IDEA White Paper

2003 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act White Paper Posted March 2003

Introduction

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is the nation’s largest consumer organization protecting the rights of 28 million deaf, hard of hearing, late-deafened, and deaf-blind individuals, including approximately 50,000 children who are being served under the IDEA. The NAD has had a profound and longstanding interest in the education of deaf and hard of hearing children since 1880, the year of its establishment as one of the nation’s earliest and oldest consumer advocacy organizations.

The NAD, consistent with the National Deaf Education Project (NDEP), a collaborative project of the American Society for Deaf Children, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf, Gallaudet University, the National Association of the Deaf, and the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, believes that direct and uninhibited language and communication access to the curriculum, and all facets of the schooling experience are essential for a deaf child to achieve equality of opportunity. As noted in a NDEP document titled, The educational & communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing children: A statement of principle regarding fundamental systematic educational changes, "the American educational system can and must become communication-driven for deaf and hard of hearing children. As it recognizes that children with disabilities have a fundamental right to a mainstream education, so too must the system recognize the fundamental importance of communication. This is a remarkably simple and fair proposition, one wholly in accord with other existing legal mandates, including IDEA’s inclusive purpose. The right to be included and the right to communication are mutually supportive." (Siegel, 2000)

The NAD believes that the path to equality begins with quality, language and communication based, educational programming that is clearly articulated in the law, and an effective language and communication based delivery system.

Such a system will require:

• a state structure, based on clear federal and state law, with a definitive "communication starting point" for which an appropriate funding model is established to insure a state-wide, communication-driven delivery system;
  
  
• a state structure that establishes clear program standards and monitors communication-based, quality programs that provide for communication assessment, access, and development;
  
  
• a clear interface between the educational system, the medical institutions of the state, and other state entities regarding at-birth detection of hearing loss; and
  
  
• the provision of medical, educational, linguistic, and other services for deaf and hard of hearing children and their parents. (Siegel, 2000, pp 6-7)

Several major treatises on the education of deaf and hard of hearing children, including the 1988 Commission on Education of the Deaf Report to the President and Congress, the 1992 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services’ (OSERS) "Guidance for Deaf Children," and the 1994 National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) "Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: Educational Service Guidelines," have noted and attempted to address concerns with regard to the application of the IDEA to deaf and hard of hearing children. However, after more than 25 years under the law the concerns of our population remain, and the woefully inadequate performance results demonstrated by deaf and hard of hearing children continue as these documents are largely ignored. Deaf and hard of hearing children, as a whole population, still gain only 1.5 years in literacy skills between the ages of 8 and 18, are overwhelmingly unprepared for college, graduating at a rate of 8 percent. "These children, full of promise and innate ability, become adults with alarmingly high rates of reliance on governmental assistance, earning capacities 40-60% below that of their hearing counterparts, and ultimately have their hopes and potential swamped by high rates of un- and under-employment. And yet statistics are the dry evidence of failure and do not tell of the deaf or hard of hearing child who sits alone in a crowded classroom, is isolated on the teeming playground, and feels the frustration of a languageless education which leads inexorably to an unfulfilled life" (National Agenda for the Education of All Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, in progress, March, 2003).

This reauthorization process is an opportunity that arises only once every five years, thus it is imperative that our government agencies, our elected representatives, and our constituencies devote themselves to achieving what the law was originally intended to accomplish, equality for all. Since the passage and subsequent implementation of the IDEA there have been profound concerns about the impact of the law on the education of deaf and hard of hearing children. The law, with regard to deaf education, prompted a transformation from what was essentially a centralized delivery system with qualified personnel at its core, to a system that is fragmented and devoid of the expertise needed to effectively educate the population. Because of this paradigm shift, important decisions impacting the well-being and lives of deaf and hard of hearing students are being made by individuals with little expertise, and in many instances, no formal training. The situation for deaf and hard of hearing individuals is also compounded by the fact that we are a low-incidence population with educational needs that do not readily conform to those of other disabled Americans.

