X50S5

The only constant in life is change. Deaf education is not immune to these forces; technology, medicine, and recent laws have reshaped the continuum of services available for Deaf students. Three more factors have entered the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) framework; access to general education curriculum, standardized testing, and early intervention. Parents of Deaf/HH children and educators should consider these factors. First, some background.

Prior to 1975; Deaf children had little options available when it came to education. Either they went to a local program or went to a Deaf school. At the local program level, Deaf students were either in self-contained classes or mainstreamed fully. Usually, there were no interpreters, notetakers, or technologies such as FM devices. Often, parents were faced with limited choices; i.e., an oral program where there is no ASL alternative in town, or vice versa.

Enter… A Regulatory Framework

PL 94-142, Education for the Handicapped Act, changed this state of affairs, ensuring a ‘free, appropriate public education” for students with disabilities. With it, came a new regulatory framework for educating all students with disabilities. The underpinning of the entire framework was the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), where students with disabilities need to be integrated as much as possible in schools near their home, taking the same classes along with nondisabled peers.

PL 94-142 couldn’t have come in a more opportune time; it coincided with the Rubella ‘bulge’ of Deaf students. All of a sudden, America had this huge mass of Deaf students and PL 94-142 empowered Deaf education at a local level.  Parents and educators finally had the tools they needed to implement Deaf education in their communities, spawning a “continuum of services” in serving this diverse body of Deaf students. There were self-contained classes, students being mainstreamed, students having a resource room, and more.

Throwing away the Cookie Cutter

As well intentioned and empowering the PL 94-142 law was, it was an imprecise instrument. What is usually applicable to a particular group of disabilities may not apply to Deaf people, for instance.  The LRE provision placed residential Deaf Schools squarely at the ‘bottom’ of this continuum of services, being deemed ‘the most restrictive environment’.  Understandably, many Deaf education professionals were concerned that Deaf students were being placed into environments ill-suited for them.

In 1988, the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED) issued a report highlighting these concerns regarding LRE and the continuum of services. Finally, in 1992, the Department of Education issued regulations emphasizing the individual ‘factors’ of each and every Deaf student in determining appropriate placement options under PL 94-142’s LRE provisions. In 1997, the regulations were codified into law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA)

General Education Enters the Picture

With IDEA, the law also mandated access for students with disabilities in the “general education curriculum”. PL 94-142 only mandated access for students with disabilities on a “special curriculum” basis, and it proved to be untenable, unworkable, and inflexible.

By the time 1997 rolled around, the continuum of services was all but set. Staffing specialists had many options and have placed Deaf students in programs with levels of services and options unheard of in 1975. Shrewdly, even some Deaf schools recognized the significance of IDEA and its LRE provisions by lobbying for school choice amendments. For example, FSDB has a state statute allowing Deaf/HH students to enroll there, even though there may be an appropriate educational placement in their local communities.

Early Screening and Intervention Rearranges the Tiles

In 1999, Deaf education was reshaped again by the introduction of the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. The law allowed block grants to states in implementing their own screening and intervention initiatives affecting Deaf children. The rationale behind the Act was that the earlier these Deaf children’s hearing loss was identified, the better chances they’ll receive appropriate language therapy and development.

Just like PL 94-142, the Intervention Act came also at a serendipitous time, in an era of technological advances in medicine, resulting in even lower Deaf incidence figures. Better medicine simply has produced an end result where the overall infant population has never been healthier as a whole. And as for those infants who are newly diagnosed with hearing loss, an array of services and technologies were made available to them and their parents in ensuring that they get the language support and development they need at a crucial time.

As a result, more Deaf/HH children are being enrolled in schools in their communities and in more inclusive programs. Thanks to early intervention, more Deaf/HH children are receiving appropriate language support and development in their local communities, and are having successful outcomes in their local educational programming. More restrictive placements began to wither and disappear, dealing with ever decreasing numbers of Deaf/HH students.

No Deaf/HH Child Left Behind

The final piece of the mosaic that makes up Deaf Education came through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, passed in 2002. With NCLB, standards based instruction and assessment came into focus in all aspects of education. Now, LEA’s have to consider whether educational placements have standards based instruction and assessment as a factor in making appropriate placement decisions for Deaf/HH students.

