Placement and Service Considerations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

1. Placement and Service Considerations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

2. Participants will be able to: - identify options for D/HH service delivery - describe methods of collecting student data that will assist in determining student service needs Learner Outcomes for This Session

3. IDEA Placement Guidelines • …each student's placement must be individually-determined based on the individual student's abilities and needs. • …it is the program of specialized instruction and related service contained in the student's IEP that forms the basis for the placement decision. http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

4. IDEA Placement Guidelines In determining if a placement is appropriate under IDEA, the following factors are relevant: • the educational benefits available to the disabled student in a traditional classroom, vs. those from a special education classroom; • the non-academic benefits to the disabled student from interacting with nondisabled students; • degree of disruption of the education of other students, resulting in the inability to meet the unique needs of the disabled student.” http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

5. Consideration of Special Factors The IEP Team shall-- • (iv) 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 communications 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; and • (v) consider whether the child requires assistive technology devices and services.

6. Considerations in Determining the Environment • Is it possible for the student to receive his/her individually determined services in a general education class? • Can supplementary aids and services accommodate the student's needs in the general education class? • Is it possible for the student to access the general education curriculum and meet his/her annual goals in the general education class for some, even if not a significant portion, of the day? • What are the non-academic benefits to the student from interacting with non-disabled peers? NYC Public Schools

7. Considerations in Determining the Environment • Would the student require so much of the general education teacher's time that the teacher cannot give adequate attention to the needs of other students in the classroom? • Is the student so disruptive in the general education classroom that the education of the student or other students is significantly impaired? and/or • Does the student require the curriculum to be modified so significantly that it bears little relation to the instruction in the classroom? NYC Public Schools

8. Additional Factors to Consider… • Will the student have full communication access in the classroom? • Is the student able to receive and express language through auditory, speech, or speechreading sufficiently well enough to have access to all information presented in the classroom? • What data demonstrates the student’s level of communication access in the classroom? • If not, is the student sufficiently able to access information through the use of support services (e.g., sign language interpreting, oral or Cued Speech transliteration, captioning, notetaking)? • Is a licensed teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing available to provide ongoing direct and/or consultative services in the appropriate intensity and/or frequency? • Are qualified educational interpreters available for both classroom and extracurricular activities? Colorado Quality Standards: Programs and Services for Children and Youth Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

9. Additional Factors to Consider… • Does the general education class enrollment allow the teacher an opportunity to devote sufficient time to assist the deaf or hard-of-hearing student to meet the classroom or course requirements at the student’s social and emotional maturity level within the range of the students in the general classroom? • Is the student able to direct his or her attention to the assigned work and follow the directions given for doing the work? • Is the student able to identify when he/she has missed or misunderstood information and able to use age-appropriate self-advocacy and communication repair skills? • Is student’s reading level at the approximate level of the general education class in which he or she is to be enrolled? • Have environmental factors, such as lighting, ambient noise and reverberation, classroom location, and visual emergency warning devices, been considered? Adapted from Colorado Quality Standards: Programs and Services for Children and Youth Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing

10. Even the Secretary was concerned… “The Secretary (US Dept. of Ed.) is concerned that some public agencies have misapplied the LRE provision by presuming that placements in or closer to the regular classroom are required for children who are deaf, without taking into consideration the range of communication and related needs that must be addressed in order to provide appropriate services. The Secretary recognizes that the regular classroom is an appropriate placement for some children who are deaf, but for others it is not. The decision as to what placement will provide FAPE for an individual deaf child — which includes a determination as to the LRE in which appropriate services can be made available to the child — must be made only after a full and complete IEP has been developed that addresses the full range of the child's needs.” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html

11. Placement and Service Decisions Must Be Based on Data and Determined at the Student’s IEP Meeting

12. Examples of Relevant Data Sources • Classroom analysis • Noise and reverberation; visual access • Curricular content • Cognitive and metacognitive demands (memory, problem-solving and higher-order thinking skills needed, etc.) • Instructional style • Social/emotional/behavioral characteristics, climate, supports • Match of instructional language and materials to student’s language developmental level • Teacher Interview • Teacher’s ability/willingness to differentiate instruction and utilize supportive resources • Teacher’s knowledge of impact of hearing loss on learning

13. Examples of Relevant Data Sources • Student achievement data including testing • Analysis of student skills related to amplification use; interpreter and notetaker utilization skills, etc. • Self-advocacy skills evaluation • Data from inclusion readiness checklists, e.g., PARC • Behavioral observation data • Other formulaic resources, used as indicators

14. Education Agency Special Education Procedures; July 1, 2011; IA Area Education Agencies

15. Sociograms: Relationship Maps www.6seconds.org

16. PARC Placement And Readiness Checklists for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (PARC) (C.D. Johnson, Revised 2011 https;//successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PARC-General-Inclusion-Checklist.pdf

17. Colorado Individual Performance Profile (CIPP)

18. Expanded Core Curriculum for Students Who Are DHH-IA

19. Use the data to determine… • the need for related services necessary to ensure access • amplification needs • AT needs • the type and amount of service and who provides it • supports for participation in extracurriculars

20. Models of Service • Consultation/Indirect • Push-in/Direct • Support • Collaborative • Co-teaching • Pull-out/Direct • Separate Class/School

21. Determining Services IDEA-no formula or indicators for determining amount of services however , the US Supreme Court, on 3/22/17, in considering whether the “educational benefit” provided by a school district must be “just above trivial” or “meaningful” to satisfy FAPE, decided unanimously that: • full inclusion is the primary standard with the "child progressing smoothly through the regular curriculum.“ • the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a “child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Minimal progress not enough. • if not fully included, the child’s unique needs and required level of specialized instruction must be considered to allow academic/functional advancement.

