Since the enactment of the Education of the. Handicapped Act (EHA), P.L. 94-142, an in- creasing number of students with combined vision and hearing & Baud, ...
Article 27
The Success of Three Gifted Deaf-Blind Students in Inclusive Educational Programs C.L. Ingraham, K. M. Daugherty, S. Gorrafa Abstract: This article examines the challenges and successes of three academically gifted students in inclusive educational programs over four years and presents recommendations for teachers and parents who are contemplating the placement of students with similar needs in inclusive programs.
Since the enactment of the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), P.L. 94-142, an increasing number of students with combined vision and hearing & Baud, 1981; Zambone & Huebner, 1992 impairments have been attending public school programs (Conlon, 1991; Roe & Roe, 1993; Tweedie). Each year, an estimated 1,100 students who are deafblind exit special education programs (Everson & Goodall, 4991), but it is not known how many of these students are gifted, of average intelligence, or have cognitive disabilities. Like the EHA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), P.L. 101-476, states that students who are deaf-blind are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Unlike the EHA, IDEA mandates the provision of effective transition services for deaf-blind students that are to be coordinated with appropriate educational and adult services agencies that reflect the needs of individual students.
Background DEFINITION OF THE POPULATION
The exact number of gifted deaf-blind students who receive educational services from public school programs is not known, partly because of the various definitions of the population. For example, IDEA does not provide a clear, concise definition of deaf-blind or account for the various etiologies associated with deaf-blindness that may be progressive. However, the definition that appears in the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act is more inclusive and specific: A. Congenitally Deaf-Blind—legal blindness and severe chronic hearing impairment that is present at birth
B. Adventitiously Deaf-Blind—legal blindness and severe chronic hearing impairment that occurs later in life C. Congenital Vision Loss— Adventitious Hearing Loss— significant loss of vision (at least 20/70) and a hearing loss in at least the moderate range D. Congenital Hearing Loss—Adventitious Vision Loss E. Ill-defined, unspecified or unknown etiology—individual functions deafblind despite the inability to properly assess THE STUDENTS The case studies of the three students discussed in this article illustrate that whereas services can be mandated and coordinated, peer instruction and a sense of "belonging" cannot. The three students, two from Pennsylvania and one from Delaware, were successful.academically, but each student was faced with his or her own challenges with respect to interaction with and acceptance by their peers. Although the three students are deaf-blind because of two disorders—Leber's' congenital amaurosis and retinal blastoma—the manner in which the disorders affected each of them was different. As a result, these students were not consistently viewed as deaf-blind. Often acknowledgment was given to the sensory impairment that presented the greatest challenge to the student or the teacher. INTERVENTION
During the course of educational programming for the three students, the students' educational programs consulted with the Helen Keller National Center (HKNC)—a comprehensive short-term rehabilitation center that provides summer evaluations for deaf-blind
Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Visual Impairment « Blindness, May/June 1995, pp. 257-261. © 1995 by the American Foundation for the Blind, 11 Penn Plaza, Suite 300, New York, NY 10001.
