special education law · the individuals with disabilities education act (idea) was passed in the...

SECTION I

The Law

In: Roeser RJ, Downs MP, Auditory Disorders in School Children, 4th Edition. New York, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2004. pp. 9-24If you would like to use this material in your course, please contact David Price at [email protected]

9

2Special Education Law: A New IDEA for Students

Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

LEEANNE SEAVER AND JANET DESGEORGES

A deaf or hard of hearing child is, to some degree, without hearing. And yet theterm “disabled” may be a misnomer. That same child is fully capable ofdeveloping language—spoken or manual—and becoming a complete person. Acommunication difference is not the same as a communication disability.

—Lawrence Siegel, J.D.

Deafness is a sensory difference. It only becomes a “disability” when theeducational system fails the child and family.

—Christine Yoshinaga-Itano, Ph.D.

A child who is deaf or hard of hearing pre-sents a paradoxical challenge to the Ameri-can educational system. On the one hand,the child has a disability, clinically speaking.On the other hand, the child is completelyable to accomplish the goals of education,while accessing communication differentlythan hearing students. In an environment ofequal communication access, the concept ofdisability simply may not apply to studentswho are deaf and hard of hearing.

However, our American educational sys-tem is founded on disability as a qualifyingcondition. It is a deficits-based model pro-grammed to react when the student di-gresses or fails in a way that can be trackedunquestionably to his or her “disabling”condition (U.S. Department of Education,2002). Once this deficit has been established,the system goes about trying to accommo-date for it through the mandate of specialeducation. Statistically speaking, that sys-tem has failed to serve the unique needs ofstudents who are deaf or hard of hearing.According to nationally standardized test(SAT) results, the deaf or hard of hearing

student population graduates with an aver-age grade-equivalent performance of 3.9 forreading comprehension, 5.0 for math prob-lem solving, 4.5 for language, and 6.0 forspelling (Bloomquist Traxler, 2000).

Perpetuating Disability

Students who are able to overcome the nega-tive impacts of their disability within a sys-tem that perpetuates failure may find them-selves rewarded for their grade-appropriateacademic outcomes by being booted off thespecial education caseload as no longer eli-gible. Ironically, these students may have toregress or fail to earn back the services thatsupported their achievement, and the cyclecontinues in its absurdity.

Nowhere is this dysfunction more appar-ent than in the case of babies whose deafnessor hearing loss was identified at birth. Withthe advent of early identification and effec-tive intervention, significant language delaysand related problems associated with lateidentification of hearing loss have been vir-tually eliminated. The children who have


10 SECTION I ■ THE LAW

benefited from good early intervention ar-rive at the threshold of public education,usually at age 3, showing no deficits due tohearing loss. Their language and develop-ment is age-appropriate (Yoshinaga-Itano,Coulter, & Thomson, 2000). These are thevery children who may be turned away fromthe doors of special education—and the sup-ports that they need to maintain their accom-plishment—because their early success dis-qualifies them from eligibility for services.Based on the special education eligibility cri-teria in many states, these children will needto regress before the educational system willconsider them qualified for support.

Starting from the Beginning

The Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA) was passed in the mid-1970s(originally called the Educating All Handi-capped Children Act) mandating programsof special education (i.e., specially designedinstruction for students with disabilities) inpublic schools. According to IDEA, the pur-pose of special education was, and is, to “en-sure that all children with disabilities haveavailable to them a free and appropriatepublic education that emphasizes special ed-ucation and related services designed tomeet their unique needs and prepare themfor employment and independent living.”Students with special needs were eligiblestarting at age 3 through high school gradu-ation under Part B of the law. (Part C ofIDEA, which came into law in the late 1980s,covers special needs entitlements for thebirth to age 3 population, also known asEarly Intervention.)

Eligibility requirements as defined byIDEA essentially dictated that the student (1)had to have a disability, and (2) had to needspecialized instruction. The need for special-ized instruction was directly related to thestudent’s deficits resulting from his or herdisability. The determination of what thatspecialized instruction should look like wasto be made by special education teachers,the student’s parents or guardians, and oth-ers who would be working directly with the

student (e.g., speech-language pathologists,occupational therapists, parents, psycholo-gists, interpreters, general educators, coun-selors, and other applicable representatives).This group would function as a team to cre-ate a document called the Individual Educa-tion Program (IEP), which sets forth the aca-demic goals and objectives for students,based on their unique, individual needs.

Time for Change

Surely the earlier-mentioned success-equals-failure dynamic was never the intention ofspecial education law. Although this short-sighted treatment (failure-perpetuation isonly one of many examples) of deaf or hardof hearing students still operates at somelevel in all school districts across the nation,some important changes to IDEA have beenincorporated into law. The act now requiresIEP teams to address “special considera-tions” in order to meet the unique communi-cation needs of students who are deaf orhard of hearing. Although we still have along way to go, “special considerations” is agroundbreaking achievement for studentswho are deaf or hard of hearing. We have in-deed come a long way already.

