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!

Here’s the link to page 1 of the comic;
5A5A 2045, Page 1 (PDF)

Not much there; just the credits…

Here’s the link to page 2 of the comic;
5A5A 2045, Page 2 (PDF)

This is a typical scenario. Thanks to the Early Detection and Screening initiative, 1,000′s of babies/infants are diagnosed with hearing loss every year. This is needed, as late detection of hearing loss has a profound impact on language development.

Depending on the severity of the hearing loss, availability of insurance, and attitudes of parents and professionals involved, a lot of things can happen. A deaf child could be fitted for hearing aids or Cochlear Implants. They could undergo the AVT regimen, or have ASL. They could receive speech and language therapy at earlier ages. Parents and family quickly accept their deaf child, or they take longer. They learn ASL or rely on their personal mode of communication.

While I may be biased towards ASL, I fully support the parental choices made in this area. They know the situation as it applies to them; I would be extremly reticient in criticizing them for using AVT and relying on CI’s. However, I would extol the virtues of using ASL for language development and have it as an option available for these kids and their families.

Here, Lucky undergoes a CI/AVT approach in ameliorating his hearing loss and language development. Also, I wanted it to fit the overall story; there isn’t much of a story for this comic if Lucky learns ASL.

Here’s the link to page 3 of the comic;
5A5A 2045, Page 3 (PDF)

This placement is increasingly becoming more typical. Thanks to early detection and successful approaches in language development, more and more D/HH children are entering mainstream environments instead of traditional D/HH classrooms or schools. Still, some school placements can be inappropriate for a number of D/HH children, even if they appear to have ‘successfully’ undergone the early detection/language acquisition regimen. It underscores the importance of the IEP in ensuring that D/HH children receive a free and appropriate public education.

Elsewhere, tight state budgets can threaten the health of state-supported Deaf schools nationwide. Declining enrollments (thanks to early detection and language initiatives) do not help our cause in keeping these schools open. Deafness has, and always has, been a low incidence disability. The theory of ”diminishing returns” can be harsh for Deaf schools nationwide; i.e., there can be only so much that can support a Deaf school. Would 50 students total support a Deaf school? 75? 100? Also, Deaf schools have surivived the Great Depression; they can certainly survive the state budget crunches happening now.

Unfortunately, this threat to Deaf Schools is real. The NAD has come out with a position on this issue; NAD Position Statement on Deaf Schools. Their key quote is, “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that educational agencies must make available a continuum of alternative placements to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Among other things, the continuum must include instruction in regular classes, special classes, and special schools. This continuum includes schools for the deaf.”

I still have nagging doubts about this “continuum of alternative placements” legal theory as supported by the NAD. They do have lawyers and may be more authoriative on the subject than they’re letting on in their statement. My view is that this clause is subject to interpretation. A liberal interpretation would definitely ecompass a state-supported Deaf school and mandate its continuing operation. A conservative interpretation could differ considerably, resulting in the closure of the state-supported Deaf school. I do not want to leave this issue up to court interpretation; it is incumbent upon the grassroots political activism to ensure that state-supported Deaf schools remain in operation.

Ironically, Model undermines the “continuum of alternative placements” argument somewhat, as it can take in D/HH students in other states. An uber-conservative court could conclude that since Model is available for D/HH students in their own state, at the high school level, there is no need for a state-supported Deaf school. Yes, it’s a stretch, as Model can be 100 or 3,000 miles away from states all over, as opposed to short distances involved in state-supported Deaf schools.

In this admittedly doomsday scenario, Model is the last Deaf school standing.