22. Even the Secretary was concerned… “The Secretary (US Dept. of Ed.) is concerned that some public agencies have misapplied the LRE provision by presuming that placements in or closer to the regular classroom are required for children who are deaf, without taking into consideration the range of communication and related needs that must be addressed in order to provide appropriate services. The Secretary recognizes that the regular classroom is an appropriate placement for some children who are deaf, but for others it is not. The decision as to what placement will provide FAPE for an individual deaf child — which includes a determination as to the LRE in which appropriate services can be made available to the child — must be made only after a full and complete IEP has been developed that addresses the full range of the child's needs.” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html

23. Even the Secretary was concerned… “The Secretary (US Dept. of Ed.) is concerned that some public agencies have misapplied the LRE provision by presuming that placements in or closer to the regular classroom are required for children who are deaf, without taking into consideration the range of communication and related needs that must be addressed in order to provide appropriate services. The Secretary recognizes that the regular classroom is an appropriate placement for some children who are deaf, but for others it is not. The decision as to what placement will provide FAPE for an individual deaf child — which includes a determination as to the LRE in which appropriate services can be made available to the child — must be made only after a full and complete IEP has been developed that addresses the full range of the child's needs.” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html

24. Considerations for Determining Type and Intensity of Services • Will the services: • contribute to the student's progress in the GE curriculum? • assist the student in meeting his/her IEP goals? • require a special education teacher to provide specially designed instruction? • stand alone or be combined with related services? Adapted from NYC Public Schools

25. • Will other supplementary aids and services (e.g. paraprofessional, assistive technology, behavior intervention plan) be required? • Will the services provide the student who is deaf or hard of hearing opportunities for direct interaction with peers and educational personnel in the student's own language or communication mode? (Special Considerations) • Will the services maximize student participation with non-disabled peers? • Will the services be culturally appropriate? • What will the student miss in the GE curriculum as result of receiving this service? • Will school personnel be required to provide modifications or supports in order for the student to progress in the general education curriculum? Adapted from NYC Public Schools

26. Michigan Department of Education-Low Incidence Outreach October 2012

27. Service Delivery Matrices Michigan resource: https://mdelio.org/deaf-hard-of-hearing/service-delivery-tools

28. Hearing Itinerant Services Rubric SEDOL IL: https://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Hearing-Itinerant-Services-Rubric.pdf

29. www.deafed.net/PublishedDocs/Service%20Determiners.doc

30. Determining Service Delivery Anderson and Johnson, 2012; Based on Nevins and Garber, 2011

31. WI Dept. of Public Instruction, 2001

32. Created by Lori Degman and the SE District of Lake County Hearing Itinerant Program

33. Response to Intervention RTI

34. Caveat! “The availability of services may not be considered in writing the IEP. If a service is needed, it must be written on the IEP and if the district does not have it available, it must be provided by another agency. “ http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles /iep.success.bateman.htm

35. Summary The learning environment and services (type, provider and amount) must be based on student need as substantiated by data, and determined during an IEP meeting.

36. References • Anderson, Karen L. and Arnoldi, Kathleen. A. Building Skills in the Fast-Paced Classroom: Optimizing Achievement For Students with Hearing Loss, 2011 • Anderson, Karen L. PhD & Cheryl DeConde Johnson, EdD Based on work by Mary Ellen Nevin & Ashley Garber, 2011.Considerations for Assessment, Service Provision for Children with Hearing Loss . 2012 • IA Area Education Agencies Special Education Procedures. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.aea1.k12.ia.us/documents/filelibrary/special_education_services/procedural_safeguards_manual/Special_Education_Procedures_July_1_A0BB7D3777EC0.pdf • Johnson, C.D. and Seaton, J.B. (2011) Educational Audiology handbook-2nd ed. Clifton Park NY; Cengage Learning Inc. • Michigan Department of Education-Low Incidence Outreach. Educational Impact for Student who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Student Profile. 2012 • NYC Public Schools. Special Education Services As Part of A Unified Service Delivery System (The Continuum of Services for Students with Disabilities) Retrieved from: http://schools.nyc.gov/documents/d75/iep/Continuum%20of%20Services.pdf • WI Dept. of Public Instruction. Options for Determining Caseload. 2001 • US Dept. of Education; A Guide to the Individualized Education Program https://ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/index.html#writing