Consequently, the NAD strongly encourages the Department of Education and Congress to implement the recommendations outlined in the NDEP and other mentioned documents, and to also implement the specific changes listed below. After all, "while the deaf and hard of hearing communities and the special education world in general have debated the meaning and reach of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] for the last 26 years, it is beyond contention that deaf and hard of hearing children are entitled to a quality, literacy-focused, communication and language-driven educational program. Without such a right, deaf and hard of hearing children will continue to lag seriously behind other children." (National Agenda for the Education of All Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students , in progress, March 2003)

Least Restrictive Environment Sec. 612 (a)(5)

Interpretation of the Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision of the IDEA.
Concerns related to application of the FAPE in the LRE provisions of the IDEA to deaf and hard of hearing individuals are well established and noted in several documents including a 1988 Report to the President and the Congress by the Commission on Education of the Deaf (1), a 1992 U.S. Department of Education Policy Guidance (2), and a 1994 National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) publication titled Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: Educational Service Guidelines . The latter publication was a collaborative effort undertaken by eleven national organizations with expertise and a vested interest in improving educational programming and services for deaf and hard of hearing students. It was developed with support from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In each of these documents concerns related to FAPE in the LRE received considerable focus.

The NAD believes that ALL deaf and hard of hearing children are entitled to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). However, we are profoundly concerned that this provision of the law, intended as a presumption favoring local school placements when appropriate, continues to be interpreted and applied as a mandate for full-inclusion. In the case of many deaf and hard of hearing students, the effect of this continued misinterpretation and misapplication of the provision has the net effect of isolating the student from the very things crucial to their development, unimpeded language and communication access to the curriculum and socialization opportunities. The placement decision for deaf and hard of hearing individuals must be communication driven  (3) and the LRE for a deaf or hard of hearing child must be the environment that presents the fewest language and communication barriers to the individual’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. As stated in the 1992 U.S. Department of Education Policy Guidance,

"Meeting the unique communication needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. Any setting, including a regular classroom that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving an appropriate education that meets his or her needs, including communication needs, is not the LRE for that individual child." (p. 49275)

The document further states that the development of an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and determination of a FAPE in the LRE for a deaf or hard of hearing child must take into consideration several factors including:

• communication needs and the child's preferred mode of communication;
  
  
• linguistic needs;
  
  
• severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing; academic level; and social, emotional, and cultural needs, including opportunity for peer interactions and communication.

Based on the above NAD recommends that Sec. 612 (a)(5) Least Restrictive Environment be amended to read as follows:

1. In General.-To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment only occurs:

1. when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily; or
   
   
2. when the IEP team determines that, in order for a child to achieve academic success and other non-academic educational goals, the fullest range of services meeting the child's unique needs is available in another setting.

Sec. 612 (a)(5)(B) Least Restrictive Environment

Special education funding formulas should be genuinely "placement neutral," as required by law. The NAD wishes to call attention to an increased tendency on the part of some State Educational Agencies (SEA) to establish and implement formulas that they believe are within the scope and requirements of the law, but which effectively deter IEP Teams and Local Educational Agencies (LEA) from recommending and implementing placements and programming that are actually appropriate for the child. This provision of the law was not intended to deter an SEA/LEA from seeking an appropriate educational placement, especially in an instance where the school district does not have a program where a deaf or hard of hearing child’s language and communication needs are being appropriately met. An example of this might be the new reimbursement system in Massachusetts that reimburses the LEA for tuition costs at a higher rate for keeping the child at a general education setting in a jurisdiction, than it would for a child attending a specialized day school program. Since the LEA is also responsible for transportation costs, which normally are higher for a child transported outside the jurisdiction, there are disincentives in Massachusetts for an LEA to place a child in a specialized setting, even if it is appropriate. Some states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Maryland, and Ohio have funding (reimbursement) formulas that are more placement neutral, and which effectively remove or reduce incentives or disincentives from consideration during the IEP.

Continuum of Alternative Settings

The NAD wishes to call attention to what is apparently a reduced commitment on the part of SEAs to provide a continuum of alternative placement options, as required by law. The NAD continues to support the development, maintenance, and use of placements mandated by the Continuum of Alternative Placements regulations of the IDEA. While the regular classroom in the neighborhood school may be the appropriate placement for some deaf and hard of hearing students, for many it is not. The NAD is committed to preserving and expanding the use of the Continuum of Alternative Placements to ensure that each deaf or hard of hearing child receives a quality education in an appropriate environment.

As stated by the Congress:

"The Committee supports the longstanding policy of a continuum of alternative placements designed to meet the unique needs of each child with a disability. Placement options available include instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions..." (Codified in regulations under 34 C.F.R. 330.551).