IDEA’s Impact

IDEA enabled many students who were deafor hard of hearing to attend the school intheir own area, rather than board at thestate’s residence school for the deaf, which,prior to enactment of the law, had been a tra-ditional placement for many deaf students.Beyond that, there was no obligation forpublic schools to accept students with dis-abilities who were considered to be “unedu-cable,” or too difficult to educate. Their rightto receive a “free and appropriate public ed-ucation” (FAPE) was now an IDEA entitle-ment at whatever public school they wouldnormally attend, based on where they lived.However, local education agencies (schooldistricts) often found themselves unpre-pared for the special needs of this popula-


CHAPTER 2 ■ SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW 11

tion. There was “not widespread under-standing of the educational implications ofdeafness, even among special educators”(Deaf Students Education Services PolicyGuidance Report, 1992). Further, given thelow incidence of deafness, there wasn’t al-ways a critical mass of students to justify theexistence of a program and staff with exper-tise in deafness or hearing loss. The solutionfor many school districts was to place deafstudents in special education classroomswhere other special needs (to use a termfrom those days, “retarded”) children weretaught. Academic expectations in many ofthese “self-contained” settings were homog-enized and typically set so even the lowestachiever could accomplish them. Furthercomplicated by a system that perpetuatedfailure, for deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-dents with normal cognitive abilities, thisdynamic set in motion a trend of under-achievement that has not been successfullyreversed, statistically speaking, even today.

The Inclusion Movement

The spirit and the letter of the IDEA did notsupport the practice of segregating studentswith special needs exclusively into self-con-tained classrooms, but the practice wasso common that many parents, advocacygroups, and even some philosophicallyaligned professionals protested vehemently.The call for “inclusion” of disabled studentsinto general education classrooms was apowerful movement that swept the nationin the 1990s and was founded on the IDEAprovision that “to the maximum extentappropriate, children with disabilities . . .are educated with children who are non-disabled . . . as close as possible to the child’shome . . . in the school that he or she wouldattend if non-disabled” (IDEA Sec. 300.552(b) (3) & (c)). This placement is consideredthe “least restrictive environment” (LRE) forstudents with special needs, but in fact, formany students who were deaf or hard ofhearing, it created an environment of ex-treme isolation with no direct communica-tion access to teachers or peers.

The Communication Conundrum

In 1992, the U.S. Department of Education’sOffice of Special Education Programs(OSEP) published the Deaf Students Educa-tion Services Policy Guidance Report in re-sponse to an earlier report by the now de-funct Commission on Education of the Deaf.This program was concerned over the pro-vision of FAPE for students who were deafwho had “significant obstacles to overcomein order to have access to FAPE, particularlywith regard to communication access”(OSEP, 1992, p. 49274). The Deaf StudentsPolicy Guidance Report intended to give di-rection to state and local education agencieson FAPE for students who were deaf orhard of hearing. It called for the considera-tion of certain factors in the development ofan IEP for any student who was deaf, in-cluding:

1. Communication needs and the child’sand family’s preferred mode of com-munication

2. Linguistic needs3. Severity of hearing loss and potential

for using residual hearing4. Academic level5. Social, emotional, and cultural needs,

including opportunities for peer inter-actions and communication

The Deaf Students Policy Guidance Reportadditionally recommended that children’sneeds be identified by professionals who areknowledgeable about the specific factorspresented by the “nature and severity” oftheir deafness relative to the content andmethod of delivery of the curriculum. Thisreference pointed to the necessity of havingeducators who have expertise in deafnessdirectly involved in the educational plan-ning for students who are deaf or hard ofhearing—a responsibility that was and isoften left to professionals with no back-ground in deafness or hearing loss.

A main thrust of the Deaf Students PolicyGuidance report was that meeting theunique communication and related needs ofa deaf student was fundamental to that indi-



vidual’s free and appropriate public educa-tion. It stated that:

Any setting, including a regular class-room, that prevents a child who is deaffrom receiving an appropriate educationthat meets his or her needs, includingcommunication needs, is not the LRE forthat child. Placement decisions must bebased on the child’s IEP. Thus the con-sideration of LRE as a part of the place-ment decision must always be in thecontext of LRE in which appropriateservices can be provided. Any settingwhich does not meet the communicationand related needs of a child who is deaf,and therefore does not allow for the pro-vision of FAPE, cannot be considered theLRE for that child. The provision ofFAPE is paramount, and the individualplacement determination about LRE isto be considered within the context ofFAPE. (p. 49274)

The report contended that some publicagencies had “misapplied the LRE provisionby presuming that placements in or closer tothe regular classroom are required for chil-dren who are deaf” without considering thecommunication needs of the student. Thatsaid, the report also acknowledged that gen-eral education settings are appropriate andadaptable to meet the unique needs of par-ticular deaf students, and that a continuumof placement options must be maintained,and that all placement decisions must bebased on the IEP, with an emphasis on indi-vidual needs.

Incorporating New Policies

The 1992 Deaf Students Policy Guidance re-port evolved through the Deaf EducationInitiative Project, composed of a task force ofprofessionals from all arenas in deaf educa-tion, advocacy, and the deaf community.Under the direction of Dr. Robert Davila,former assistant secretary of education forthe Office of Special Education and Rehabili-tative Services, the Deaf and Hard of Hear-ing Students Educational Service Guidelineswere published in 1994 for the National As-sociation of State Directors of Education(NASDE) (Baker-Hawkins & Easterbrooks,

1994). Exhaustive, comprehensive, and com-munication-focused, this document becamethe definitive resource and reference on deafeducation, from audiology to American SignLanguage (ASL), to deaf cultural concepts tocued speech. It was distributed nationally,and remains a powerful source of still-prac-tical, meaningful information specific to thispopulation.

From Policies to Mandates

When IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, forthe first time it included specific languagethat acknowledged the need for special con-siderations in the case of students who weredeaf or hard of hearing (IDEA Sec. 300–346(a) (2) (iv–v)). This was the result of activelobbying based on the Policy Guidelines(OSEP, 1992), and from that document camethese new requirements. The 1997 reautho-rization of the IDEA stated that:

Sec.300.346 Development, review andrevision of IEP.(a)(2) Consideration of special factors.The IEP team shall also . . .(iv) Consider the communication needsof the child, and in the case of the childwho is deaf or hard of hearing, considerthe child’s language and communica-tion needs, opportunities for direct com-munications with peers and professionalpersonnel in the child’s language andcommunication mode, academic level,and full range of needs, including op-portunities for direct instruction in thechild’s language and communicationmode; and(v) Consider whether the child requiresassistive technology devices and ser-vices.