151
7. CHILDREN WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS
students—to obtain information on the specific needs of deaf-blind students. It should be noted that this contact occurred both when the students were in residential programs for deaf or blind students and when they were enrolled in public school programs. Three students were followed by the HKNC regional representative to determine the specific criteria that were needed to devise suitable individualized programs and to assess their skills when suitable programs were not present in the student's home state. Although not all deaf-blind students require an eight-week comprehensive evaluation at HKNC to determine their educational potential, in all of the cases this option was the most feasible. For those students whose age precluded their participation in the HKNC summer evaluation program, consultation was provided by the HKNC regional representative in the students' home communities until the students were able to participate in the HKNC evaluation program. Services in Pennsylvania In Pennsylvania, students with disabilities are often provided educational services through extended supported services called Intermediate Units (Ills), as well from segregated programs apart from regular education services. The two students from-Pennsylvania received early educational intervention, including exposure to braille and sign language, in a residential school for the blind. These two students were soon identified as two of the few cognitively gifted students in the residential school, and their need for peer interaction and an educational program better suited to the talents of such students was considered. With support from the supervisor of vision programs in the Pittsburgh Public School programs, the first deaf-blind student (Student A) was transitioned from the residential program to the Gifted and Talented Program at a nearby junior high school. The supervisor coordinated the services of the local technical support center, the IU, and the HKNC regional representative. The initial instruction equipped these two students with the necessary tools to enter the Gifted and Talented Program. Student A had a moderate to severe hearing loss and a total loss of vision as a result of retinal blastoma. At the age of 13, he began participating in all classes in the junior high school with his nondisabled classmates and received support from both the vision and the hearing resource instructors. The overwhelming volume of educational materials that had to be transcribed into braille for him made the initial year of inclusion taxing for all who were involved. Student A typed homework assignments on a laptop computer and printed the information out on a standard dot matrix printer for his sighted instructors to read. Because of the vast knowledge of computer technology that Student A 152
required, extensive computer instruction had to be provided. To accommodate his technological needs, the supervisor of vision programs wrote a grant to purchase comprehensive equipment (a character recognition scanner, an ink-print printer, a laptop computer with a refreshable braille display, a braille embosser, and a telecommunication device for deaf-blind users) that would enable Student A to gain independent access to all printed information. Since Student A could comprehend spoken language with a hearing aid if he was positioned in the front of the classroom and could express himself verbally, he did not need extensive support services for communication. Furthermore, since his speech was clearly understood by his instructors and peers, he did not need a sign language interpreter. The resource instructor was a valuable support person in Student A's educational program. With support from the resource instructor and itinerant vision consultants, Student A was able to participate in numerous academic competitions. Academically, his program was comparable to that of his nondisabled classmates except that the teachers were required to prepare lessons and assignments several days in advance to enable resource personnel or the student to transcribe information into an accessible format. At the age of 12, Student B entered the Gifted and Talented Program at the same junior high as Student A. In addition to her vision and hearing losses caused by Leber's congenital amaurosis, Student B had a physical disability and required a walker to move to and from class. Because moving through the hallways and up and down stairs presented a hazard to her and her schoolmates, she used the elevator or a ramp, rather than the stairs, and was dismissed from class 5-10 minutes early to avoid possible collisions with the other students. Unlike Student A, Student B did not have sufficient 'hearing to comprehend spoken language, so her primary means of receptive communication was through the tactile signs of an interpreter assigned to her for each class. However, like Student A, her speech was intelligible and she could express herself verbally. All the classroom material for Student B was brailled. In addition, she obtained equipment similar to the equipment that was purchased for Student A, but received training in the independent operation of the equipment from a local rehabilitation and adjustment training program for the blind, not from the school. As is often the case with blindness agencies,
27. Success of Three Gifted Deaf-Blind Students . . . the staff at this facility were either visually impaired or did not have sign language skills. Therefore, the HKNC recommended that both training on the equipment and interpreter services during training should be incorporated into the student's Individualized Educational Program (IEP), and financial support from the state rehabilitation agency covered the additional cost of using the interpreter. The commitment from the vocational rehabilitation agency to cover the cost of interpreter services is an excellent example of how vocational rehabilitation counselors can work cooperatively and establish a preliminary relationship with the educational program before a student leaves the school system (Ingraham, Carey, Vernon, & Berry. 1994). In line with Murray's (1981) statement that each student in an inclusive setting should be viewed individually, it was realized that although these two students both met the definition of deaf-blind, they had different needs, and etiological factors were taken into consideration in placing them. The home school districts of both students were also supportive. Furthermore, as Thousand and Villa (1990) pointed out, transition planning should take place ahead of major moves from one educational program to the next. For these students, collaboration between the home school district and the host educational program was crucial to minimize the students' frustration and maximize their level of success. Services in Delaware Student C was totally deaf-blind as a result of Leber's congenital amaurosis and thus required extensive support services. Unlike the students in Pennsylvania, she received comprehensive educational support services outside a residential school program much earlier and had received sign language instruction at age 3 and braille instruction at age 4. In addition to speech therapy and occupational and physical therapy, she received mobility instruction and braille and sign language instruction continuously while she attended the state residential school for the deaf until she was 8 years old. At the request of her parents, Student C was removed from the residential school program at the age of 8 and placed in a private program in her community because her parents believed that the inclusive environment provided greater challenges and a superior quality of education. Interpreter services from the school district and support from an itinerant instructor from the state rehabilitation agency were supplied when Student C was admitted to the inclusive program. Much like the collaboration that occurred with