The NAD continues to receive reports of states eliminating, or intending to eliminate placement options that are essential to providing deaf and hard of hearing students with a full-range of possible placements. Furthermore, and partly because of misapplication of the FAPE in the LRE provisions, the benefits of center schools, where personnel are specifically trained to serve the population, and other forms systematic statewide programming, are either not being used or are in serious decline. Studies have shown that over 70% of the programs in the United States that serve deaf and hard of hearing children have only one or two students enrolled. In most instances these placements are in the local general education classroom or home school of the student. A proponent of full-inclusion might argue such a statistic is desirable and evidence of success, but the reality is that many of these children are being isolated from peers, teachers, and other professionals who share and are fluent in their individual language and communication modes and preferences.

The NAD believes the statutory language pertaining to the Continuum of Alternative Placements must be changed and strengthened, and OSERS/OSEP must increase and re-direct their monitoring and compliance activities to ensure that low-incidence populations including those who are deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind have access to appropriate educational programming and services at all times. This includes uninhibited access to placements other than the general education classroom in a local public school.

An appropriate educational placement in the least restrictive environment for a deaf or hard of hearing child is one that:

• ensures full development of language for the child;
  
  
• enhances the child's cognitive, social, and emotional development;
  
  
• is based on the language abilities of the child;
  
  
• offers direct language and communication access (4) to teachers and other professionals;
  
  
• has a sufficient number of age-appropriate and level-appropriate deaf and hard of hearing peers who share the child’s language and communication preferences;
  
  
• takes into consideration the child's hearing level and abilities;
  
  
• is staffed by certified and qualified personnel (5) trained to work with deaf and hard of hearing children;
  
  
• provides access to the general education curriculum (6) with modifications in pedagogy to account for the child’s unique language, learning, and communication needs;
  
  
• provides full access to all curricular and extra-curricular offerings customarily found in educational settings;
  
  
• has an adequate number of deaf and hard of hearing role models, including adults;
  
  
• provides full access to support services;
  
  
• has the support of informed (7) parents;
  
  
• and is equipped with appropriate communication and learning technologies. (8)

For many deaf and hard of hearing children, center schools, including some with residential facilities are essential if the factors noted above are properly addressed. Educating a deaf or hard of hearing child is a complex and challenging task, and one that requires intensive training. A systematic approach to providing deaf and hard of hearing students with appropriate programming and services begins with the formation of a cohort of professionals who are specifically trained and qualified to work with the population. In most instances such a cohort exists only in center schools, or multi-jurisdictional programs established for the purpose of pooling expertise and needed resources.

Section 612 should be amended as follows:

Current Sec. 612(a) (6) renumbered as (7)

Insert new Sec. 612 (a)(6) Continuum of Appropriate Settings

Renumber paragraph (6) and following to begin with paragraph (7), with the following text added as paragraph (6):

(6) Continuum of Appropriate Settings—

1. In General - To the maximum extent possible, a continuum of alternative permanent and interim educational settings is available to meet the unique educational needs of children with disabilities, especially children with sensory disabilities such as blindness, deafness and deaf-blindness. The continuum includes instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, instruction in hospitals and institutions, and supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) provided in conjunction with the regular classroom setting.
   
   
2. Notice - When an individualized education program is developed, reviewed or revised, the options available along the continuum described in subparagraph (A) are discussed, and the individualized education program contains an assurance that written description (provided in advance of the IEP meeting) of the availability of the continuum of appropriate settings has been provided.
   Participation in Assessments Sec. 612(17)

The NAD supports the statutory requirement that children and youth with disabilities participate in state-wide and district-wide assessments. We have two (2) concerns that we want addressed in the reauthorization:

1. SEAs and LEAs to date have shown little use of assessment data to evaluate programs . While Secretary Paige and others in the Administration repeatedly have said that assessment data should not be used only to evaluate student progress, but rather should also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs themselves, the NAD has seen little evidence of this occurring. We believe that if a SEA and LEA were to apply assessment outcomes to programs, they may see that certain programs (e.g., small, isolated programs serving one or a few deaf students) are not effective. We want to see greater use of assessment outcomes for such purposes.
   
   
2. The NAD has seen SEAs and LEAs interpret the statutory language to mean that very few students with disabilities are exempted from these assessments and, instead, given alternative assessments. In New York State, for example, state regulations call for a maximum of 2% to 3% of special-education students to be exempted. The NAD believes that these proportions are much too low. Clarification in the statute would be helpful.