The challenge that this new languageposes to parents, schools, and IEP teams is toapply its intention productively and practi-cally to the day-to-day experience of deaf orhard of hearing students in school. Howdoes the IEP team move past the theoreticalconsideration of these special factors andinto a plan of action? This “consideration ofspecial factors” can be broken into five maincomponents:

1. Language and communication needs



2. Opportunities for direct communica-tion with peers and professionals

3. Academic level4. Full range of needs5. Direct instruction in the student’s com-

munication mode or language

In addition to these five components, the useof assistive technology and services must alsobe addressed (IDEA Sec. 300.346 (a) (2) (v)).

1. Language and Communication Needs

Communication is at the heart of the matterwhen developing an individualized educa-tion program for a child who is deaf or hard ofhearing. The team (including parents) must befully aware of how the student is accessingcommunication in the environment and howthat access may by necessity change. It maylook different for the student with a cochlearimplant than it does for the student usingASL. It may look different in a small class-room than during an assembly in the audito-rium. It will look different when hearing aidsor cochlear implants are removed to play cer-tain sports. The point is that it does and willchange or need adaptations, and the IEP teamneeds to consider that in the context of the stu-dent’s communication mode or language.This is a different approach than the historicalpractice of placing a priority on the “method”of communication, rather than on the needs ofchildren to fully access the communication intheir world. The “child-centered” approach isessential to creating educational program-ming that is at the core driven by the right toaccess communication.

Possible issues considered based on theindividual child include:

• Is there just one communication mode?More than one? Combinations of meth-ods?

• How do the parents communicate withthe child?

• How does the child communicate out-side of school or with friends?

• How does the student access inferentiallearning?

• How have we objectively measured thisstudent’s ability to access information in

his or her preferred mode of communi-cation?

• How does this student access informa-tion in noise?

• How does this student access informa-tion in a room with poor acoustics?

• What type of technology does this stu-dent use? Hearing aid? FM system?cochlear implant? teletypewriter (TTY)?note-taking systems? real time caption-ing?

• What is the back-up plan when commu-nication breaks down?

• Is the student’s skill level in the chosenmode(s) of communication adequate forgrade-level achievement?

• How can we assess his or her sign lan-guage or oral skill level?

• What kind of interpreter does this stu-dent need? Oral? ASL? Signed ExactEnglish (SEE)? other?

• How can we assess functional hearing(beyond the audiogram)?

• How are tests administered in the class-room? Orally? In writing?

• Have we taken into consideration the“fatigue factor”?

Depending on the discussion, the IEPteam may need to develop an action planthat addresses these special considerationsbased on the needs and modes of the indi-vidual student. It could include:

• Use of an educational sign language in-terpreter or teacher fluent with signingduring instruction

• Parent training in sign language, audi-tory training, or both

• Acoustical adaptations to the environ-ment

• Functional hearing test (link to www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/ed/func_listening_eval.html)

• Classroom captioning• Buddy system• Use of FM system, personal or sound

field system, hearing aids• Adding sign or spoken language goals

and objectives for the student• Closed captioning on all television sets;

captions for all movies to be shown



• Announcements given over the publicaddress system also delivered or postedin writing

• Testing accommodations (e.g., extra time,no oral tests)

• Down time/break time

• Specialized seating arrangements• Enhanced speech reading capabilities (no

hands or projection equipment in front ofthe face, good lighting on the face, well-trimmed facial hair, no gum chewing)

• Other applicable ideas

Case Study 2–1: Unique Communication Needs C.H. is 10 years old and has amild/moderate hearing loss. She speaks well and is a good user of amplification. She isat her neighborhood school and is the only student with a hearing loss. People oftenremark that they would never know she has a hearing loss, her speech is “so good.”But C.H. has had a hard time making friends and seems to be lagging behind in sci-ence. She was also reprimanded recently during PE for not following the rules. Shesometimes fails to turn in homework assignments.

C.H. primarily uses her auditory ability to access information. However, she also lip-reads when she misses something. Unfortunately, her science teacher has a beardand tends to mumble. At lunchtime in the cafeteria, the acoustics are so poor that shemisses out on a lot of the conversation that is going on around her at the table with herclassmates. They wonder sometimes why she ignores them. Although she has an FMsystem that helps tremendously in noisy situations, the PE teacher has refused to wearit because she is afraid that it could be damaged in class, and besides, “PE is so phys-ical and visual” she is sure that C.H. will just “catch on” to what’s going on in class. Theteacher announces the homework assignments at the end of the day but rarely writesthe assignments down on the chalkboard.

IEP Action Plan: The IEP team must ensure that every teacher who comes in contactwith Cheryl throughout the day uses and understands the need for the FM system. The“specials” teachers (PE, art, music, science labs, etc.) need to wear the FM system toreduce the impact of background noise. They need to understand that they must enun-ciate clearly, face the student, and use as many visuals, overheads, and supplementalwritten materials as possible to reinforce the “auditory input.”

C.H. needs an opportunity to connect with other kids in a one-on-one environment.The kids should be shown how to get her attention before they talk to her (i.e., facingtoward her, tapping on the shoulder). During class time when kids are in small group,they can pass the FM around so that the students get used to using the microphone.They can try the FM during lunchtime in the cafeteria. The teacher should write thehomework assignment on the board every day and then check to make sure C.H. haswritten it down correctly.

