Closing a Resource Room for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

[Miss-Delectable]

Closing a Resource Room for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing - Education - redOrbit

Self-contained classrooms and resource rooms have been an important component of the continuum of placements available to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. However, these specialized classrooms have been closing in recent years. A variety of factors are contributing to this, most notably the impact of cochlear implants. This article describes the factors leading to the closure of an elementary school resource room for students who are deaf or hard of hearing and the process of transitioning these students back to their home school districts. Implications of closing specialized classrooms for students who are deaf or hard of hearing are discussed. Keywords: deafness; itinerant teaching; cochlear implants; auditory-verbal therapy

Self-contained classrooms and resource rooms have been a mainstay of public school programs serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing ever since the passage in 1975 of RL. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEIA], 2004). However, this type of service delivery has declined over the years to the point that some public school programs for students who are deaf or hard of hearing may have only a few self-contained classrooms or resource rooms or none (Miller, 2000).

There are several reasons for this decline in selfcontained classrooms or resource rooms for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. First, a decrease occurred after students whose hearing loss was caused by the rubella epidemic of the 1960s graduated from high school in the 1980s (Johnston, 2004; Moores, 2001). This group of students was often referred to as the "rubella bulge." As the rubella epidemic subsided, the number of infants born with a hearing loss returned to more typical levels. Generally, 1 to 3 infants per 1,000 are born with a hearing loss, which correlates to approximately 1.4 million children under 18 years old with a hearing loss (Better Hearing Institute, 2008).

Second, technology has had a dramatic impact on self-contained classrooms and resource rooms, especially cochlear implants (Francis, Koch, Wyatt, & Niparko, 1999). A child with a profound hearing loss can be implanted by 12 months (American Speech- Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2004). The number of children being implanted has increased fortyfold from 1991 to 2002 (Drinkwater, 2004). It is not unusual for children implanted by 12 months to arrive at kindergarten with age-appropriate oral speech and language skills (Chute & Nevins, 2003; White, 2007). Because of this, the need for separate classrooms or even resource rooms may be reduced if not eliminated. Digital hearing aids have had an even greater impact because most students with a hearing loss are fitted with hearing aids rather than an implant. Another form of technology that has had a significant impact is Otoacoustic Emissions Testing (OAE), which can identify a hearing loss at birth. Because of Universal Infant Hearing Screening, and specifically OAE testing, infants with a hearing loss are being identified and provided with services by 2 or 3 months of age (Harrison, 2007; White, 2007). Because services are being provided so early, the prognosis for children born with a hearing loss improves (Yoshinaga-Itano & Gravel, 2001). This does not mean that these children will arrive at kindergarten with age-appropriate speech and language skills, but it makes that possibility more likely (Francis et al., 1999; Johnson, 2004; Luckner & Muir, 2001; Yoshinaga-Itano & Apuzzo, 1998).

Third, there are a variety of service delivery models available to support students who are deaf or hard of hearing, but the itinerant teaching model is the predominant model nationally, even internationally. Students with a hearing loss in a public school setting who need the support of a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing will likely have an itinerant teacher rather than a classroom or resource room teacher (Hyde & Power, 2004; Luckner & Howell, 2002).

In this article, an elementary resource room for students who are deaf or hard of hearing is profiled. This program closed at the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. State, regional, and national factors leading to the closure of this program are highlighted. In addition, the process of returning these students to their respective home school districts is described. The article concludes with a discussion of how these students performed after 1 year in their new schools. Included in this discussion are excerpts from interviews with parents, teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing, and school district administrators. The names of the children have been changed and the various elementary schools are not named to protect the confidentiality of the students. The parents and the school district approved.

Opening a Resource Room

The resource room for students who are deaf or hard of hearing began in 1998 (Vasconcellos & Miller, 2000). The school district had an elementary student with a cochlear implant attending a nearby school for the deaf and another student with a cochlear implant coming into kindergarten. The supervisor of special education for the school district wanted to know if it was possible to set up a resource room within the district that could serve both of these students. There was space available at one elementary school and the principal was intrigued by the prospect of having students who are deaf or hard of hearing in her school. Because both of these students were deriving benefit from their cochlear implants, the focus of the program was on developing their auditory and oral language abilities. There were other students using cochlear implants or hearing aids in adjacent school districts who would also benefit from an auditory-oral program and were good candidates. The resource room was approved and began operating in the fall of 1998 with six students.