Section 614 Individualized Educational Plan

In 1997 the NAD and other advocacy groups worked diligently with the Congress to develop statutory language that would address the widespread concerns of consumers, parents, educators, and administrators about incorrect applications of the FAPE in the LRE provisions. However, experience has taught us that this new language lacks the "clout" needed to foster and eventually require educational placements and programming that are essentially communication driven. The failure of the education system to properly adhere to and apply the Special Factors requirements of the 1997 Amendments to the IDEA, for whatever reason, effectively creates language and communication barriers that are potentially harmful to the child. These barriers, however unintentionally created, deny many of these children a FAPE in the LRE.
As stated in the Special Factors section of the IDEA, Part B, Section 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) - the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team shall --
"consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication (9) with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode".

Congress further clarified the intent of this provision in accompanying Report language, (Report 105-95, p. 104-5):

"The Team also is to consider the communication needs of the child in order to ensure that local educational agencies better understand the unique needs of children who are deaf or hard of hearing; section 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) includes special factors that must be considered in developing IEPs for these children. The policy included in the bill provides that, in the case of the child who is deaf or hard of hearing, the IEP Team must consider the language and communication needs of the child; opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode; the child's academic level; and the child's full range of needs, including the child's social, emotional, and cultural needs and opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode. The Committee also intends that this provision will be implemented in a manner consistent with the policy guidance entitled "Deaf Students Education Services," published in the Federal Register (57 Fed. Reg. 49274, October 30, 1992) by the U.S. Department of Education."

What is needed now to address this fundamental concern is either redefining the FAPE in the LRE provision, to eliminate the presumptive intent of the law, or strengthening the Special Factors language within the IEP section of the legislation.

Instead of merely "considering" the needs of the child, placement and programming decisions must be "communication driven," and they must be based on the language and communication abilities and needs of the child. The NAD intends to submit specific statutory language to this effect at the appropriate time and welcomes discussion with OSEP/OSERS/ED, and members of the disability and education communities. Essentially, providers of educational services for deaf and hard of hearing students must be able to provide for the language and communication needs of these students, including the need for direct communication as noted above. While the use of interpreters and technologies (e.g., CART) to bridge communication gaps are useful in some contexts, they are not adequate replacements or substitutes for teachers and professionals proficient in the student’s language and communication mode. The NAD believes this problem must also be addressed by ensuring compliance with the law, including monitoring State Education Agency (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) adherence to the requirement that professionals involved with assessment and programming for deaf and hard of hearing students, including those involved in the development of the IEP, are properly trained and qualified.

NAD recommends the following changes in Sec. 614:

Sec. 614 (d)(1)(B) Individualized Education Program Team

For children who are deaf or hard of hearing, this should be designated "Individualized Education Program/Communication Development Team."

Sec. 614 (d)(1)(B)(iii) Individualized Education Program Team

For children with sensory disabilities, the Team should include a teacher who is qualified to provide instruction meeting the child’s specific sensory disability/ies.

As noted in the U.S. Department of Education Policy Guidance on Deaf Students Education Services, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Educational Services Guidelines, and the professional literature, there is a definite need to involve certified and qualified teachers of the deaf in the IEPs of deaf and hard of hearing children. Given the low-incidence nature and status of the population and the highly specialized training that is needed to assess and comprehend the abilities and needs of deaf and hard of hearing students, particularly in the area of language and communication development and programming, it is imperative that a certified and qualified teacher of the deaf participate fully as a member of the IEP team.

Sec. 614(d)(3)(B)(iv) Development of IEP

Amend to read as follows:

". . . in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider provide for:

" the child's language and communication needs, ongoing language and communication assessment, development, and access, including ongoing opportunities for direct and unimpeded language and communication access to peers, instructors, other professional personnel, and the general curriculum in the child’s language and communication mode (including spoken language, American Sign Language, and/or other modes of communication); communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, instruction at the child’s academic level, and the child’s full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode;"

Without italics and strikeouts:

". . . in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, provide for:

"ongoing language and communication assessment, development, and access, including ongoing opportunities for direct and unimpeded language and communication access to peers, instructors, other professional personnel, and the general curriculum in the child’s language and communication mode (including spoken language, American Sign Language, and/or other modes of communication); instruction at the child’s academic level; and the child’s full range of needs;"

The Special Factors language in the 1997 IDEA Amendments represented an initial effort recognizing the needs of this population, and more importantly the need for the Congress and Department of Education to respond to longstanding concerns regarding their education. It was the first time that the IDEA acknowledged that the language and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing children required careful consideration when decisions were made on educational placements and services. However, as previously noted the last few years have demonstrated to us that mere ‘consideration’ of the child’s needs is not sufficient to produce the needed focus on issues of language and communication. What is needed for a deaf or hard of hearing child to master the general curriculum is exactly the same as what is provided to his/her hearing peers, direct language and communication access to the curriculum in an environment with the fewest communication barriers. The proposed changes will require the IEP team to carefully examine the pertinent language and communication abilities and needs of the child, as they should be doing, and seek programming and services that will enable the child to access the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible.