2. Opportunities for DirectCommunication with Peers andProfessional Personnel

For many students who are deaf and hard ofhearing, communication challenges can cre-ate isolation and loneliness—even in a roomfull of kids. The opportunity to communi-cate with and have meaningful relationships

with other peers—be they hearing, deaf, orhard of hearing—must be considered in thedevelopment of the IEP. Morever, communi-cating directly with professional personnel,including teachers and interpreters, must begiven special consideration.

For students who are placed at a center-based program or at the state school for thedeaf, there may be natural opportunities for



the student to directly connect with otherstudents and professionals who use the samemode of communication. For students whoare in a mainstream setting, there should be adiscussion about how to effectively facilitatepeer and professional interaction, regardlessof the mode of communication used by thestudent (signed or spoken). Peers of likecommunication mode must be defined on acase-by-case basis. For example, a deaf childwith a cochlear implant to develop speakingand listening skills may benefit from directcommunication with typically oral commu-nicating kids, either hearing or deaf. A nativeuser of ASL must have opportunities to com-municate with peers and professionals inthat language. This is particularly importantfor young children who do not understandhow to appropriately use an interpreter inthe classroom and who may misunderstandthe role of interpreter versus teacher.

Possible issues that should be consideredbased on the individual child include:

• Is the student in a mainstream or center-based/state school setting?

• Is the student in a rural or urban setting?• Who are the student’s current peers?

(hearing kids? deaf or hard of hearingoral children? cueing children? deaf orhard of hearing signing children?)

• Does the student have access to peers inthe same grade or age range?

• Do opportunities within the school dis-trict/region or state exist?

• Is there a deaf community in the stu-dent’s geographical location?

• Does the student have access to the In-ternet to create friendships?

• Is there a deaf or hard of hearing adultrole model program in the state?

• What are the parent’s values about thechild’s participation in deaf or hard ofhearing peer group activities?

• What are the student’s values aroundbeing included with other deaf or hardof hearing students?

• If the student’s peers include hearingkids, do those hearing peers know andunderstand sign language? or if oral,how to communicate effectively?

• How proficient is the professional(s) inthe child’s communication mode or lan-guage? Who is qualified to evaluate staffproficiency and/or qualifications?

• Are the qualifications of the staff servingthe student linked to the child’s individ-ual needs (i.e., cochlear implant exper-tise, experience with student’s age/grade level, etc.)?

Depending on the discussion, the IEP teammay want to develop specific goals based onthe consideration given to direct communi-cation with peers and professionals and onthe needs/modes of the individual student.These goals could be directly linked to aca-demic achievement, or listed under “RelatedServices.” Some examples include:

• Becoming an online (e-pen) pal with an-other student who’s deaf or hard ofhearing

• Developing special curricula that explorethe contributions to society by individu-als who are deaf or hard of hearing

• Identifying a section in the school li-brary with resources on deaf issues,books written by deaf or hard of hearingauthors, fiction that has deaf or hard ofhearing heroines, and the like

• Offering sign language classes for thestudent body at the school

• Connecting to a state role model pro-gram, if available

• Networking mainstreamed students tocenter-based or state deaf residenceschools for opportunities to gather so-cially

• Hooking up with local deaf communityorganizations (National Association ofthe Deaf, Self Help for Hard of Hearing)

• Adding information and projects aboutdeafness (e.g., science fair projects thathave to do with deafness, films aboutHelen Keller and others) to the generaleducation curriculum

• Creating district/regional opportunitiesfor deaf or hard of hearing kids to be to-gether (e.g., track and field day, baseballcamp, leadership trip to Washington,D.C., etc.)



Case Study 2–2: Direct Communication J.S. is a sophomore in high school in arural community. He is one of six students in his school district who is deaf or hard ofhearing. However, he is the only one at the high school level. J.S. uses sign languageprimarily, and has an interpreter for his classes. His teacher doesn’t call on him in classvery often because she has trouble understanding his “deaf speech” and finds it dis-tracting and disruptive to have an interpreter voice J.S.’s answers for him. J.S. doesn’traise his hand often because he’s self-conscious about his speech intelligibility, andbelieves his teacher doesn’t call on him because she doesn’t like him or think he’ssmart enough to answer a question.

J.S. loves computers and baseball, but he’s ambivalent about joining the baseballteam. His interpreter leaves school promptly after the last class every day, so J.S. isworried that if he tries out for the baseball team, he won’t be able to understand whatthe coach is saying. He hates his foreign language class and is having a hard time get-ting a C. He has two very close friends, both of whom are hearing. His parents areafraid if he hangs out with other deaf people, he might not learn to make it in the “hear-ing world.” J.S. wishes he knew more deaf or hard of hearing kids with whom he couldcommunicate less self-consciously.

J.S. lives in a rural community, but there is a small but active deaf community in thetown 15 miles from where he lives. J.S.’s family has never had the opportunity to meetthem. J.S. is a good lip-reader, but he really likes to just hang out with a couple offriends because when the group gets too big, the conversation moves too fast. Hisfriends are very willing to learn sign language, but there aren’t any classes available intheir area.

