the mainstream use of a manually coded system, which is not a real language, and dispute that SEE-II offers advantages to warrant educational resources which could be put toward encouraging universal adoption of ASL.