Sec. 614(f) Educational Placements

NOTE: The NAD endorses the following comments of the American Society for Deaf Children pertaining to parental rights and responsibilities within the IEP process.

EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS- Each local educational agency or State educational agency shall ensure that the parents of each child with a disability are members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child. The IEP Team, including the parents, shall consider the potential of various placements within the continuum of placement options, document the educational placement options that were considered, the reasons why the chosen option was selected, and the reasons why the others were rejected.

This amended language is meant to increase information provided to parents. Although LEAs are required to provide information on the full range of alternative placements, this often does not happen and consequently parents are not fully informed. As a result they are unable to consider the appropriateness of a given placement or program option in contrast to other alternatives. Far too often only one placement option is presented to the parents as being the most appropriate, without any consideration or discussion of the appropriateness of other options. The proposed language will require that parents be fully informed prior to a placement decision being made.

Sec. 606. Employment of Individuals with Disabilities

[,] particularly as teachers, related services personnel, early intervention providers, and administrators
Rationale: The NAD has seen the positive contributions that adults who are deaf or hard of hearing can make in schools serving deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Similar benefits may accrue when professionals with other disabilities work in the public schools. The Council for Exceptional Children’s "Careers" site ( HYPERLINK "http://www.cec.sped.org/" www.cec.sped.org) and other information sources indicate that very few special educators, general educators and related-services personnel, let alone school administrators, are persons with disabilities. We believe this section must be strengthened to send a message to the public schools that greater efforts are expected. Note that the NAD also believes that Part C providers should be encouraged, as well, to find a variety of meaningful roles for adults with disabilities. We believe it is vital for families with very young children to be exposed to the meaningful and productive ways in which adults with disabilities often lead their lives.

Part C Early Identification and Intervention

Provisions of the IDEA, Part C, pertaining to Natural Environments, are causing many of the same fundamental problems noted in discussion of FAPE in the LRE.

The natural environments provision of the IDEA has been especially problematic since passage of the 1977 Amendments. For deaf and hard of hearing students the issues are identical to those related to placement decisions in Part B. For deaf and hard of hearing children, as with ALL children, the natural environment best associated with their development is that which enhances their early linguistic experiences and provides opportunities for the natural acquisition and development of language and communication. Unfortunately and inappropriately, this provision of the IDEA is being applied in a manner consistent with ideological intent instead of being used in accordance with the identified needs and abilities of the individual child.

The NAD questions the fundamental purpose of this provision, the need for it, and its benefits. For a deaf or hard of hearing child the only natural environment is the home, if there is language and communication access commensurate with the child’s abilities and needs, or in a setting specifically designed to address their language and communication needs. For many deaf or hard of hearing children and their families, access to these specialized services and environments, where they can be immersed in rich and varied linguistic experiences, is crucial to their overall development and eventually their quality of life. Deaf and hard of hearing children need frequent and intensive opportunities for natural development of their language and communication capabilities. While it may be appropriate to provide some services in the home, or even in a local family service setting, adequate access to appropriate language models and linguistic stimulation are often only available in environments specifically designed for that purpose.

As noted in the literature on acquisition and development of language by these children, including a document published with support from OSEP (10), the language acquisition and development needs of this population are greatly enhanced when the child is immersed in an environment where language can be acquired through its natural form. For a child whose main or only avenue for acquiring language is through his or her eyes, that environment is NOT a local day care center, or even the home unless the parents themselves are fluent in the visual language.

Consequently, the NAD recommends several possible solutions including:

• removal of the provision in its entirety;
  
  
• insertion of new language consistent with the intent and content of Part B, Special Factors language, providing that this language is strengthened so the provision itself is enforceable;
  
  
• elimination of the "justification" factor that requires the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) team to defend a placement decision considered to be outside the realm of so-called "natural environments;"
  
  
• and revision of the statutory language to clearly state that the IFSP team, including the family, shall determine what constitutes a natural environment for the individual child.

At the very least Part C provisions should be amended as follows:

Sec. 632 (4)(F) Natural Environment

Amend as follows: "For infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities, such as deafness, blindness, or deaf-blindness, the natural environment shall include:

1. specialized schools, centers, or other programs where the child’s language and communication mode (including spoken language, signed language including American Sign Language, and/or other modes of communication) is the primary language and mode of communication; or
   
2. any other environment where services meeting unique needs are available.

