Newsgroups: bit.listserv.deaf-l
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:57:40 EDT
From:         Harold Johnson <HJOHNSON@KENTVM.BITNET>
Subject:      new member information

Hello,
  I have just subscribed to Deaf-L and as such I have been asked to
provide a bit of information about myself.  That information is as
follows:

  Name:  Harold A. Johnson
  Place:  Kent, OH
  Position:  Associate Professor - Kent State University - College
of Education - Deaf Education Program [the program trains individuals
to become teachers of the deaf, at the present time there are about
100 UG/G students in the Program - I am the Director of the Program]
  Hearing Status:  Hearing
  Why I Subscribed to Deaf-L:  I want to learn, I want to exchange
information/frustrations/concerns/questions with other individuals
who have an interest in/expertise within deafness, I want to expand
the number of individuals from whom my students can learn, I want to
become part of/establish groups of individuals who are interested in
carry out research in deafness [my particualr focus is bilingual/bi-
cultural education and its impact upon the linguistic and academic
performance of deaf kids], I want to be "connected" with others in
the area of deafness, etc.
  Initial Questions/Concerns:  Who else belongs to this listserve
group?  Who is involved in microethnographic research on the impact
of Bi/Bi?  Is anyone else concerned with the apparent message conveyed
in the June 30 speech by Robert Davila to the National Association
for the Deaf? [see below]





        Posted: T
        Aug 25, 1992   2:27 PM EDT              Msg: CGJC-5356-3955
        From:   NASDSE.FEDERAL
        To:     federal
        Subj:   Davila Speech:LRE-Deaf Ed-Other


        ROBERT R. DAVILA: KEYNOTE ADDRESS
        National Association of the Deaf

        Washington, DC -- The following is the full text of a speech
        by Dr. Robert R. Davila, Assistant Secretary, Office of Special
        Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of
        Education, Washington, DC.  Dr. Davila gave this keynote
        address on June 30, 1992, before the 31st Biennial
        Convention of the National Association of the Deaf in Denver,
        Colorado.

        In this address, Dr. Davila touches on a number of topics,
        including the issue of least restrictive environment for
        students who are deaf.
        ________________________________________________________
        _

        SCALING NEW HEIGHTS

        Robert R. Davila

        It gives me great pleasure to be here with you today. I have
        gone out and spoken to hundreds of different groups on a wide
        range of topics since I became Assistant Secretary of Education.
        And I can honestly tell you that I have especially looked
        forward to my visit with you today.  That is partly because I
        am among many of my oldest and dearest friends and
        colleagues, people for whom I have the greatest respect.  But
        more than that, I have something of importance to tell you
        today.  I am not here with a business-as-usual type of speech.
        I am hopeful that what I have to tell you has great potential
        for the future of deaf people, and especially deaf children, in
        this country.

        When the report of the Commission on Education of the Deaf
        (COED) was issued with its fifty-two recommendations, we all
        had a couple of options for how to deal with it.  We could
        congratulate Frank Bowe and the Commission members for all
        their fine work, and then let the report lay around for a few
        months until we slipped it onto a bookshelf never to be looked
        at again.  Or, we could view it as a basis for long-term change, a
        blueprint for action.  About a year-and-a-half after the report
        was issued, I was appointed by President Bush to my current
        position.  I suddenly found that my choice between these two
        options would have an impact on the lives of thousands and
        thousands of deaf children and adults all across this country.  I
        chose to recognize the potential of these recommendations for
        long-term change, and my administration has taken and
        continues to take significant and meaningful actions in
        response.  Of course, not all or even most of the fifty-two
        recommendations fall into my area of responsibility, and we
        don't have enough time today for me to give you an update on
        all the recommendations my office has acted on.  But some of
        our actions merit a status report.

