Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi) instruction for deaf children in its present form was introduced around 20 years ago and was received with a great deal of attention and enthusiasm, along with some questions about implementation. In 1990, a group of educators, administrators, and researchers, led by Frank Bowe and T. J. O'Rourke, met for a 3-day symposium concerning issues related to the educational uses of ASL (Walworth, Moores, & O'Rourke, 1992). A variety of opinions were expressed at the symposium and there was agreement with Bowe's (1992) conclusion that little research was being done by the programs then using ASL and that extensive research was necessary to measure the impact of ASL-based instruction on student learning. The basic premise for Bi-Bi programs then in existence and that have since been developed is that ASL should be the only form of sign communication, resisting presentation of English through a sign modality, and that the teaching of English should be confined to reading and writing (Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1992). The assumption is that ASL can be a bridge to English. We have, then, a policy of sequential bilingualism in which ASL is first established and then used to teach reading and writing in another language, English. Stewart (1993) raised the question of how the lack of a written component for ASL might affect the learning and retention of subject matter presented in ASL. Like Bowe, Stewart argued that much research is needed to delineate the roles of ASL and signing in the classroom and to relate them to effective teaching. In 1989 Johnson, Liddell, and Erting published a widely distributed monograph in which they criticized the state of education of deaf and hard of hearing children and argued that the use of ASL would unlock the curriculum and enable deaf children to achieve academically at the same level as hearing children. This rather naive goal, of course, was not achieved and we have essentially no evidence of the achievement levels in academic content areas of deaf children taught only through ASL. Despite the early enthusiasm, the growth of Bi-Bi programs has not met the expectations that were projected. For several years the numbers of deaf children being taught through sign alone has remained fairly constant and has hovered around 10%. The latest data (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2006) indicated that only 11% of deaf children were taught by sign alone in the 2006-2007 academic year. My observation has been that most of these children are enrolled in residential programs. I believe that if Bi-Bi, in its present or modified form, is to spread into general education programs, there must be a base of supporting research. Unfortunately the research called for by Bowe in 1990 and Stewart in 1993 has not been done. We have no supporting data. Recently, reflecting the issue raised by Stewart in 1993, there has been some debate on whether ASL1 lacking a written system, can be an effective bridge by itself, to written English or if some mediating system would facilitate the process. …