Sec. 632 (4)(C)(iii) Communication Development

Amend to include "language and communication development" rather than only "communication development."

Sec. 632 (4)(F) Qualified Personnel

Teachers of infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities should be added to the list of qualified providers.
Sec. 636 (d) Content of IFSP. Include parallel "special factors" language from Sec. 614 (d)(3)(B) including:

• " . . . in the case of an infant or toddler who is deaf or hard of hearing, provide for:
  
  
• "ongoing language and communication assessment, development, and access, including ongoing opportunities for direct and unimpeded language and communication access to peers, instructors, and other professional personnel, in the child’s language and communication mode (including spoken language, American Sign Language, and/or other modes of communication); and the child’s full range of needs;"
  
• The NAD also calls attention to the fact that in many geographic areas there is a lack of Part C programming available for deaf and hard of hearing children and their families. Consistent with a rapid increase in the number of states now requiring testing for hearing loss at birth, there is a profound need to increase the number of programs specifically designed to serve children found to be deaf or hard of hearing. There is also a need to ensure that these children are actually referred for services and that these service providers are specifically educated and trained to provide services to the population. In many instances hospitals are referring these children to medical settings and programs within their own purview, effectively denying the child’s families information about and access to all of the options available to them.

Part D PERSONNEL PREPARATION TO IMPROVE SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

The NAD advocates the following changes in Part D programs which are needed to support activities required by provisions enacted in Part B and Part C.

Sec. 673 Personnel Preparation to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities

Amend to read as follows:

1. In General - The Secretary shall, on a competitive basis, make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, eligible entities-

1. to help address State-identified needs for qualified personnel in special education, including the education of children with sensory disabilities, related services, early intervention, and regular education, to work with children with disabilities; and
   
   
2. to ensure that those personnel have the skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined, through research and experience, to be successful, that are needed to serve those children. Pursuant to this goal the secretary shall allocate funds to each state which shall be used to assure that within 5 years, every regular education teacher in the state shall have attained at least nine credit hours of pre-service or in-service training specifically targeted towards teaching students with disabilities. To be eligible for such funding, each state shall be responsible for amending teacher certification criteria to incorporate the nine credit hour requirement.

Sec. 673 (b) Low-Incidence Disabilities

The NAD concurs with the comments of the "Sensory Disabilities Roundtable" which states:
There are personnel shortages in the area of early intervention, education for students ages three to 21, and school leadership in the education of children with sensory disabilities. We ask Congress to direct the Department of Education to continue to address these personnel needs through funds granted under Sec. 673 (b). We recommend that the Department consider the role and value of center schools for the deaf and schools for the blind in assisting with the provision of this training.

Sec. 673 (b)(2) Authorized Activities

Amend as follows: Sec. 673 (b)(2)

5. Preparing personnel who provide services to deaf and hard of hearing children to provide direct language and communication access to the general curriculum through spoken or signed languages, or other modes of communication.

136. Preparing personnel to be qualified educational interpreters, to assist children with disabilities, particularly deaf and hard-of-hearing children in school and school-related activities and deaf and hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers and preschool children in early intervention and preschool programs.

163. Preparing personnel who provide services to children with significant cognitive disabilities and children with multiple disabilities.
     Certified and qualified teachers of the deaf have the extensive training and expertise needed to address the language and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing children. Educators who train in the field of special education do not have this needed level of expertise, without additional specialized training and relevant practical experiences. Since deafness is considered a low-incidence disability (20 U.S.C. 1473(b)(30(A)) and many states do not readily have the demographics and resources needed to warrant full-scale training programs, it is critically important that the federal government play an active role in addressing the personnel preparation need for teachers of the deaf.

With regard to the recommended deletion of interpreter services for deaf and hard of hearing infants and toddlers and pre-school children in early intervention and preschool programs, the use of interpreters with extremely young deaf children is ill-advised. Deaf and hard of hearing children, like their hearing peers, need constant and intensive direct exposure to language, language users and language models in order for them to acquire and develop their own language and communication skills. The use of interpreters with extremely young children, as a substitute for providing them with direct language and communication access through certified and qualified personnel, is inappropriate and may have harmful effects on the child’s linguistic, intellectual, and psycho-social development. Interpreting as a profession entails translating or transliterating between one or two languages and as a ‘related service’ is appropriate only when a child has already demonstrated a moderately high level of competency in the target language that will be used. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, a professional organization that oversees the certification of interpreters, has questioned the appropriateness of using interpreters in educational settings with younger children who have not yet demonstrated sufficient competence in a language.