While the IDEA has mandated access to the general education curriculum and testing, the NCLB extends these protections further by mandating access to standards-based curriculum and testing for all students, with or without disabilities. While not always true, more restrictive placements tend to have extensive modifications to standards-based instruction and may even exempt students from standard assessments.

Re-examining the Continuum of Services

In this context of a new regulatory framework affecting Deaf Education, should we start to reexamine the LRE provisions regarding appropriate placement options for Deaf/HH students? Should the ‘continuum of services’ adjust for the realities Deaf Education is now facing? The self-contained Deaf/HH classroom would be considered the ‘Most Restrictive Environment’ and the Deaf School somewhere in the middle?

In this alternative Continuum of Services scenario, the LRE provisions are weighted towards access to the general education curriculum and standardized testing. Under this model, Deaf schools actually move up on this spectrum; some Deaf schools offer access to some general standard education curriculum and standardized testing. These schools would be a better (& superior) alternative to self-contained classes consisting of Varying Exceptionalities or Deaf/HH students.

Conclusion

In closing, parents of Deaf/HH children have a lot of educational placement choices. Thanks to this new regulatory framework, IDEA 2004+NCLB, parents and educators need to seriously consider access to the general standardized education curriculum and assessments as significant factors in determining their Deaf/HH children’s placement. And thanks to early screening and intervention initiatives resulting in a dwindling pool of Deaf/HH students, various Deaf/HH educational placements need to consider these factors as well, or risk becoming irrelevant, marginalized and/or obsolete.

Bibliography

While not an exhaustive list, I found these following links illuminating and used them as research sources.  If you find inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or concern(s) with this article, please drop me a line in the comments below.

• http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_techbrief.html
• http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/courts.htm
• http://www.cenmi.org/Documents/FocusonResults/FocusonResultsDetails/tabid/79/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/313/StandardsBased-Individualized-Education-Programs-IEPs-Benefit-StudentsIEPs-Must-Align-With-the-General-Education-Curriculum.aspx
• http://www.listen-up.org/rights/policy.htm
• http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html

This article is published for informative and entertainment purposes only. No attorney-client relationship is created, nor is legal advice given. I strongly recommend that you consult with a local attorney or special education advocate concerning the student’s educational placement and various options that may be available for the student.

I came across Ridor9th’s vlog about the importance of symbolism. (Source: YouTube) I agree with him; but don’t we already have symbols we can work with right now? According to Wikipedia, we have this:

What about another suggestion? The ILY handshape can be used as a symbol; I whipped up two mock-up’s, one multi-colored and one in a minimalist B/W setup. I’m sure someone savvy with Illustrator can come up with nice vector art. (The third example is the interpreting handshape/symbol. (Courtesy of the State of Hawaii.))

One thing I did notice was that the mainstream community was ‘misappropriating’ these ILY handshapes for the ‘You Rock’ themed advertisements. Two examples come to mind; One is from a 7-Eleven marketing campaign, “Rock The Gulp“.

The other comes from billboards that I’ve seen in South Florida. I think Hard Rock Hotel and Casino may have discontinued it, but they featured a mascot looking like blackjack card with sunglasses and ‘rocking’ the ILY handshape. After some searching, I managed to find one; (Courtesy of Lonesome Gambler at the BlackJackInfo.com forum.

The mere presence of these marketing campaigns suggest the need to protect the ILY handshape against misappropriation and to engage in a marketing campaign where there is an ‘internationally-recognized’ symbol for Deaf people.

Thoughts? Put them in the comments!

A Telecommunications Paradigm is born!

When the VRS industry was first formed, one company innovated and grew into an industry giant with the adroit use of the ‘Network Effect’. For those who don’t know what a Network Effect (Source: Wikipedia) is, here’s a quick primer. Basically, a provider creates a service that is much needed by a certain population, and provides the necessary technological infrastructure to service that population. The more the population has the equipment, the more it becomes valuable to them, and the more they will use the service, and repeat… All of a sudden, TTY’s have gone into the Great Landfill in the Sky.