        Some of the most important of the COED recommendations, in
        my estimation and based on what we hear from you, are the
        recommendations numbered four through eleven.  These eight
        recommendations are about placement considerations for deaf
        children in terms of appropriate education as related to the
        least restrictive environment (LRE), and parents' rights.  I don't
        need to tell you about the problems we've faced in these areas.
        I was very much involved in dealing with these issues when I
        was an educator of the deaf.  The bottom line, for the COED and
        for me, is that the purpose of P.L. 94-142, now renamed the
        Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) --- "to assure
        that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
        appropriate public education...designed to meet their unique
        needs..." --- has simply not been achieved for many deaf
        students.  Contrary to what the statute requires, an appropriate
        education based on the child's unique needs is not being
        provided to many deaf children.  I believe there are a lot of
        reasons for this, many of which can not and should not be
        addressed by the federal government.  But if you asked me for
        the single issue that most thwarts our attempts to provide an
        appropriate education for deaf children, I would tell you the
        same thing that the COED so convincingly demonstrated in its
        report: the interpretation and application of the LRE provision.

        Now, I want to be very clear about what I am saying here.
        Notice that I did not say that the LRE provision itself is the
        problem.  In fact, I believe that nothing in the law or even the
        regulations has specifically caused many deaf children to be
        denied an appropriate education.  Rather, the problem is the
        way the LRE provision has been generalized and applied, or
        misapplied.  In some ways it is ironic.  Ironic that a law that
        has at its very heart the provision of an appropriate education
        based on each child's individual and unique needs, has become
        so generalized in everyday practice.  School districts are
        applying the LRE provision by generalizing that placements in
        or closer to the regular classroom are somehow inherently less
        restrictive for all children with disabilities.  While this may be
        true for many children with all types disabilities, you and I
        know that for a deaf child, these settings may be completely
        isolating due to communication factors.  Simply placing a deaf
        child in a classroom with children who are not deaf does
        nothing for anyone if they are unable to communicate and
        benefit from their interactions.  You and I know this, and now
        is the time for us to do something about it.

        I am concerned that some school districts, rather than actually
        determining the LRE for each child based on individual needs -
        - as required by the law and its regulations -- in practice, may
        be placing deaf children in an environment with untrained
        staff and unqualified interpreter support in the belief that a
        program in a regular public school setting that fails to meet the
        educational needs of a deaf child is preferable to a program in
        a special school or center program for the deaf that meets those
        needs.  In fact, school officials may believe they are precluded
        from considering placements that are viewed by some as "more
        restrictive" because of the strong tilt toward mainstreaming
        that has been reflected in federal policy.  The result is that
        what is determined an appropriate education for a deaf child is
        too often driven by the location of the placement, rather than
        by education and related services specific to the child's
        particular needs.  We are more convinced than ever that this is
        wrong.  You and I know it, and we want to do something about
        it before we lose a generation of deaf children.

        Of course, the regular classroom and local programs are
        entirely appropriate for some deaf students.  I want to
        emphasize this with you.  And for those children, the NAD and
        all of us must work to ensure that they get that opportunity
        and get all the support services they need.  My point here is
        that the placement decision should and must be based on the
        particular needs of the child, not on some preconceived and
        generalized notion of what is best for all children.  We know it,
        and we can do something about it.

        What exactly can we do to correct this situation?  The answer,
        really, is fairly simple on the surface.  We can address the
        concerns reflected in recommendations four through eleven of
        the COED report.  Yes, that sounds simple enough, but some of
        you in this room have been advocating for that very thing to
        happen since the report came out.  So what is different now?
        One thing I did not need to learn when I became Assistant
        Secretary, because I already knew it, was that stronger federal
        leadership was needed in the education of deaf children.  I had
        discussions with some of you about the changes that needed to
        occur, and I told you that things could happen, would happen,
        but that it would not be overnight.  I understood your
        frustrations on behalf of your own and other deaf children,
        because they were also my frustrations.  Sure, there were some
        areas that we could address head-on and quickly.  And this
        experience proves the theory that federal funding in and of
        itself is not the answer to all our problems.  I was immediately
        able to focus more attention on the serious needs and lack of
        services for deaf children and adults, and the Office of Special
        Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is now spending
        more than $150 million on projects targeted specifically toward
        deafness.  This amount does not include funds provided by the
        formula grant programs, our largest funding sources.  We have
        made giant strides; for example, in the area of long-term
        rehabilitations training programs in deafness, we have doubled
        our funding since 1988, so that we now spend almost $2
        million in this one area alone.  But I also understood that it was
        important to approach real change in the context of
        substantive, long-term improvements in the education of deaf
        children.  Change that would outlast my tenure at the
        Department of Education, not some quick fix that would
        disappear the day after I left office.  And to achieve this long-
        term change, I knew I had to lay the groundwork throughout
        the Department of Education and with key constituencies
        outside the Department.  For what I had in mind, it would not
        be enough to effect the needed changes simply in the context of
        the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.  My
        goal was to involve others and the Department as a whole in
        this effort, so that the changes I ultimately implemented would
        permeate policy across the board.