Sec. 673 (d)(2) Projects of National Significance; Authorized Activities

Insert subsection (L) as follows:

12. Projects to improve the ability of special education teachers, general education teachers, principals and other administrators to use universally designed technology and assistive technology for the benefit of their students, including those students with disabilities; to evaluate the assistive technology needs of students with disabilities; and to train students with disabilities in the use of assistive and universally designed technologies.

Section 673 (j) Authorization of Appropriations

Amend to read as follows:

(j) Authorization of Appropriations.—

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, provided that

1. of the amount appropriated during a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make no less than 35 percent of such sum available to support the activities described in subsection (b);
   
   
2. of the amount described in subparagraph (1), the Secretary shall make no less than 20 percent of such sum available to support the activities described in subsection (b)(2)(D);
   
   
3. of the amount described in subparagraph (1) the Secretary shall make no less than 20 percent of such sum available to support the activities described in subsection (b)(2)(E) (as modified above);
   
   
4. of the amount described in subparagraph (1) the Secretary shall make no less than 20 percent of such sum available to support the activities described in subsection (b)(2)(F) (as modified above).

Sec. 674 — Research

The NAD strongly recommends that authorization for a national study of interpreting in K-12 schools and in postsecondary settings be provided in Part D. For many deaf and hard of hearing individuals, access can only be achieved through qualified sign language interpreters who have a set of minimum language competency skills and interpreting competency skills. Qualified interpreters provide access to educational opportunities, social services, community activities, vocational training and communication in the work place. Without qualified interpreters, deaf and hard of hearing students and consumers oftentimes do not have the opportunity to acquire the same information that their peers are getting. However, we do not know what we need to know about the following with respect to K-12 education: (1) how interpreters function in K-12 settings (i.e., are they employed as professionals, as contractors, as teacher assistants, as teacher aides? do they face conflict-of-interest issues because of conflicting responsibilities, notably to interpret on the one hand and to tell classroom teachers and administrators what children say on the other?), (2) how K-12 students who are deaf or hard of hearing use interpreters (do they receive training in effective utilization of interpreters? do they understand the role and function of interpreters? are they provided with interpreters for extracurricular activities as well as for classroom purposes?), (3) qualifications for K-12 interpreters (are they state-certified? state-licensed? RID-certified?), (4) supply and demand issues (the NAD believes that a chronic and sizeable shortage of qualified interpreters in K-12 settings exists, but we do not know how severe that shortage is nor is it evident how the need may be met in the foreseeable future). We note that the U. S. Congress Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED), in Recommendation 36, recommended in 1988 that the Department establish minimum guidelines to the states to encourage them to establish required minimum standards for interpreters, evaluate working interpreters, and train additional interpreters to meet those standards. Despite several reports since that time of continuing lack of standards in the states, the recommendation remains to be implemented.
Understanding the impact of language skills on academic performance for children who are deaf and hard of hearing clearly needs to include research pertaining to the accuracy of classroom information conveyed through sign language interpreters, closed captioning, and other technologies. Unfortunately, little research has been done in this area. Only limited information is available concerning the quality of educational interpreting, because we have not yet studied factors that influence comprehension of the interpreted messages. An Annotated Bibliography on Interpretation compiled by Patrie and Mertz (1997) lists more than 600 documents on sign language interpreting. Yet, its index contains no entries relating to children, learning, or the comprehension of signed materials.

In addition, we need to know about the supply and demand of qualified interpreters for rehabilitation programs and for postsecondary programs. In this connection, the NAD notes that the Workforce Investment Act set up One-Stop Centers for employment services and required that the consumer be able to make "informed choices". We do not know the extent to which One-Stop Centers, and the rehabilitation agencies that are co-located there, provide an adequate supply of trained interpreters to meet these needs.
Finally, we do not know how many interpreters who are trained to work with so-called "low functioning deaf" (LFD) adults are available. This population requires highly skilled interpreters.

The NAD recommends that at least one million dollars be authorized, per year, over a three-year period, to conduct this much-needed research.

SEC. 687. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND UTILIZATION; AND MEDIA SERVICES.