IEP Action Plan: The IEP team, including J.S.’s parents, needs to include J.S. at themeeting and have a conversation about his peers. Does he want to meet other deaf orhard of hearing students? Are there really no other high school students within 50miles of where J.S. lives who are deaf or hard of hearing? In fact, the state school forthe deaf has an e-mail Listserv for all the students there. J.S. can access that on hiscomputer at home to begin a relationship with other deaf or hard of hearing high schoolstudents.There is a leadership camp for high schoolers that are deaf or hard of hearingin the summer that Joe can attend. The school librarian can get a catalog from Gal-laudet University with books that are available about contributions by deaf or hard ofhearing adults. The team must understand that the law provides for access to school-sponsored activities, so J.S. can go out for the baseball team knowing that an inter-preter must be provided. J.S. will have an opportunity to make new friends by being onthe team. The local college has an ASL class that J.S. can take to fulfill his credit for aforeign language. His two close friends can take the class with him. Someone knows ofa 22-year-old CODA (hearing child of deaf adult) who lives just 15 miles away and canintroduce J.S. and his parents to some of the members of the deaf community in thearea.

J.S.’s general education teacher needs some sensitivity training and awareness tobe better prepared to communicate directly with him. The team writes goals into hisIEP that include an increasing number of direct communications each week betweenher and J.S. They determine what subject must be discussed routinely (e.g., daily jour-nal writing) and set specific times each week to meet one-on-one.



• Having a high school sports team fromthe state school for the deaf travel anddo a presentation/exhibition for a main-streamed students’ high school

• Creating training goals and mentoringrelationships for the mainstream staff togain proficiency, if needed, in the stu-dent’s communication mode or language

• Setting a goal for the student to commu-nicate directly with the classroom teacherwhen asking or answering a question inclass rather than defaulting to communi-cating through an interpreter

3. Academic Level

A deaf or hard of hearing student’s aca-demic level must be given special considera-tion, particularly if it is below expectationsfor standard grade-level achievement. Anydiscussion of the impact of the student’sdeafness or hearing loss on academic perfor-mance will demonstrate the interrelatednessof each “special consideration.” In the caseof the student who is below grade level aca-demically, consider the following:

• Is it due to language delays resultingfrom late identification?

• How accessible is the classroom com-munication?

• Has communication inaccessibility cre-ated learning deficits that have beencompounded year after year?

• Is the underachievement a reflection ofthe staff’s lack of proficiency in thechild’s communication mode or lan-guage?

• What does it say about how the child’seducational program is supported out-side the classroom and at home?

• How effective are the parents in theirrole as “case managers” and advocatesfor their child?

• Does the student have peers to commu-nicate with directly? Or is the studentisolated and depressed, and, if so, is aca-demic performance being affected?

• What is the student’s emotional state?Stress level?

• Is the acoustical environment causingtoo much noise interference?

• Are there other learning differences orsecondary conditions to consider?

• Is the student’s communication modeeffective in providing the best access toinstructional information?

• Does the student need assistive technol-ogy to better access communication atschool? At home?

• Is it appropriate to keep a seventh-gradedeaf or hard of hearing student with a 2-year language delay in the fifth grade?

• Is the curriculum being taught to thedeaf or hard of hearing student the sameas it is taught to hearing students? (Thisis particularly problematic for studentswho are not mainstreamed.)

The IEP Action Plan: Consideration givento academic performance level is critical. Itmotivates the relationship between IEP goalsand grade-level, standards-based benchmarksthrough the general curriculum. Those goalsmust be

• Measurable and objective; nonsubjective• Not based solely on “teacher observa-

tion”• Tied to the general curriculum of same-

aged hearing peers• Driven by communication access, based

on the student’s mode• Formulated for appropriate grade-level

achievement• Designed to “place” the student in the

optimal learning environment• Remedial as necessary, without compro-

mising the student’s in-class, instruc-tional time with pull-out time

• Reflective of collaboration strategies be-tween the special education providersand the general education teachers

• Supported with best practice strategieslike preteach, teach, and reteach methods

Academic level is also an important con-sideration relative to program placement ofthe student. Is the child best served at thestate’s residence school for the deaf? Is a cen-ter-based program in the school district the



setting most appropriate for the child’sneeds? Or will the team decide that the stu-dent can be placed in the neighborhoodschool? What are the parent’s goals for thechild relative to placement? Placement of thestudent raises many challenging issues inthe case of students who are deaf or hard ofhearing, and the student’s personality andnatural inclinations must be a priority consid-eration. Placement is further discussed laterin this chapter under Least Restrictive Envi-ronment versus Language Rich Environment.

4. Full Range of Needs

All students experience life at school bothacademically and socially. Many deaf or hardof hearing students communicate differentlythan hearing kids or teachers, and oftenthose differences create communication bar-riers that stymie fluid, fluent exchange. Wework diligently through IEPs to ensure com-munication access to academic information,but what about social information?

Often deaf or hard of hearing kids missout on important news conveyed throughinferential, or passive, learning—the thingswe pick up by simply overhearing a conver-sation, announcement, or exchange that maynot have been intentionally directed at us.Whether that exchange was between Momand Dad discussing a new job offer, a teacherscolding a student for disrespectful behav-ior, or classmates who are all planning towear red and white to the football game onFriday, there’s a lot to be learned by know-ing what’s being said around us. Passivelearning is a normal and requisite process inwhich humans learn acceptable social be-havior.

The deaf or hard of hearing child whodoesn’t hear his or her peers changing therules to the game they’re playing at recess isout of step and may be seen as misbehavingfor not following the rules. Someone tells ateacher. The teacher notes that this is thefourth complaint this month, and this mustbe communicated to the principal. The childis not perceived as a team player, or may beseen as mentally impaired, especially if thespeaking voice sounds different or if the

child uses a lot of hand gestures. All toooften the result is avoidance by peers. Thechild’s self-confidence and motivation toattend school plummet. Any sense or ex-pression of injustice is misunderstood anddismissed by others, and the principal per-ceives the child as a behavior problem.

