mary hartnett, mary cashman-bakken deaf education summit • april 22, 2010

The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Mary Hartnett, Mary Cashman-Bakken

Deaf Education Summit • April 22, 2010

2

What is the National Agenda?

• Collaboration between parents, professionals, and consumers to achieve the common vision of improving education services for students who are deaf and hard of hearing

• A journey with a destination but without a complete roadmap

3

Snapshot of NA Structure

• Steering Committee

• Advisory Committee

• Goal Leaders (for development)

• CED Organizations and State Departments of Education Reps.

• Parents, Professionals and Consumers who helped build it

4

National Agenda Committee

Steering Committee Members• Ms. Claire Bugen

– Superintendent, Texas School for the Deaf

• Dr. Jay Innes– Director, Gallaudet Leadership Institute

• Mr. Dennis Russell– Superintendent, New Jersey School for the Deaf

• Mr. Lawrence Siegel– Attorney, National Deaf Education Project

5

National Agenda Committee

Advisory Committee Members• Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf, Inc.

(AGBAD)– Donna Sorkin, Kathleen Treni and Todd Houston

• Association of College Educators-Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH)– Rich Lytle, Karen Dilka and Margaret Finnegan

• American Society for Deaf Children (ASDC)– Cheron Mayhall, Natalie Long and Barbara Raimondo

6

National Agenda Committee

• Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD)– Ed Corbett, Harold Mowl and Joe Finnegan,

• Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf (CAID)– Carl Kirschner, Liz O’Brien and Robert Hill

• CEC-Division of Communication Disorders– Carmel Yeager

• State Departments of Education and Local Education Agencies– Marsha Gunderson, Iowa and Carol Schweitzer, Wisconsin

• National Association of the Deaf (NAD) – Nancy Bloch, Kelby Brick, and Roz Rosen

7

National Agenda Core Values

• Language and communication access and development is central to learning and the well being of deaf and hard of hearing children (Preamble, NA)

• With parents, professionals and consumers as partners we do have the power to change the educational landscape for deaf and hard of hearing children

8

Background (2001)

• A Call To Action – based on NASDSE Guidelines and COED Report

• Group met to model an agenda similar to the National Agenda for the Blind

• Goals developed since starting work in 2001 – still in process

• 8 states have created plans that address improvement of outcomes for students who are deaf and hard of hearing.

9

Background (2001)

• Presentations on the National Agenda at conferences and workshops

• Data from over 40,000 comments reviewed by goal leaders and Steering Committee

• Eight goals are re-drafted based on reviews by professionals, parents, and consumers

• National Agenda established• Logo and Website developed

10

National Agenda (NA) Vision

National State & Local

Strategies

1. Build a grassroots movement united behind definitive national goals

2. Establish national, regional, state, and local NA to provide mechanism of collaboration

3. Advocate for a communication and language-driven educational delivery system whereby every deaf and hard of hearing child will be provided with a quality, literacy-focused, language-rich education.

11

National Agenda Goals Overview

• Each National Agenda Goal includes:– Goal Statement– Background– Proposed Goals

• Rationale

12

The National Agenda proposes the following goals for re-making the educational delivery system for deaf and hard of hearing children and thereby freeing them to learn.

National Agenda Goals Overview

13

Statement of Principles

• A new educational, communication-driven paradigm is required if deaf/hh children are to be served effectively. What would be common for all these children under this new paradigm would be an effective, communication-driven system that meets the needs of all deaf and hard of hearing children, regardless of their communication mode or system or placement requirements"

14

Goal 1: Early Identification and Intervention

The development of communication, language, social, and cognitive skills at the earliest possible age is fundamental to subsequent educational growth for deaf and hard of hearing students.

15

Goal 2: Language and Communication Access

All children who are deaf and hard of hearing deserve a quality communication-driven program that provides education together with a critical mass of communication, age, and cognitive peers, as well as language-proficient teachers and staff who communicate directly in the child’s language.

16

Goal 3: Collaborative Partnerships

Partnerships which will influence education policies and practices to promote quality education for students who are deaf and hard of hearing must be explored.

17

Goal 4: Accountability, High Stakes Testing, and Standards-Based Environments

Instruction for students who are deaf and hard of hearing must be data-driven and must focus on multiple measures of student performance.

18

Goal 5: Placement, Programs, and Services

The continuum of placement options must be made available to all students who are deaf and hard of hearing, with the recognition that natural and least restrictive environments are intricately tied to communication and language.

19

Goal 6: Technology

Accommodations, assistive and adaptive technologies, and emerging technologies must be maximized to improve learning for students who are deaf and hard of hearing.

20

Goal 7: Professional Standards and Personnel Preparation

New collaborations and initiatives among practitioners and training programs must address the serious shortage of qualified teachers and administrators.

21

Goal 8: Research

Federal and state dollars should be spent on effective, research-based programs and practices.

22

States’ Efforts

• State Reform– Georgia– Kansas– Colorado – New Mexico– California– Arkansas– Pennsylvania – Texas– Bill of Rights

A Blueprint For Closing The Gap

Developing a Statewide System of ServiceImprovements for Students who are

Deaf and Hard of Hearing

The Report of The Colorado Deaf Education Reform Task Force

23

Examples of Spin-off Projects

• Join Together Technology Grant• Responses to No Child Left Behind• Responses to IDEA Re-authorization• IEP Documentation of Special Factors

considerations for Communication and Language

• Website Development• Discussions of Quality Indicators for Programs

that serve children who are deaf and hard of hearing

24

Uses of the National Agenda

• Vehicle to garner political support for change• State planning• Support for parents• Organizer for communications

– e.g., newsletters to parents, position papers

• A focus on what unites us• Organizer for conferences• Organizer for personnel preparation

25

Benefits

• Encourages partnerships across the country, within the state, within the LEA, within the special schools and local programs.

• Facilitates parents, professionals and consumers in forming partnerships

• Enhances communications among professionals • Empowers professionals and parents to make

change (when state or government supports are not available)

• Leadership opportunities on national, state and local levels

26

Challenges

• Editing the work of multiple authors• Decisions about Publications• Funding• Data Collection• States and organizations need technical

support

27

Affirmation of Beliefs

Children and youths who are deaf and hard of hearing will receive an appropriate education in their most appropriate learning environment when…

28

Affirmation of Beliefs

– there is the earliest possible exposure to language

and communication– parents are partners– there are sufficient trained personnel– there are programs to ensure the development of

age-appropriate communication, language and literacy

– assessments are valid for the population– there is an array of placement options– texts and instructional materials and technology are

available at the same time as for hearing peers– there is full access in communication driven

placements

29

Conclusion

• When education services are not what you want them to be:– Believe you can make change– Believe others want to join you in making change– Believe we are stronger united by our common

interests and,– Believe you will arrive at your destination, even if

you don’t have the entire road map