Because of the focus on the development of auditory skills, the resource room position was filled by a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing who was a certified auditory-verbal therapist. Auditory- verbal therapy facilitates the acquisition of spoken language by maximizing a child's auditory skills. This approach promotes early diagnosis of hearing loss, one-on-one therapy, aggressive audiological management, and state-of-the art technology. This approach is frequently used with children who have cochlear implants (Alexander Graham Bell Academy, 2008).

Traditionally, auditory-verbal therapy is used with infants and preschoolers (Pollack, Goldberg, & Caleffe-Schenck, 1997). Provision of this therapy in a public school setting is unusual. Parental participation during auditory-verbal sessions is strongly encouraged; however, it is challenging to do this during the school day. In this case, parents made arrangements to participate in therapy sessions immediately before or after the school day.

The responsibilities of the resource room teacher were as follows: previewing and reviewing vocabulary, concepts, and idioms from the general education curriculum; developing auditory training exercises based on these vocabulary, concepts, and idioms; introducing reading strategies that help students comprehend text materials; troubleshooting amplification equipment; consulting and collaborating with the general education teachers about the equipment as well as adaptations they could make with their lessons; and teaching students self-advocacy skills, for example, encouraging students to inform teachers about their hearing loss or about accommodations that help them listen and learn more effectively in class (Luckner & Howell, 2002; Reed, 2003).

An itinerant teacher engages in many of the same activities as a resource room teacher. The key difference being that an itinerant supports students in several schools while a resource room teacher is at one school (Kluwin, Morris, & Clifford, 2004; Yarger & Luckner, 1999).

Closing a Resource Room

By the fall of 2005, several of the students in the resource room program were doing well academically, sometimes being mainstreamed almost the whole day. Because of this, it became difficult to justify having a full-time teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing at this school. It appeared that most of these students could be successfully mainstreamed in their home school districts with the support of an itinerant teacher of the deaf or hard of hearing.

Another factor affecting this program was the Gaskin Settlement Agreement (2005). It requires that local school districts in Pennsylvania demonstrate that they are meeting the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate by making every effort to educate students with disabilities in the home school district. Based on these efforts, a school district receives an LRE rating. This rating is enhanced if students with a disability are educated in the home school district, preferably the neighborhood school. Several of the students attending the resource room program were from out of district.

The cost of running the program was also a factor. The school districts were billed a tuition fee for enrolling a student in the resource room program. However, the tuition rate was adjusted according to how much the student was mainstreamed. The more the child was mainstreamed, the less tuition that was charged. Because several of the students were mainstreamed for large portions of their day, this meant that the tuition was insufficient to offset the cost of supplying a full-time teacher. Finally, space was an issue. The catchment area for the elementary school was growing and more classroom space was needed. The principal was supportive of keeping the resource room. However, if the students could be supported successfully elsewhere, the extra space was welcome.

The special education director for the school district, the principal of the school, and the supervisor for the Hearing Support Program of the Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22 (BCIU) met in March 2006 to discuss the efficacy of maintaining the resource room program. After a thorough discussion, the decision was made to close the resource room for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. It was the responsibility of the Hearing Support Program supervisor to inform the parents, the school districts with students in this program, the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing in charge of the resource room, and the itinerant teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing who would be receiving these students.

Closing the resource room affected six children. Four of the students were from neighboring school districts (three from one district and one from another district). The two remaining students were already in their home school district. One other student attended the resource room, but she was from this school district and was moving up to middle school so she was not affected by this decision.

Overall, the parents reported being pleased with the program and news of its closure was received with disappointment, apprehension, and even anger. One parent said the resource room was "like a security blanket." Another parent said, "I was very upset. Very concerned." Finally, one other parent said, "I was sad to leave the program. It was a very good school."

Shortly after the parents were informed about the closure of the resource room, meetings were set up with special education supervisors from each district that had a student in the resource room program. These meetings helped the parents, school district personnel, and the receiving teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing become familiar with the student in question and determine how to support this child in the home school district. The resource room teacher provided guidance to each school district on how best to meet the needs of these students. The resource room teacher was working on her auditory-verbal certification and provided auditory- verbal sessions for four of the students (the initial resource room teacher who was a certified auditory-verbal therapist taught this class for 4 years and then transferred to another position). Because the resource room was closing, this teacher was available to provide therapy using auditory-verbal techniques to these students, thereby providing them some continuity in their new schools. By the end of June 2006, plans were in place to transition the students back to their home school districts by the fall.