        I want to inform you that from this day forward, federal policy
        on the education of deaf students and our communications
        about that policy will support the law in its tenet that the
        provision of an appropriate education is paramount.  The
        perception of the COED in 1988 was that LRE, as applied by
        federal, state, and local education agencies, was the major cause
        of large numbers of deaf students being denied an appropriate
        education.  Now, on June 30, 1992, it is still the case.  But that
        is about to change.  From this day forward, the U.S. Department
        of Education takes a giant step toward fulfilling our obligations
        to students who are deaf, with a policy approach emphasizing
        that which is paramount in the statute, the provision of an
        appropriate education.

        There are many children with a variety of disabilities for
        whom the Department's emphasis on LRE has been beneficial,
        helping them secure an appropriate education.  I have been
        and remain an advocate for parents who seek integrated
        settings for their children with disabilities.  But the COED found
        that this has not yet been the case with many deaf children.
        Deaf children, too, are entitled to an appropriate education, and
        you and I must be sure they receive it.

        This emphasis on appropriateness is not a change in the law, or
        even a change in the regulations.  This is simply going back to
        the heart of the law.  I strongly believe that the framers of the
        original P.O. 94-142 never intended for LRE to overshadow the
        law's stated purpose -- an appropriate education based on the
        child's unique needs -- for even one child.  And so what I am
        doing, what the U.S. Department of Education is doing, is
        shifting the focus back to this stated purpose.  I have had
        lengthy discussions with the General Counsel of the Department
        of Education, our chief legal officer, about some of the more
        difficult issues in the education of deaf students and the
        promise of the COED recommendations in addressing those
        issues.  At my request, he has thoroughly reviewed these eight
        COED recommendations and he assures me that the concerns
        they reflect are not inconsistent with the IDEA and its
        regulations.  He understands and believes, as I do, that many of
        the recommendations restate principles embodied in the law.
        So we are going back to the law, and using COED
        recommendations number four through eleven as a basis, we
        are going to alleviate what the COED identified as the most
        serious obstacles preventing deaf children from receiving an
        appropriate education.

        We are developing an aggressive plan of action to address the
        concerns the COED so clearly described in recommendations
        number four through eleven, in the areas of appropriate
        education and parental rights.  I cannot share all the specifics
        of our plan with you today, but let me just give you an idea of
        our activities.

        First, in the very near future, the Department will issue
        guidance that will clarify federal policy in a number of key
        areas.  We will clarify that the IEP for a deaf child should take
        into consideration factors such as severity of hearing loss and
        the potential for using residual hearing; academic level and
        learning style; communication needs and the preferred mode of
        communication; linguistic, cultural, social, and emotional needs;
        opportunities for peer interactions and communication;
        placement preference; individual motivation; and family
        support.  This policy guidance will also describe our emphasis
        on appropriateness, which is at the very heart of the law, in
        determining the least restrictive environment for deaf children.

        In this policy guidance, we will advise states and school
        districts that they can, indeed should, consider curriculum
        content and methods of delivering the curriculum in terms of
        an individual deaf child's needs when making placement
        decisions.  We will also clarify how school officials and parents
        can consider potential harmful effects on the deaf child when
        selecting the least restrictive environment.  In doing so, we will
        be able to direct consideration to the appropriateness of the
        education services and the placement, based on the child's
        individual needs, and help define what constitutes an
        appropriate education for a deaf child.

