The following is the first of a two part posting from a colleague of mine. Deborah Pergament is an attorney in Chicago, Illinois who has dedicated her professional life to serving the needs of children in the area of special education, family law and juvenile justice. She has successfully tried and won a recent case on behalf of a child with a cochlear implant and has several more pending. This posting should enable parents to make more informed decisions in determining the appropriateness of a school placement for their son or daughter who has a cochlear implant ("CI").
When asked to compare the impact of her two disabilities, Helen Keller in her advancing years, replied that she had concluded "after a lifetime in silence and darkness that to be deaf is a greater affliction than to be blind...Hearing is the soul of knowledge and information of a high order. To be cut off from hearing is to be isolated indeed."
The futures of the profoundly deaf historically have been marked by isolation from the hearing world and extremely limited literacy with its concurrent limitation on educational and employment opportunities. The advent of cochlear implants has altered the fate of many children with hearing impairments. Hearing impaired children, who were once most likely destined to be permanent additions to special education services and reliant as adults on sign-language interpreters, are now more likely to join the academic, social, and professional mainstream. The key to making this happen is for children to receive intervention for hearing loss as soon as possible, i.e., cochlear implants combined with an intensive, oral/aural education which requires children to make full use of their implants
A
five-year National Institute of Health Study, published in 2005, was
designed to document the effects of various education and
rehabilitation models on the deaf child’s ability to understand,
produce and read English while using a cochlear implant. This NIH
study determined that children enrolled in classrooms with an oral
emphasis maintained a highly significant advantage, even after all
factors that were believed to affect performance outcome had been
removed. Children whose educational programs emphasized speech and
auditory skill development demonstrated better performances than those
in programs using sign. (See study funded by NIH confirming these findings)
In 1997, IDEA was amended to include the provision that IEP teams must consider the deaf child’s “mode of communication” in placement decisions. 34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(iv). A number of due process cases from across the country all decided after 1997 support the position that an oral placement is minimally appropriate and the use of sign language is not appropriate for oral deaf/hard of hearing children using a cochlear implant.
Unfortunately, many school districts, including some of the nation’s largest, have not altered their programs and services for the deaf/hard of hearing to meet the needs of students with cochlear implants. Too often, these schools fail to understand the interplay between the auditory capabilities and service needs of children with cochlear implants and the importance of appropriate acoustical modifications. Most importantly, these school districts remain unwilling to shift away from the use of total communication to the use of spoken language in the instruction of children with implants. I have had the incredible privilege of representing parents seeking appropriate public educations for their children with cochlear implants and working with these families to ensure that their children have access to the world of knowledge and information. My firm’s staff and I are ardent supports of oral education and auditory habilitation for children with cochlear implants. Through our representation of individual families and public advocacy, we are working to ensure that children with cochlear implants receive the opportunity to learn to hear and to speak with their implants.
This article is intended to provide guidance for parents of children with cochlear implants during the often confusing and arduous task of evaluating possible school programs and placements for their children. Although I focus on evaluating public school programs designed especially for hard of hearing/deaf students, the checklists can be adapted to evaluate private programs or to specify accommodations and modifications in IEPs of children with implants participating in mainstream classes.
SETTING UP YOUR VISIT
You should follow the school’s policy for visits. Generally, schools
with nothing to hide welcome prospective parents and the opportunity to
“show-off” their facilities, students, and staff. However, when
schools sense a parent may be contemplating a due process complaint or
other action over a program that offers an inadequate classroom
environment or the lack of an oral/aural program, they are much less
welcoming. When forced to accommodate parents of children with
cochlear implants investigating programs, District’s may “stage visits”
by limiting the amount of sign language used that day or only allowing
tours of certain classrooms. Therefore, ask questions, try to speak to
parents of children in the program, and make multiple visits if
possible.
ACCOUSTICAL MODIFICTIONS
Children still learning to
make sense of the input they receive from their implants need
environments conducive to hearing. “Children who use cochlear
implants (as with children who use hearing aids) experience significant
difficulty listening and learning in classroom environments with
background noise and typical classroom commotion. Consideration of
classroom acoustics is crucial.” ( For guidelines for transitioning to less restrictive placements Download Transition.pdf
.) Appropriate acoustic management
includes the use of acoustic tiled ceilings, carpeting over more than
2/3 of the classroom, drapes at window walls, sound absorption panels
or acoustic wall coverings to reduce reverberation, low HVAC noise
levels, closing classroom windows and doors to dampen ambient noise,
and good lighting without buzz from fluorescent fixtures.
When touring a classroom you should look for the following:
1) Floor Treatments:
Is 2/3 of room carpeted?
2) Wall Treatments:
Are there acoustical panels or other devices to deaden sound?
3) Window Treatments?
Shades?
Draperies?
Other?
Were the windows open?
4) Was the door to the classroom kept closed?
5) Was the hallway noise and did the noise seep into the classroom?
6) Is the heating/cooling/lighting system noisy?
If it is a cold
day, ask what happens during hot weather? Are fans used, air
conditioning units, are windows opened? The most appropriate answer is
that central air conditioning is used. Be concerned if noisy fans are
used and the windows are opened especially in high traffic areas.
7) Was ambient noise present (e.g. fish tank/water fountain noise?)
8) Is the school located near a source of noise? (e.g., construction site, hospital, fire/police station?)
9) Where is the classroom located within the school? Does this add to the noise level?
10) Does the teacher/staff use the “one voice rule?” (This means that teacher encourage the students to speak one-at-at-time).
11) Ask if rooms are regularly checked for sound levels?
By whom?
Are there sound level standards that the schools use? Where can those be found?
How often are the facilities checked for compliance?
What is done to remedy unacceptable conditions?
12) What acoustical modifications are available for classes with hearing children (e.g., physical education, music, art).
Are those classrooms modified?
Is an FM system available in those classes?
Is preferential seating available?
What training do teachers in mainstream classes undergo to work with hearing impaired children?
Try
to talk with those teachers and observe them conducting a class with
implanted children. Do they make an effort to ensure the children’s
participation and understanding? Do the children act as if this is a
regular occurrence or does it seem staged for your benefit?
13) What type of assistive tech are the CI students provided? Is it an individual FM system? Or are there sound-field systems in each classroom?
The second part of this posting will examine the specific factors that constitute an appropriate placment, and what to look for to determine if in fact a class is an oral/aural setting.
This article is limited in its viewpoint. Cochlear implants can be a wonderful tool but they are NOT a magic bullet. Each child differs in their language development and language and cognition cannot be separated. Why wouldn't you offer a child several tools to promote healthy cognitive development? To espouse that a law firm supports only one approach seems to take the I out of IEP.
Posted by: NH | February 15, 2006 at 05:25 AM
I didn't quite get that from this article, but I DO agree that each child is VERY different in needs and abilities. My oldest CI boy was diagnosed and implanted later, but now fully oral and mainstreamed. My youngest CI boy may have additional disabilities. While the CI helps him receptively, he may need serious therapy for his speech, for a long time. And may need it augmented with sign or PECS, too.
I think the CIs are amazing for most, but also unmask other issues that a child may have, that would have otherwise been attributed to his deafness alone.
Interesting. ;)
Posted by: Chaotic Mom | November 05, 2006 at 07:19 PM