The Road Home

Before recommending placement of a student who is deaf or hard of hearing in the resource room, a variety of factors were considered including degree of hearing loss, auditory skills, speech skills, language skills, self-advocacy skills, use of amplification, and academic abilities. All of these factors were included in the BCIU Severity Rating Scale (SRS), which was completed yearly on each student in the BCIU Hearing Support Program. The teacher rated the student on each category and then these were totaled for an overall severity score that correlated to a level of service that this student should receive from a teacher of the deaf or hard of hearing. For example, a student receiving a score of 12 would likely need consultative services while a student receiving a score of 62 would likely need intensive, daily support (i.e., Comprehensive). The information provided by the SRS was useful in planning the transition from the resource room program to the student's home district (see Table 1).

Harper

Harper was diagnosed with a hearing loss at 4 years old and she was implanted at 5 years old. She attended a preschool for children who are deaf or hard of hearing following a total communication philosophy, and she primarily used sign language to communicate with others.

The resource room teacher worked with her in the morning (as well as another kindergarten student, Kenny) and an interpreter accompanied her to a mainstream kindergarten class in the afternoon. The resource room teacher focused on increasing her speech, language, and listening skills. Harper understood the routines of school, which helped her in making the transition from preschool to kindergarten. However, her knowledge of vocabulary and concepts was quite low. The SRS completed at the end of her kindergarten year indicated a need for a comprehensive level of support (i.e., daily, intensive support for a period or two a day). The resource room teacher was devoting more than 2 hours a day to her previewing and reviewing the content covered in the mainstream kindergarten class.

Table 1

Student Characteristics and Levels of Service

The interpreter for Harper was assigned to her new school, which provided continuity. This was the first time the first-grade teacher had worked with a student who was deaf. Furthermore, this was the first experience with a cochlear implant for the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing and for the speech-language pathologist serving this school.

The first marking period was a challenging time for Harper and her educational team. The teacher expressed concerns about her academic abilities. The speech-language pathologist was concerned about her limited vocabulary. Some team members questioned if this was the appropriate placement for her. However, all of the team members agreed to give her more time before recommending a different placement.

The teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing provided Harper in- class and pull-out support to work on reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and math. Harper needed frequent prompting and rephrasing before comprehending questions. By the end of the first marking period, she seemed comfortable with the class and her classmates, and the first-grade teacher reported she was pleased with Harper's academic progress. The itinerant teacher and the speech-language pathologist reported that her speech, language, and listening skills also improved. Her interpreter commented that she increasingly relied on audition to follow class discussion. She adjusted well to her new school and made several friends. The interpreter mentioned that Harper displayed an attitude occasionally with the interpreter or the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing but never with the first grade teacher. Discussion of changing her placement abated shortly after the first marking period. At the end of the school year the first-grade teacher strongly recommended that she move up to second grade. When her grandmother was asked about Harper's progress at the new school, she said, "I can't believe how well she is doing."

 

[Miss-Delectable]

Kenny

Kenny was diagnosed with a hearing loss at 10 months and was implanted at 14 months. He received the services of an auditory- verbal therapist in the home shortly after being implanted. He attended a regular preschool.

Kenny entered kindergarten with excellent speech, language, and listening skills. His academic abilities were strong. However, he was immature. It was a challenge to keep him focused and in his seat. The resource room teacher worked with him (and Harper) for more than 2 hours each morning previewing and reviewing the content covered in the mainstream kindergarten class. In addition, the resource room teacher devoted time every day to addressing his behavior. His SRS score at the end of kindergarten indicated that he needed an intensive level of support (i.e., comprehensive).

Kenny entered first grade at his neighborhood school with some advantages relative to Harper. First, he was stronger academically. second, he derived greater benefit from his cochlear implant and had superior speech, language, and listening skills. Third, his first- grade teacher was familiar with his family because she had his older sister as a student.

Kenny continued to be strong academically in first grade. However, as the year progressed he became easily distracted. Occasionally, his behavior became disruptive for his teacher and his classmates. At the beginning of the second semester an instructional aide was hired to work with him in the afternoons by helping him with math (his weakest subject) and helping him stay on task. His academic progress was strong throughout the year (except for math). He made several friends during the year and he knew the names of all of his classmates. There was a 100 book challenge in his class for the year; he read 171 books. His educational team recommended that he move up to second grade.