In Sorenson VRS‘s case, it is the venerable VP-100 and later, the VP-200 units that have helped propel them into an industry giant and have largely solidified its business in the highly competitive VRS market. From a business case perspective, I have much to admire about Sorenson VRS and how they innovated to where they are now. Unfortunately for them, their business model and approach to service for Deaf/HH consumers are akin to that of landline phones; Their ‘new’ paradigm is increasingly becoming stale.

Enter a New Paradigm!

We all are increasingly aware of anecdotal evidence and popular media glamorizing the ‘death’ of the landline phone. People are cutting the ‘cord’ in mass droves and resorting to their cell phones as their main telecommunications medium. Proliferation of VoIP technologies have largely driven the stake into the landline industry. This mass paradigm shift does not bode well for the VRS industry giant, as technological innovations have now reached the U.S. shores; cell phones with video calling capabilities. Currently, at this time of writing, it’s Sprint’s EVO 4G and the iPhone 4.

Interestingly enough, Apple seemingly is borrowing a page from the Sorenson VRS playbook, creating a ‘network effect’ of sorts with FaceTime, their video-calling approach exclusively for iPhone 4 devices. Granted, this is a phone designed for the mainstream population, so I’m sure the FCC can’t mandate interoperability for the new class of video cell phones just yet. The Sprint EVO 4G relies on 3rd party applications such as Fring and Qik for videocalling.

This will have a profound impact on the VRS industry over time. Many Deaf/HH people will ‘cut the cord’ with their high-speed internet provider and simply go with a cell phone that is capable of video calling and use VRS services at anytime and anywhere. (Ok, where there’s a signal, there’s VRS!) Thus, a new paradigm is now born, and the race is on for VRS providers to provide VRS services to cell phones with video calling capabilities. The VRS provider that first comes up with interoperable solutions for these new phones (i.e. VRS services and point to point calling) will become the dominant VRS provider of the future.

Who will win the Race?

At this point, it’s anyone’s guess. I’m sure engineers at VRS companies are furiously working on interoperable solutions for this new class of videophones. I’m sure we’ll gain access to VRS services and point to point calling features on these cell phones fairly soon. My bet’s on the EVO 4G; it’s based on open-source Android platform and the Deaf/HH consumer can make video calls at anytime and anywhere there’s a 4G signal. (I’m not so sure about 3G signals, but WiFi is just as handy!) The iPhone 4 may eventually gain entry into the VRS arena, as Apple eventually opens up the FaceTime video telephony standard to VRS companies.

Exciting times are ahead for Deaf/HH consumers, indeed! May the next VRS industry giant lead the way.

Earlier this year, Congressman (Rep-D) Edward Markey introduced and sponsored H.R. 3101 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 26th. Amid a flurry of sponsors, 15 and counting at time of writing, the bill has garnered support and publicity among the Deaf community. H.R. 3101′s short title is “Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009″ and its principal aim is to ensure accessbility of media on the Internet, i.e., captioning on streaming video. Another goal is to ensure accessibility of ip-based communications. The full information can be found at Thomas (LOC.gov).

I generally support this bill, and will continue to monitor it’s progress throughout its legislative life. While there is captioned content online, much more remains inaccessible. Of particular note are emergency broadcasts; we need to ensure that these broadcasts are captioned, either via traditional TV media or internet-based streaming media. I do find proposed section 103 in redefining telecommunications relay services to be troubling, and has diminished my support somewhat for this bill.

As of this writing, there has been not a lot of information about H.R. 3101 coming out from the Committe on Energy and Commerce. There have been no hearings scheduled, let alone any markup’s, or any committee recommendations. However, a blogsite has been covering the bill extensively – Caption Action 2. Plus, using the hashtag #HR3101 on Twitter, you’ll find commentary and support of the bill among many interested participants. H.R. 3101 continues to attract more co-sponsors, and recently had a high-profile boost in way of Marlee Matlin at a recent (Nov. 6th) FCC hearing about broadband access for people with disabilities.