Most gaps in the social learning experi-ence for many students who are deaf or hardof hearing can be directly traced to a lack ofexposure to inferential knowledge and pas-sive learning. To consider the deaf or hard ofhearing student’s full range of needs is to en-sure that there are strategies to ensure op-portunities for social learning and self-esteem building. Beyond a strictly academicagenda, the IEP team’s considerationsshould include but are not limited to the fol-lowing:

• Does the student have friends at school?• Is the student involved in extracurricu-

lar activities?• Is there good communication access at

school-sponsored extracurricular activi-ties?

• How can we make sure that the studentknows not only what the teacher is say-ing but also what questions the otherstudents are asking?

• Is the child benefiting adequately fromthe communication mode or languagehe or she is using?

• Is the child showing signs of emotionalstress or depression?

• Is the home life healthy and supportive?• Is the student experiencing the same re-

wards and consequences of his or heractions as everyone else?

• Can a class project be created that willhighlight the student’s abilities?

• Can the student council reserve a seatfor a student who is deaf or hard ofhearing?

Full range of needs encompasses academicand social needs, and all the things related tosupporting them that sometimes are over-looked in the typical IEP meeting:

• Communication access in art, music,physical education class, athletics (sports



teams), hallways, playground, cafeteria,school office

• Counseling and health services• Special interest groups or after school

clubs• Telephone, TTY access at school• School assemblies• Field trips• Transportation staff• Janitorial, school cafeteria staff

Depending on the discussion, the IEP ac-tion plan could call for the following:

• Words of music written down for choir• Use of visual supplements• Interpreters for field trips• Bus drivers who sign• Captioning on all movies• TTY• Blinking light for alarms/bells• Carpeting in hallways• Buddy system for the playground• FM system hooked up to sound systems

during assemblies• Outdoor education trip, interpreter? FM

system?

• Video monitors with schoolwide newsand announcements captioned or inter-preted “on air” and/or posted announce-ments

• Pager systems• Take home FM system to support the

IEP agenda at home

5. Direct Instruction in the Student’sCommunication Mode or Language

The values inherent in IDEA’s directivesabout a deaf or hard of hearing student’s fullrange of needs are also represented in its re-quirement to consider opportunities for di-rect instruction in the child’s language andcommunication mode. For the same reasonsthat we recognize the value of direct com-munication with peers and professionals(see no. 2 of this section), we must also ac-knowledge the value of direct instruction.

Direct instruction means that a deaf childusing ASL, for example, is taught by his orher teacher directly in ASL. There is no inter-vention from an interpreter or paraprofes-sional. When a child receives or expresses

Case Study 2–3: Direct Instruction J.M. is 4 years old and is in a center-basedpreschool program for children with special needs. She has a severe/ profound hearingloss and gets good benefit from wearing two hearing aids. There are three other chil-dren with different degrees of hearing loss, and several children in the class with other“special needs,” including two children who have autism. The program philosophy is tooffer the SEE signing system.

Consider the opportunities for direct instruction in J.M.’s language and communica-tion mode. Her parents are deaf, and she is at age-level language skills in ASL. J.M. isable to have some auditory function as well. Her parents are concerned that she begiven the opportunity to use her native language, maintaining her family’s value of deafculture and community. J.M. has begun to learn to read at a very young age.

IEP Action Plan: What can the IEP team do to create opportunities for J.M. for directinstruction in her primary mode of communication? Because the center program usesSEE sign language, but J.M.’s sign system is ASL, the team must accommodate herlanguage. In a neighboring school district, a charter school offers teachers who useASL in direct instruction to students. J.M.’s team believes that would be the best place-ment for her, given that they cannot accommodate ASL within their own program. J.M.will have an opportunity to be with other children who use ASL. With transportation pro-vided by her home school district, J.M. begins attending the ASL charter school, andher parents become an important resource for the deaf culture and community pro-gram there.



communication directly with a teacher inhis or her own communication mode ormethod, the relationship between them ismore natural, personalized, and productive.Both teacher and student invest more ofthemselves in the teaching/learning dy-namic and its outcome. Both benefit from agreater understanding of each other’s styleand expectations. And there is no chancethat the teaching is compromised by the in-tervention of an interpreter who may substi-tute vocabulary, or lack knowledge of thesubject and unintentionally misrepresent itto the student. Direct communication hasthe highest potential for mutual comprehen-sion and fewer misunderstandings, so itsimportance in a teacher/student interactioncannot be underestimated.

Least Restrictive Environment versusLanguage Rich Environment

The considerations for both full range ofneeds and direction instruction in the child’smode or language are significantly impactedby the legal issue of LRE from literal andtheoretical perspectives.

IDEA requirements for LRE placementstart with the assumption that the studentshould attend the school that he or shewould normally attend if nondisabled(IDEA Sec. 300.550–551), with the greatestdegree of exposure to “typical” peers. Butcase law expands the understanding of LREas a physical place to LRE as a concept. Inthis context, LRE is a setting in which stu-dents will experience the LRE based on theirindividual needs. This issue is critical to deafor hard of hearing students.

