Raising and Educating a Deaf Child

International experts answer your questions about the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by the parents and educators of deaf and hard-of-hearing children.

Question from J.D., Colorado

Hello, I am a Teacher of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The current district I work for is closing the Deaf/Hard of Hearing Center Middle School and High school programs. There has been discussion around national trends being a main reason for the closures.

Do you happen to have any national trend data or know of these “national trends” that are closing center programs? There has not been any evidence provided and our current state continues to have center programming among the large school districts at the primary and secondary levels.

Another reason for the closure, is due to the reduced numbers of students being served in center programs due to early intervention and technology. Some students need to be served in center programs so why are educators assuming that, because of the reduced number of students, we have enough reasons to justify closing programs? Do you happen to have any insight to share and/or resources that would be valuable to this topic?

Question from J.D., Colorado. Posted March 9, 2016.
Response from Barbara Raimondo - Policy Consultant

Specialized schools and programs are able to gather personnel, resources, and students in one place, enhancing school districts’ capacity to appropriately serve students.

However, you are describing what is becoming a common phenomenon – specialized schools and programs around the country are closing, and students are being sent to schools where they are the only deaf or hard-of-hearing individual. To a large extent this is driven by Federal education policy. The U.S. Department of Education encourages States to set goals increasing the amount of time students with disabilities spend in “regular” classes. This is done through the Department’s oversight of Federal funds. States must submit to the Department a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR). The SPP/APR displays data on the environments in which children are educated. (Indicator 5 covers children age 6-21, and Indicator 6 addresses preschool children.) This is a “numbers only” count – in other words, it is a simple count of where children sit, it does not address the quality of the setting for individual children.

In recent years the Department has started to look at student outcomes in order to evaluate States in a process know as Results Driven Accountability. However, the results are not cross-tabulated with setting for a particular child, so it is not possible to evaluate the impact of the setting on student performance. The Department frequently cites research that shows that “inclusion” settings are best (for example, Policy Statement on Inclusion Of Children With Disabilities in Early Childhood Programs September 14, 2015), but these studies don’t include deaf students.

The Department of Education has recognized the need for educational settings to support the language and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing students. It has stated:

“Any setting that does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf does not allow for the provision of [a Free Appropriate Public Education] and cannot be considered the [Least Restrictive Environment] for that child. Just as the IDEA requires placement in the regular educational setting when it is appropriate for the unique needs of a child who is deaf, it also requires placement outside of the regular educational setting when the child’s needs cannot be met in that setting” (Letter to Stern, September 30, 2011).

The school district must continue to ensure that all students are receiving the services, supports, and placements outlined in their Individualized Education Programs. Further, it may be required to provide parents Prior Written Notice. This must be given whenever a school district changes the educational placement of a child or the provision of FAPE (34 CFR §300.503).

There is another law in place to protect language and communication access in schools: the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 Code of Federal Regulations § 35.101 et seq.). That law requires public schools to ensure that students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in all school activities. It mandates that schools provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure “effective communications” for persons with disabilities. This is defined as “communications that “are as effective as communications with others.” The Departments of Justice and Education have issued guidance on schools’ obligations to provide effective communications and how IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act work to protect the rights of deaf and hard of hearing students (Frequently Asked Questions on Effective Communication for Students with Hearing, Vision, or Speech Disabilities in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, November 2014).

School districts should ensure that they are basing their decisions on the best interests of their students and families. Parents and educators who are concerned about a district’s actions should talk to their district representatives. If they believe their or their children’s rights are being violated they may wish to invoke the procedural safeguards under IDEA (34 Code of Federal Regulations § 300.500 et seq.), which include filing a State complaint or a due process complaint.