In addition to contacting your Congressperson about H.R. 3101, you can also write to the Committe on Energy and Commerce in support of this bill. I’m not sure if non-citizens can write to the Committee in support of this bill. (i.e. Deaf Canadians and other Deaf foreigners that understand English stand to benefit from the bill. It would be nice to enlist their support!) If the Committee has a hearing on this bill, you may even comment on the bill. (There is also a specific subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, but I’m not sure if they’re actually handling H.R. 3101. At any rate, the full Committee needs to recommend the Bill to the House.)

The FCC also may comment on H.R. 3101 through this Committee. Remember the Nov. 6th hearing that FCC had on Gallaudet University? Perhaps the FCC will gather and distill the information gleaned from that hearing in reporting to the Committee about H.R. 3101. The proposed bill as written may undergo an amendment or two before it is officially reported by the Committee to the House. (Admittedly, this is why, despite my initial skepticism about proposed Section 103 of H.R. 3101, I continue to support the Bill.)

Don’t leave us in the Dark Ages, i.e., the 20th Century. Join us and support us in entering the 21st Century with full accessiblity to the Internet and related technologies.

Earlier this summer, I put up a poll on this issue; 91% overwhelmingly supported the idea that ASL classes satisfy state’s foreign language requirements in secondary settings. Admittedly, I am still somewhat ambivalent about this. Don’t get me wrong; I love ASL and have taught ASL in a secondary setting before. I did have a “less than positive” experience in teaching ASL in a secondary setting, but that was due to my faults as a beginner teacher more than anything else.

Let’s say that a high school decides to offer ASL classes to its students, and that these courses can satisfy the foreign language requirement needed for graduation. Obviously, a lot of students would be interested and enroll in these courses. I would hazard a guess that the majority of them would think that ASL is an ‘easy’ class as opposed to traditional courses in French, Spanish, Italian, etc. The students may not even like ASL, may not take it seriously, or respect it as a language. In a nutshell, a lot of the students enroll in these ASL classes, usually all for the wrong reasons.

These high school students usually are in for a rude awakening once they enter the ASL classroom. Studying ASL requires the same amount of work, dedication, and discipline similar to those studying Spanish, Italian, Greek, etc. Student’s expectations and attitudes towards the ASL class falls apart quite readily, and leads to increased student dissatisfaction and frustration. Which in turn, adversely affects the ASL instructor and his/her expectations, goals, and teaching approaches in the class.

Granted, this ‘disconnect’ between high school students and instructors pretty much exists at any foreign language classes offered at high schools nationwide. There will always be pockets of high school students disgruntled with their studies in Russian, Japanese, Spanish, etc. Foreign language instructors, and ASL instructors are of no exception, need to utilize effective classroom management strategies in engaging their students and having a productive classroom.

There is one little difference when it comes to Deaf ASL instructors. If they have a frustrating experience in their classroom, how do they cope? Students may belittle or not take ASL seriously. How do they deal with these attitudes day in and out? How are their peer faculty treating them? (I know one ASL teacher that had won Teacher of the Year award at a high school in the past few years, so YMMV.) How do they deal with the ‘burnout’ that comes with the job, if they have it at all?

Now, if the ASL class was offered on an elective basis, these issues usually do not factor in an effective ASL classroom. High school students who take the class usually are the ones who want to learn the language, takes it seriously, and gives it the respect it deserves. The expectations, interests, and goals of the students are usally aligned with those of the ASL instructors. The ASL instructor usually has more latitude and freedom in teaching ASL, and having an enriched foreign language learning environment. The overall level of satisfaction for students and teachers involved in this classroom would be higher, I’ll bet!

However, offering ASL classes as an elective does not promote job security for the ASL instructor. Interest in the classes may vary year to year. A night school (available for high school students) once offered beginner’s sign language classes (with me as an instructor) and only one student showed up. Sure, a better advertising job could be done, but the end result was that I didn’t get this part-time job opportunity. Some regions (such as my area) may express little interest in ASL, and vice versa in other regions. The old adage, “Your Mileage May Vary” (YMMV), certainly applies here!

Now that I’ve laid out the ‘pro’s and con’s’ of offering ASL classes in a secondary setting, what do you, the readers of this blog, think? I’d like to hear from ASL instructors, especially those that have taught in secondary settings before.

(Blog entry coming soon: Should ASL be taught as a “Foreign” Language course when it’s a language as American as Grandma’s apple pie?)