When both sections of the law—LRE andspecial consideration of students who aredeaf or hard of hearing—are taken into ac-count, the IEP team needs to be very clearabout which setting will provide the mostconducive atmosphere to communicationaccess. Depending on the political climatewhere you live, the push for a “full inclu-sion” model may be strong or weak. In otherwords, if one part of the law is given moreweight than another (LRE over special con-

siderations for deaf or hard of hearing), theplacement issue of the student may not be inhis or her individual best interests. IDEASec. 300.552(a) states that the placementdecision is made by a group of persons, in-cluding the parents and other personsknowledgeable about the child, along withevaluation data and the placement options.Possible issues considered based on the indi-vidual needs of the student could include:

• What sort of placement would be ideal?• Does the school district have a center-

based program for deaf or hard of hear-ing students? What modes of communi-cation does the center-based programaccommodate?

• Where is the state school for the deaf?What is the school’s philosophy? Is it inwriting?

• What kind of services would need to beimplemented for the student to attend a“home/neighborhood” school? Whatkind of itinerant services are available?

• What kinds of programs are available inneighboring school districts?

• How much opportunity will there be forthe student to communicate directlywith peers and professionals in his orher communication mode or language?

Depending on the discussion, the IEP ac-tion plan based on the needs/modes of com-munication of the individual student couldinclude:

• Student placement outside the schooldistrict into another program

• Revision or creation of a new programwithin the district

• Family relocation to another town (thishappens!)

• Open enrollment• Itinerant services in home/neighbor-

hood school• Center-based program that fits the com-

munication needs of the student• Continuum of alternative placements

Sec. 300.551 (regular classes, specialclasses, special schools, home instruc-tion, and instruction in hospitals and in-stitutions)



• State school for the deaf• Information on other programs in the

nation

Assistive Technology Devices and Services

In addition to the communication considera-tions for the student who is deaf or hard of

hearing under the special considerationssection of the law, there is an additionalcomponent regarding the student’s need forassistive technology devices and services. Asdefined by law:

(1) the term “assistive technology de-vice” means any item, piece of equip-ment, or product system, whether ac-quired commercially off the shelf,modified, or customized, that is used to

Case Study 2–4: Least Restrictive Environment L.R. is 7 years old and received acochlear implant 3 years ago. She lives with her family in the suburbs of a fairly large city.She has been placed in her school district’s center-based program that has a total com-munication (TC) model (personnel both sign and speak during the academic day). In thepast, L.R.’s family used some sign language with her, but her oral skills have progressedto a point where she rarely uses sign language for expressive or receptive input. Her par-ents feel very strongly that L.R. needs strong spoken language models during her day.She has very strong auditory skills and is not fluent in sign language.The teachers at theTC program have not had experience with children who use cochlear implants, and theystrongly believe all children should use sign language. L.R. loves math and science andlearns best with a hands-on approach. She has made friends at her center-based pro-gram but doesn’t have any friends in her own neighborhood.

L.R. was placed appropriately in the center-based program at the age of 4, but now atthe age of 7 her needs have changed.The school district is not large enough to provide adistinct “oral” program option, so they have tried to meet the needs of all deaf or hard ofhearing kids in one center-based program. There are very few kids out in the “main-stream” in that district. The speech therapist in the TC program has never worked with achild with a cochlear implant and has decided to “treat her like a child with a hearing aid.”L.R.’s parents feel she’s ready to be moved back to her neighborhood school and be fullymainstreamed with intinerant support from an educator who has training in deaf educa-tion and cochlear implant habilitation. The special education director recently learnedthat there is a program in the neighboring district that serves four children with cochlearimplants and has a national grant to model support for students with cochlear implants.

IEP Action Plan: The team reviews L.R.’s IEP and agrees that their program may nolonger be the best placement for her. Her parents believe that the center-based program isplacing restrictions on her potential with the cochlear implant. L.R.’s mode of communica-tion has changed over the last few years, and so her needs have changed too. The teamagrees with the parents that L.R. should return to her neighborhood school for exposure tolistening and speaking peers and staff. But the professionals working with L.R. need tohave some skills, expertise, and experience working with kids who have cochlear im-plants. Because their school personnel have no expertise with cochlear implants, the spe-cial education director from L.R.’s school district contacts the neighboring district’scochlear implant staff. They begin to collaborate on a plan that creates ongoing mentor-training and in-service for the itinerant teacher who will be serving L.R. at her homeschool. Their collaboration includes work with L.R.’s new general classroom teacher whomust understand and implement accommodations appropriate for this new student with acochlear implant.



increase, maintain, or improve func-tional capabilities of a child with a dis-ability. (2) the term “assistive technologyservice” means any service that directlyassists a child with a disability in the se-lection, acquisition, or use of an assistivetechnology device. Such term includes;(A) the evaluation of the needs of suchchild, including a functional evaluationof the child in the child’s customary en-vironment; (B) purchasing, leasing, orotherwise providing the acquisition ofassistive technology devises by suchchild; (C) selecting, designing, fitting,customizing, adapting, applying, main-taining, repairing, or replacing of assis-tive technology devises; (D) coordinatingand using other therapies, interventions,or services with assistive technology de-vices, such as those associated with exist-ing education and rehabilitation plansand programs; (E) training or technicalassistance for such child, or, where ap-propriate, the family of such child; and(F) training or technical assistance forprofessionals (including individuals pro-viding education and rehabilitation ser-vices), employers, or other individualswho provide services to, employ, or areotherwise substantially involved in themajor life functions of such child. (20U.S.C. 1401)

In today’s world, now more than ever,technology allows people with disabilities tobe more independent. As technology has ad-vanced for all of society, so has the technol-ogy that specifically benefits students whoare deaf and hard of hearing. For many stu-dents, the use of assistive technology de-vices and services is a vital element forachieving FAPE.