John

John was diagnosed at 2 years old with a moderate to severe, sensorineural hearing loss in his left ear and a severe to profound, sensorneural hearing loss in his right ear and was fitted with bilateral hearing aids. He received auditory-verbal therapy as a preschooler. He made good use of his residual hearing and developed intelligible speech and age-appropriate language skills.

John attended the resource room program for 3 years. His teacher reported he was on grade level. Although he experienced success academically in this setting, he struggled socially. He had difficulty making friends and maintaining friendships. Sometimes he displayed a lack of respect for adults and often neglected to greet people. These behaviors were a concern as transition plans were made to send him back to his home school district. His SRS score at the conclusion of the school year indicated an integrated level of support (i.e., seen two to three times a week for a period or two). John's neighborhood school was based on an open classroom concept. The ambient noise in this school was likely to be detrimental to him. There was another school in the district that was newer and quieter than his neighborhood school. This school also had three other students in lower elementary with significant hearing losses. The decision was made to have him attend this school.

The itinerant teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing serving this building saw John daily for 1 hour. She worked on grammar, reading, auditory training, and social skills. September proved to be a difficult month for him socially. However, by late October he was more comfortable with the class and he began to make friends. By the end of the school year, his itinerant teacher decided that he had made sufficient progress academically and socially that she planned to reduce his level of support when he moved up to third grade. He was dismissed from auditory-verbal therapy at mid-year because of his superb listening skills.

John's mother wrote to the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing at the end of the year and said, "I want to thank you for the outstanding job you did with John this year. The transition from the resource room program to his new school went better than could have been expected. Thank you doesn't seem to completely cover the gratitude we feel."

Reed

Reed was diagnosed at 3 years old with a bilateral, moderate, sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear and a severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and was fitted with bilateral hearing aids. He received auditoryverbal therapy as a preschooler and this continued when he became school age. He developed excellent speech, language, and listening skills.

The resource room teacher saw Reed daily for one period. He was in a regular first-grade class the remainder of the day. The resource room teacher previewed vocabulary and concepts from the first-grade curriculum that were problematic for him. She reported that he was on grade level for all subjects. His SRS score at the end of first grade indicated an integrated level of service.

Reed did not change schools. The elementary school housing the resource room program was his home school. He was strong academically in second grade, but he noticed a difference without the resource room. He told his mother, "I'm the only one," and, indeed, he was the only child in that class with hearing aids.

Reed's second-grade teacher raised mild concerns about his reading skills. The itinerant teacher contemplated increasing his level of support slightly in the coming year to address this concern. He was dismissed from auditoryverbal therapy during this year because of his excellent use of audition.

Derek

Derek was diagnosed at 6 months with a bilateral, moderate to severe, sensorineural hearing loss and was fitted with bilateral hearing aids. He developed excellent speech and listening skills. He displayed good conversational skills, but these sometimes masked deficiencies that he had in other areas of language. For example, he struggled to maintain a topic and frequently would change the topic to one with which he was more familiar. For example, he liked to discuss baseball, especially the New York Yankees, even though this was unrelated to the topic under discussion. Occasionally, his behavior was problematic. His SRS score at the end of first grade indicated a need for comprehensive support.

Derek, like Reed, continued in the same elementary school that housed the resource room program. It was not his home school, but it was his home school district. During the past year, he was supported by the itinerant teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing. She provided a mix of in-class and pull-out support during the first and last periods of the day. She reported that he found the second- grade curriculum extremely challenging. She devoted much of her time with him to working on reading comprehension. Derek displayed good decoding skills but often did not comprehend what he read. The itinerant teacher also worked on his writing skills. He frequently strayed from the topic in his writing, too. He was dismissed from auditory-verbal therapy because of his excellent listening skills.

Brian

Brian's hearing loss occurred at 18 months of age due to chemotherapy, resulting in a mild sloping to profound, bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss. He was fitted with bilateral hearing aids. He developed intelligible speech and displayed strong language and listening skills. He attended the resource room program from kindergarten through fifth grade. His SRS score at the end of fifth grade indicated the need for an integrated level of support.

Brian transitioned back to his neighborhood elementary school for sixth grade (middle school did not begin until seventh grade in this school district). He received daily support for 1 hour a day from the itinerant teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing serving this elementary school. She focused on previewing and reviewing vocabulary for math, social studies, science, and specials. He was in a learning disabilities class for language arts. She also worked with him on self-advocacy skills and maintaining his hearing aids.

The teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing indicated that Brian was successful academically during sixth grade. He reported that his classmates often commented that he was smart. He struggled somewhat socially in this new setting. He said, "These kids at this school get in trouble all the time." At the end of the school year his family moved to a neighboring county.

Conclusions

One year after closing the resource room program all of the itinerant teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing reported that the students were successful in their new schools (as well as the two students who remained at the original elementary school). However, each student encountered challenges at his or her new school, especially at the beginning of the year. The new itinerant teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing as well as the other educational team members also confronted challenges meeting the various needs of these students in their new settings. In almost every case this was the first time the general education teacher and the speech- language pathologist assigned to that building had worked with a student with a significant hearing loss. Because of this, the educational teams for each student met often to plan together and reflect on what worked. The students appeared to gain confidence, too. It appeared that the exposure these students had to the general education curriculum at the previous elementary school prepared them well for the general education curriculum at their new schools. Furthermore, the support they received from the resource room teacher in speech, language, and listening skills seemed beneficial to these children as they acclimated to their new schools.

Although the students transitioned successfully to their new settings, the transition was not always smooth. For example, Harper started slowly and it appeared she was in the wrong placement. Two months later she improved and by the end of the year she was academically in the middle of her class. Kenny appeared to do well the first semester, but his behavior became more problematic as the school year progressed. Derek appeared to be struggling with the academic demands of second grade even with intensive support from the teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing and a full-time, one-to- one assistant. Yet, he did make progress.

The five itinerant teachers demonstrated several qualities or characteristics that helped these students make the transition to their new schools. Each one had several years of experience as a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing. Although serving a student with a cochlear implant was a new experience for two of the teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing, it was not a novel experience. Each teacher had extensive experience with auditory-oral methods and was familiar with auditory-verbal techniques. Most important, these teachers were a valuable resource for the general education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and school administrators when they had questions about amplification, adaptations, or accommodations for the students.

It is interesting that teachers and parents reported that the students rarely asked about the resource room or their former classmates. One parent commented that her son mentioned that the playground was bigger at the previous school. Similarly, a teacher said that her student mentioned that the playground of the previous school had better equipment. Another teacher said that Harper and Kenny became pen pals after the resource room program closed and that they occasionally saw each other.

Although closing the resource room and the transitioning the students back to their home school districts worked, it did come with a cost. First, almost every student struggled at the beginning of the school year. Perhaps these students would not have struggled quite so much if they had continued in the resource room program. second, IDEIA mandates a continuum of placements for students with disabilities. Closing this resource room makes the continuum of placements less extensive for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in this county. If classroom or resource room settings no longer exist, the continuum of placements becomes more constricted and the education of some students who are deaf or hard of hearing could be compromised. Third, the closing of this resource room meant starting over with the teachers and staff of several different schools. It took a long time to develop the expertise in hearing loss that the general education teachers associated with the resource room program had accumulated. Fourth, closing the resource room meant that most of the students would be the only student in their school with a hearing loss. A benefit of the resource room was that the students saw other students on a daily basis who also had hearing aids or a cochlear implant and who encountered many of the same challenges and frustrations. Fifth, the principal, staff, and community at the elementary school with the resource room had to say good-bye to a program and students they had come to embrace and admire. The principal said, "Having students who were deaf or hard of hearing in our building made my teachers better teachers." Finally, the resource room teacher resigned at the conclusion of the school year and accepted a general education first-grade teaching position. As difficult as it was to close the resource room program, there were positives. First, IDEIA mandates that children be exposed to the general education curriculum and be educated in their neighborhood school or home school district if at all possible. This experience demonstrated that students who are deaf or hard of hearing can be effectively educated in their home school district even when they have significant hearing losses. second, it gave two teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing experience with cochlear implants, which may not have occurred if the resource room continued to exist. Third, it gave the supervisor of the Hearing Support Program a unique opportunity to collaborate with parents. Typically, the supervisor saw the parents once a year at an Individualized Education Program meeting. In this case, he called or met with parents on almost a weekly basis in developing transition plans for their children to return to the neighborhood school. Finally, closing the resource room gave these students an opportunity to attend school with peers in their neighborhood and, more important, an opportunity to make new friends.

Author's Note: The author would like to thank parents, teachers, and administrators for their assistance in the preparation of this article.

 

[jillio]

These are sad, sad stories indeed. We are continuing to find that school districts are more than willing to sacrifice the needs of the deaf student in the name of inclusion. When are we all going to stand up and say, "Enough is enough! Our deaf students are not expendable!"