Early education for hearing impaired in school

Sammy and Cole raced down the hall laughing and signing their victory in kick ball. Robby signed as he spoke, "Good game!" Books were grabbed rapidly from lockers and all three boys rushed through the door of their classroom, slamming books down on desks and searching for paper and pen. Mrs. Foley pulled down the map of Africa and wrote the lesson title on the blackboard: Terrain, Flora and Fauna. Miss Smoot stepped nearer to Sammy and Cole's desks as she signed "land" and finger-spelled "terrain." Sammy was confused. Was t-e-r-r-a-i-n another word for the familiar sign "land"? And what was this "flora" word that Mrs. Foley had written on the blackboard? Miss Smoot signed "plant" and finger-spelled "flora." Sammy caught Cole's eye and signed, "Understand?" Cole shook his head no. Sammy looked across the room at his friend Robby. Robby was writing something on his paper. Was he taking notes? Should he be taking notes too? Sammy wondered. And why didn't he understand the lesson? Robby seemed to. But of course he did - Robby could hear.

In the United States, one baby in one thousand is born with a hearing loss so severe that he or she cannot understand speech through hearing alone, even with the use of a hearing aid. These children most often converse through use of Total Communication, which is a combination of formal signs, informal gestures, finger-spelling, facial expressions, body language, and spoken words.

While children with mild to moderate hearing losses may often function in the general education classroom with minimal adjustment, this is not always the case as every child is different. Additionally, the educational placement of children with severe to profound losses has for years evoked controversy among educators. In a study conducted by Schildroth and Hotto through Gallaudet University's Research Institute, the data reported indicated that 50% of America's hearing-impaired children and youth received their education in either residential or day schools for the deaf. Of this number, more than 80% suffer severe to profound hearing losses. The remaining 50% of the hearing-impaired children educated in the United States are integrated into local school programs with 25% taught in self-contained classrooms. Of these, 64% are severely or profoundly deaf. Only 38% of the 25% student population educated in local integrated classrooms are severely or profoundly deaf. Additionally, the majority of public school programs for children with severe to profound hearing losses utilize Total Communication in the classroom whether self-contained or integrated.

While the trend for educating severely or profoundly deaf children has been to place them in non-integrated settings using Total Communication methods, the passage of Public Law 94-142 broadened the range of placement possibilities for all special education students with the mandate of an "appropriate education" for every child. This law requires the development of a written Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for every child with disabilities, due process procedures for parents to question decisions made for their children, and education within the "least restrictive environment." The idea of "inclusion" emerged from the modification of Public Law 94-142. The application of inclusion of the hearing-impaired student means that the deaf student would be educated - or "included" - in a classroom of students with normal hearing but would receive support services such as interpreters, note-takers, teacher aides, deaf education teachers, and/or consultants.

Two general positions have emerged in the interpretation of inclusion. Full inclusion advocates wish to place all special education students, regardless of the severity of any given child's disability, in regular education classrooms with accommodations, adjustments, and support services to be given only within that general classroom. Those favoring partial inclusion raise questions as to the interpretation of "least restrictive environment" and oppose the elimination of the continuum of services, a network of supports and services which for the deaf child may mean a language resource room, speech therapy, or language tutoring. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) states that while "the concept of inclusion is a meaningful goal to be pursued in our schools and communities … a continuum of services must be available for all children." Conversely, it is the position of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) that full inclusion is the best interpretation of the "least restrictive environment." Advocates of the hearing impaired urge proponents of full inclusion for every disability to consider that different disabilities need to be addressed in different ways and with the input and expertise of the professionals most qualified in those specific fields.

Schildroth and Hotto pose the question: How well served would these deaf "included" students be in the general classroom setting? Because the severely or profoundly deaf child lacks exposure to the structure of language by auditory access, his or her language and communication skills are usually developmentally delayed and cause gaps in vocabulary, reading, and writing. Data collected by the Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies shows that most deaf students ages 17 and 18 read on a third or fourth grade level. Placement of deaf students into reading programs designed for the hearing presents a challenge at best. Those who question inclusion "across the board" ask, "How will inclusive placement for language and reading be determined, by age or by reading level? Will the deaf language-delayed student be 'included' with younger hearing students who read at the same level or stay in age-appropriate classrooms even though the reading level may far surpass that of the deaf student? If indeed placement is determined by age, how will the severely deaf students understand not only the reading and language subject course, but any language-based content with dense vocabulary?"