Assistive Technology Devices

Hearing aids, personal and classroom soundfield FM systems, TTYs, closed-captionedTV sets, alerting devices (flashing alarms)and other assistive technology, and acousti-cal modifications must be considered by theIEP team. It should be noted that the audiol-ogist along with the IEP team should deter-mine which type of assistive listening de-vice, if any, is most appropriate to meet theeducational needs of the individual student.Parents can provide input into the decision

but cannot demand a specific brand or typeof equipment. However, there’s a principlein law which basically recognizes that thereis diversity in what communication accom-modation will work best for each individual.Therefore, when an individual (in this casethe family) requests a particular assistivetechnology device or service, a public entity“must honor the choice, unless it can dem-onstrate that another equally effectivemeans of communication is available, or thatuse of the means chosen would result in afundamental alteration in the service, pro-gram . . . ” (Americans with Disabilities Act,28 CSR Sec. 35.160 (B) (2))

Case Study 2–5: Assistive Technol-ogy, Devices, and Services V.S. is astudent with mild/moderate hearingloss. Her school is next to a busy high-way. The heating system is over 20years old and makes a lot of noise. Afunctional listening evaluation hasshown that the impact of backgroundnoise reduces V.S.’s speech perceptionby over 50% when she is wearing hear-ing aids only. When an FM system isadded, speech perception is raised to84%. The audiologist takes an audi-ometer reading in the classroom show-ing the reverberation and signal-to-noise ratio is at unacceptable levels.The IEP team determines that the useof acoustical accommodations will nar-row the gap to an appropriate level inorder for V.S. to be provided with FAPE.Carpet is added to the room, as well asacoustically treated ceiling tiles.

For the student who is deaf or hardof hearing, the use of technology de-vices and the services needed to pro-vide FAPE are vital components in astudent’s IEP.

Assistive Technology Services

Beyond the “devices” themselves, servicesmust be provided to ensure the usability and



functionality of assistive technology devices.As stated above in the law, these servicesprovide the framework for the student to re-ceive meaningful benefit from such devices.Training and technical assistance to the stu-dent, school personnel, employers, and fam-ilies is provided for under this section. In theprovision of FAPE for a student the schooldistrict is required to ensure proper func-tioning of hearing aids. Section 300.303states that “each public agency shall ensurethat the hearing aids worn in school by chil-dren with hearing impairments, includingdeafness, are functioning properly” (Indi-viduals with Disabilities Act of 1997, 20U.S.C. 1412 (a)(2)).

Summary

The spirit and words of IDEA are based onvalues which ensure that all children withdisabilities have available to them a free ap-propriate public education including specialeducation and related services designed tomeet their unique needs and prepare themfor employment and independent living.Further, IDEA’s directives serve to ensurethat educators and parents have the neces-sary tools to improve educational results forchildren with disabilities by supporting sys-temic-change activities, coordinated re-search and personnel preparation, coordi-nated technical assistance, dissemination,and support (Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C – 1400(d)(1)(A)(3)).

There is no reasonable or acceptable solu-tion to educating students who are deaf andhard of hearing, except to demand high ex-pectations of a communication-based sys-tem of education. A communication-basedsystem will improve the educational experi-ence of many students with disabilities, butfor a student who is deaf or heard of hear-ing, it is imperative. It is time for parents, ed-ucators, and deaf or hard of hearing con-sumers to stand together and raise the bar ofeducational opportunity for deaf or hard ofhearing students in the educational system.We must ensure that these students have ac-cess to a quality education through appro-

priate access to communication, as sup-ported by the law to the extent that it cur-rently exists.

But laws alone will not turn the tides inthe wake of deaf and hard-of-hearing stu-dent underachievement. Higher expecta-tions for performance must be realizedthrough better teacher and parent training,more general education support, greater ac-cess to standards-based curriculum, anduniversally consistent application of bestpractices. Across the nation, there are exam-ples of greatness. Students from all walks oflife, using any and all versions of signed orspoken communication, are achieving aca-demic and social success by all standards.Whatever combination of factors contributeto that achievement, at a foundational level,full and effective access to communicationmust be given the credit. Understandingwhat constitutes quality communication isthe charge of every parent and professionalworking with deaf or hard of hearing stu-dents. Creating academic and social envi-ronments where deaf or hard of hearing kidscan experience full access to communicationis our duty. The message we send to all chil-dren who are deaf or hard of hearing mustbe that they deserve the right to understandand be understood, and to know that theirown contribution is greatly valued by schooland family.

ReferencesAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—Title II Techni-

cal Assistance Manual, II–7.1100.Bloomquist Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford Achieve-

ment Test, ninth edition: National norming and per-formance standards for deaf and hard of hearingstudents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5,337–348.

Baker-Hawkins, S., & Easterbrooks, S. (Eds.). (1994).Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: Educational ServiceGuidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Association ofState Directors of Special Education.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997(IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 (d) (1)); (IDEA Sec. 300.550(b) (1); (IDEA Sec. 300–346 (a) (2) (iv–v), 20 U.S.C –1400 (d)(1)(A)(3).

U.S. Department of Education, Commission on Excel-lence in Special Education. (2002). Report of theCommission. p. 3.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Educa-tion Programs (OSEP). (1992, October). Deaf Stu-



dents Education Services Policy Guidance Report.Fed Register, 57, 49274–49276.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Final regulationsfor the assistance to states for the Education of Chil-dren with Disabilities Program under part B on theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act. Fed Reg-ister, 66, 1474–1478.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Coulter, D., Thomson, V. (2000).The Colorado Newborn Hearing Screening Project:Effects on speech and language development forchildren with hearing loss. Journal of Perinatalogy, 20,S132–S137.


special education law · the individuals with disabilities education act (idea) was passed in the...

Documents