Students A and B in Pennsylvania, many agencies came together to develop a comprehensive intervention team for Student C. Equipment that she would need for high school and for college was purchased with funds from the educational system that were funneled through the vocational rehabilitation program. This creative arrangement was made to enable Student C to keep the equipment after she would graduate from high school and college. An optical character recognition scanner, ink-print printer, braille embosser, Optacon, typewriter, desktop computer, refreshable braille display, and telecommunication device for the deaf-blind users were purchased with these combined funds. In addressing the transition needs 0f this student, the educational team determined that she would need exposure" to vocational and habilita-tion training. Because these services could not be provided by her current educational program, Student C was referred to HKNC for a comprehensive evaluation and subsequent training. Many students who attend HKNC for a summer evaluation return to their educational programs to receive training based on the findings of the comprehensive evaluation. However, it was decided that Student C would receive, an evaluation before her junior year in high school and would return to HKNC for training the following summer. This approach allowed her to remain in her educational program for the entire school year and yet to receive the needed vocational exposure to complete her academic program. Interaction with peers The chief concern of the parents and instructors in the three students' educational programs was that although the students were 'academically successful in the inclusive environments and received excellent accommodations, their level of interaction with peers was disproportionate to their level of academic ^success. In short, all three students felt isolated and disconnected from everyday interactions and socializing with their classmates. Ironically, the presence of interpreters had a damaging effect on the students' ability to socialize with their peers. Often the interpreters were viewed as scrutinizing adults, rather than as nonsubjective support persons and became the students' connection with and sole source of communication and information with both the other students and the teachers. All information that was not provided in an alternate format was "filtered" through the interpreters. In addition, the students' participation in scholastic competitions was often complicated by the presence of the interpreters, whom the other students often viewed as an added ad153
7. CHILDREN WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS
vantage for the deaf-blind students, not as a necessity for communication. Nevertheless, the students commented that although they often felt removed from social opportunities, the quality of the education that they received from the inclusive programs far outweighed these obstacles. Harley, Garcia, and Williams (1989) recommended that administrators and consultants should evaluate all factors before recommending the placement of a student in an inclusive setting and that a child's rural or urban origin should be considered. The location of the preferred school programs and the follow-up support from the itinerant instructors who had experience in working with students who are deaf-blind were invaluable for the students' successful placements. At HKNC, questions are asked of all parents, administrators, and students about four basic factors before recommendations are made about the type of placement that would be most appropriate for a student who is deaf-blind. These four factors are etiology, age of onset, severity, and previous educational intervention. For example, Student C received a high-quality comprehensive program during the critical stages of maturation and language development, and her innate ability contributed greatly to the level of success that she achieved. For all three students, preparation by the parents, support professionals, teachers, and the students themselves proved to be fundamental. Whether a student was participating in a class discussion of current events or an upcoming field trip or was reviewing vocabulary for a foreign-language class, the instructor had to be cognizant of the information that would be shared and whether it was indeed in an accessible format for a deafblind student. When an interpreter was involved, his or her background had to be considered as well. Furthermore, the interpreter would often take on the dual role of interpreter and tutor in that information that was supplied to the itinerant instructor to be transcribed was also given to the interpreter to review and to become familiar with. The three students had above-average intelligence and achieved great academic success. Because the inclusive programs were not accustomed to accommodating deaf-blind students who functioned at such an advanced level, numerous meetings were held to discuss the specific services the students needed throughout their educational programs. Regular contact with the HKNC regional representative was maintained to ensure that the transition from each educational level and site to the next was as smooth as possible. Understanding of the individual students and their desired goals was crucial to the effectiveness of the collaboration 154
Checklist of Recommendations for Considering Inclusive Educational Placements
Etiology of the Disability What was the cause of deaf-blindness? Often the cause of the disability will have an effect on how the student functions in various settings and under specific circumstances. For example, students with Usher syndrome may appear to be withdrawn and nonengaging with other students, partly because of their inability, as a result of visual field restrictions, to understand or perceive all information that is communicated (Vernon, Boughman, & Annala. 1982). Age of Onset
At what age did the student's disability manifest itself? Disabilities that create barriers to communication are less complicated to address if the student acquired language before their onset. Severity of the Disability How severe is the student's disability? Often a student who is considered deaf-blind possesses some residual hearing or vision or both. The focus of the intervention for the student depends on how well the student uses his or her remaining sensory modalities. Educational Background What type of educational intervention did the student receive in the past? Students who have been exposed to language, either functional or conversational, have a greater language repertoire to draw from than do those students who have received no language intervention. Support Services
What types of support services are available? Often students who are deaf-blind can effectively use services for the deaf or services for the blind. Depending on the severity of the student's sensory impairment and background, single-disability support services may be beneficial. Box 1.