Interpreters and deaf education teachers in the general education classroom are often faced with vocabulary words that have no sign language equivalent. When this happens, interpreters must finger-spell the word and use a related sign or even develop a new sign that must be introduced as representative of the word or expression. This takes time, and interpreters then find themselves falling behind during difficult passages with the end result being that the deaf student has missed other content as the general education teacher has moved on.

Another key issue in considering the benefits and limitations of full inclusion for the deaf child is friendship. Students with disabilities in non-integrated settings have historically had few opportunities to make friendships outside of the special education classroom. Full inclusion advocates promote inclusion of these students in regular education classrooms that are in the same school where all the children in a given neighborhood attend. However, research conducted by Antia and Kreimeyer for the Department of Special Education at the University of Arizona indicated that merely placing hearing-impaired children in the same physical environment does not lead to guaranteed social interaction between hearing and non-hearing children. In the study, the hearing-impaired children tended to converse with other children whose hearing status and communication method was like their own. The study did show a small but steady increase in interaction between hearing and hearing-impaired children who were in small-group settings in long-term intensive contact with one another and where communication was facilitated by an interpreter or deaf education teacher. Unfortunately, most general education classes in which the deaf child is included number twenty or more - not a small-group setting - and interpreters are limited by job description to education purposes.

Public Law 94-142 did not mandate partial or full inclusion, nor did it specify the details for facilitation of the goals it set forth. Rather, the goal of IDEA was to provide accessibility for every student regardless of the handicap or disability. Inclusion accessibility means that any program offered to students must be made available for students with disabilities. But parents, teachers, and administrators must be aware when full inclusion is not appropriate and when a child might benefit from a smaller classroom or an individualized program.

Inclusion brings definite benefits to the severely of profoundly deaf child in that it provides an opportunity for that child to live at home and be educated in a local school. It also opens up the hearing world to the deaf child, introducing him or her to the norms of a hearing society and allowing the possibility of relationships with hearing friends. The extent to which a student is "included," however, should be addressed in light of the individual child's needs and communication mode. The ultimate question to be considered in this regard is whether the environment chosen for the child will provide social and intellectual stimulation and thereby foster individual development. And in deciding the benefits of inclusion, what will the "trade-off" be? Are the social benefits of full inclusion of the deaf child in a hearing classroom a fair trade for the language he or she might develop through a full continuum of services, were it available?

Certainly friendship is important in social development, but can friendships be forced by the mere physical inclusion of hearing and non-hearing students in the same room? Or will interpreters be provided to facilitate social communication between hearing and non-hearing students? Have the legislators, educators, and inclusion advocates considered the psychological implications for the deaf students who lack the vocabulary and language skills to excel in comparison to their hearing counterparts? How does the profoundly deaf language-limited child rationalize his or her embarrassment in front of those friends when he or she cannot perform at the level of the rest of the class? Or if the deaf student is included with younger students who match his or her reading level, what impact will that have on that child's self esteem?

Sammy and Cole from the beginning scenario were eventually "pulled out" of the general classroom for language-related instruction while remaining in the general classroom for mathematics and science, subjects in which they felt comfortable and in which they experienced individual success. Cole particularly enjoyed math. Paired with his hearing friend Robby, Cole and Robby were often the math drill champions, a real boon to Cole's self esteem. Sammy, Cole, and Robby considered themselves invincible in soccer, signing the signals to each other for the various plays.

There had been a time when Sammy resented Robby for being able to hear, resented him for understanding when he didn't, resented him for comprehending simply because he had the physical ability to listen. Taking his language course in a resource room took the pressure off the relationship by removing the possibility of comparison in an area that could be nothing but unbalanced, and it gave Sammy the opportunity to focus on language and vocabulary development in an environment designed for Total Communication instruction. For Sammy and Cole, this was the least restrictive environment promised by IDEA - partial inclusion at its best - the opportunity to develop intellectually, socially, and psychologically in a school and community that included them yet remained focused on meeting each boy's individual needs.