The NAD notes that recent years have seen a tremendous flood of all kinds of media – VHS, CD, DVD, video streaming on the Web, etc. – the vast majority of which, from our experience, is not captioned when produced and distributed.  This despite the fact that some of it is produced using, in part, federal financial assistance and therefore, under section 504, should be captioned.  Most of the media that are of use in PreK-12 programs and in postsecondary education programs are developed by private producers.  While ADA title III requires places of public accommodation to provide services (including information that they offer) on a nondiscriminatory basis, the NAD experiences have demonstrated that few understand that this law includes captioning of video, streaming video, VHS, DVD and the like.  For all of these reasons, the NAD believes that the need for authority in Part D for Media Services, including captioning, has grown and has become an even higher priority than it was when IDEA was last reauthorized.  We urge the Department to actively support strengthened language in Part D for Media Services including captioning of all kinds of media.

The NAD wishes to specifically encourage the Department of Education to actively pursue the ‘authorized activities’ noted in sub-sections (b)(2)(E) and (F).

(b)(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES- Activities that may be carried out under this subsection include activities such as the following:

5. Supporting the implementation of research programs on captioning or video description.
   
   
6. Supporting research, development, and dissemination of technology with universal-design features, so that the technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities without further modification or adaptation.

(c) EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERVICES; AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES- In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall support --

1. educational media activities that are designed to be of educational value to children with disabilities;
   
   
2. providing video description, open captioning, or closed captioning of television programs, videos, or educational materials through September 30, 2001; and after fiscal year 2001, providing video description, open captioning, or closed captioning of educational, news, and informational television, videos, or materials, including programs and materials associated with new and emerging technologies such as CDs, DVDs, video streaming and other forms of multimedia;

It is imperative that the Department of Education continue to provide an impetus for the captioning of video and audio, including those that utilize new and emerging technologies as the delivery medium. Furthermore, when this provision was modified in 1997, it was believed that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would require full-scale captioning by September 30, 2001. However, since enactment of the statute in 1997 the FCC has established a schedule that will not be fully implemented until January 2006. It is therefore necessary and appropriate that captioning support from the Department of Education continue, at least until that date, and that the statute properly reflect the actual transition period.

References

1. Commission on Education of the Deaf (1988). Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "1b#1b
   
   
2. "Deaf Students Education Services," published in the Federal Register (57 Fed. Reg. 49274, October 30, 1992) by the U.S. Department of Education. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "2b#2b
   
   
3. As noted in: "Siegel, L. (20000). The Educational & Communication Needs of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children: A Statement of Principle Regarding Fundamental Systematic Changes, National Deaf Education Project. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "3b#3b
   
   
4. Opportunities to communicate directly with teachers, other professionals and peers without intervention by or over-reliance on interpreters, notetakers, and CART transcribers. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "4b#4b
   
   
5. Teachers, counselors, psychologists, interpreters, etc. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "5b#5b
   
   
6. A curriculum is neither a place nor a placement. Access to a general education curriculum appropriate for the individual child must be provided regardless of the placement. The issue is not the curriculum but rather a program’s ability to modify delivery in a manner appropriate for the individual child. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "6b#6b
   
   
7. An informed parent is one who is fully aware of the range of available educational options, and the pros and cons of each option, with respect to his or her child's unique abilities and needs. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "7b#7b
   
   
8. Including technologies geared towards the child’s visual capabilities (e.g., graphic calculators, video technologies, computers, smartboards, etc.). http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "8b#8b
   
   
9. Opportunities to communicate directly with teachers, other professionals and peers without intervention by or over-reliance on interpreters, notetakers, and CART transcribers. http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "9b#9b
   
   
10. Marschark, M. (2001). Language Development in Children who are Deaf: A Research Synthesis. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE (Under cooperative Agreement #H159K70002, OSEP, U.S. Department of Education.
    http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "10b#10b
    http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "Top#Top
    http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204" \l "top#top
    
    

NAD Advocacy:

IDEA http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101199

Proposed Changes
http://www.nad.org/atf/cf/%7bA2A94BC9-2744-4E84-852F-D8C3380D0B12%7d/ADVOC_IDEA2003propchng.doc

White Paper http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=101204

IDEA News:

NAD Update on IDEA http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=176792

Senate Committee Marks Up IDEA Bill http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=179727

Senate Delays Introduction of Bill to Amend the IDEA http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=179744

NAD Grades the IDEA Bill http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=179750

What's the Big Deal About the New IDEA? http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=186214

Take Action:

Captioning Funding Jeopardized & Communication Access Needs Ignored
http://www.nad.org/site/lookup.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=181072

back to top