among the various agencies. It is important for administrators to support this type of collaboration (Thousand & Villa, 1989).
Recommendations for service providers In providing support to and on behalf of these three students since 1981, the HKNC regional representative developed the checklist of recommendations presented in Box 1 that have proved practical for other cognitively gifted deaf-blind students in similar inclusive educational placements. However, it should be stressed here that each student must be looked at individually and that the impact of the placement on the student must be given serious consideration. The effects of possible isolation and efforts to address this potential barrier must be
27. Success of Three Gifted Deaf-Blind Students explored before placement. Because each new semester brings greater challenges socially as well as academically, the student's peer group and network of friends should be monitored closely. Often a minor misunderstanding can escalate into a major issue that can have devastating effects on the student's ability to perform academically. Each student discussed here was provided with a strong foundation from a segregated program. Although such support does not necessarily have to occur in a segregated setting, the comprehensive needs of the student must be fully addressed when the IEP is developed.
References Conlon, S. (1991). The federal government's role in educating people with .dual sensory impairments. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 32,42-45. Everson, J. & Goodall, D. (1991). School work transition for youth who are both deaf and blind. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 33,45-47. Harley, M., Garcia, M., & Williams, M.F. (1989). The educational placement of visually impaired children. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 512-517. Ingraham, C.L., Carey, A., Vemon, M., & Berry, P. (1994). Deaf-blind clients and vocational rehabilitation: Practical guidelines for counselors. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 117-127. Murray, J. (1981). Comments on the least restrictive environments for deaf-blind severe and pro-
foundly handicapped children. Journal of School Education, 13, 8-13. Roe, C.E. & Roe, D. (1993). The dismantling of a culture: P.L. 94-142 and its effects on the education and future of deaf children. Deaf American Monograph, 2013, 143-148. Thousand, J. & Villa. R. (1989). Accommodating for greater student variance in local schools. Paper presented at the 1989 Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Francisco. Thousand, J. & Villa. R. (1990). Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within their local home schools and communities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1-24. Tweedie, D. & Baud, H. (1981). Future directions in education of deaf-blind multihandicapped children and youth. American Annals of the Deaf. pp. 829-834. Vernon, M., Boughman, J., & Annala, L. (1982). Considerations in diagnosing Usher's syndrome: RP and hearing loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 258-261. Zambone, A.M. & Huebner, K.M. (1992). Services for children and youth who are deafblind: An o v er vie w. Journal of V i s u a l Impairment & Blindness, 86, 287-290. Cynthia L. Ingraham, M.S., representative. East Central Region, Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults, 6801 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 100. Riverdale, MD 20737: Kathryn M. Daugherty, Ph.D., supervisor. Division for Exceptional Children. St. Francis Medical Center Pittsburgh Public School Program. 4 East. 45th at Penn Avenue. Pittsburgh, PA 15201: Sheila Gorrafa, M.Ed., former state coordinator of the Delaware Program for the Deaf-Blind. E4F Coffee Run. 6 1 4 Loveville Road, Hockessien, DE 19707.
155