        We will communicate, as we have in many policy letters during
        my tenure, that each state must ensure that a full continuum of
        alternative placements -- including regular classrooms with
        support services, and special schools -- is available to meet the
        needs of deaf students for special education and related
        services.  The options on the continuum of alternative
        placements must be made available to the extent necessary to
        implement each child's IEP.  We will strongly encourage states
        to adopt policies and procedures whereby local education
        agencies inform parents of the placement options available to
        their children.

        This policy guidance will be only the first step, not an end in
        and of itself.  We will be issuing ongoing guidance and
        clarification in these areas, often in the form of memos to the
        state education agencies.  These SEAs, in turn, are responsible
        for how special education and related services are provided to
        children with disabilities.  We will be giving the States
        technical assistance, in the form of training and responding to
        their questions about our policy.  Our monitoring and
        compliance activities will be revised to reflect our policy in this
        area.  These are some of the ways we will effect long-term,
        substantive change.

        I mentioned earlier the importance of involving external
        groups in our efforts to improve education for deaf children.  A
        key group is the people from each of your states who are
        responsible for all of the special education programs.  I am
        pleased to say that the National Association of State Directors of
        Special Education is working with the leadership of the NAD
        and the Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the
        Deaf (CEASD) on a Deaf Initiatives Project that I believe will
        have far-reaching effects.  This OSERS-funded project grew out
        of an initiative that I supported and which was launched at an
        action seminar that NASDSE hosted last year.  Dr. Rosen and
        other NAD leaders were participants, and NAD has been offered
        a significant role in this project because you are recognized as
        the major consumer organization with knowledge about and
        vested interest in educational programs for deaf children.  This
        project is linking state directors of special education with
        administrators of deafness programs, and working to develop
        and disseminate standards in a number of important areas.
        This is not a project about placement, although the principles of
        appropriateness will be stressed.  Rather, this is a project about
        quality services for deaf children regardless of the location of
        their placement.  Every deaf child is entitled to a high quality
        education, no matter where he or she goes to school, and this
        project has the potential to make this happen.  The
        involvement of state directors of special education in a project
        focusing on deafness is something that would not have
        happened a few years ago, and I am delighted that the NAD is a
        key participant in this important work.  I encourage you to
        maintain that involvement and use this project as a means for
        fulfilling your advocacy responsibilities on behalf of all deaf
        children.

        Some of our states are already showing great leadership in
        addressing both quality and placement issues for deaf children.
        Pennsylvania, under the leadership of state director of special
        education Dr. James Tucker, recently developed what I consider
        to be a model policy that clearly describes what factors should
        be considered in developing an IEP and then making placement
        decisions for deaf children.  Pennsylvania has also recognized
        its center schools for deaf children to be "magnet" schools, a
        concept that has possibilities for other states as well.  I have
        shared this policy with Dr. Rosen, and I encourage every one of
        you to get a copy from the NAD office.  When you go home,
        meet with representatives from your own state government
        and encourage them to adopt a similar policy.  Dr. Tucker told
        me that this policy is the result of ongoing communication with
        deaf people in his state.  Who can make sure that a similar
        policy is adopted in your state?  You can, and as a deaf leader,
        you have a responsibility to work toward that.

        Right here in Colorado, you have a situation where one of the
        national leaders in the inclusion movement is also one of the
        strongest supporters of center schools for deaf students.  Brian
        McNulty, executive director of the office of special services at
        the Colorado Department of Education, has had a strong push
        for moving students with disabilities out of state schools and
        institutions and back to school districts -- that is, except for
        deaf students.  Dr. McNulty, like Dr. Tucker in Pennsylvaina,
        has gone to the trouble of learning and understanding about
        the special and unique needs of deaf children.  He knows that
        for most other disability groups, individual educational needs
        can often be met in the regular school and classroom.  But he
        understands that a critical mass of deaf students is necessary
        for providing the intensive language-rich environment that is
        often required for an appropriate education.  Dr. McNulty told
        me that people have asked him how he balances LRE with
        residential placements for deaf students.  He says the answer is
        easy when you consider the needs of the individual students.

        Let me move on.  It would take a couple of hours to give you a
        rundown on all of the Department's activities related to the
        COED recommendations.  It is important for you to know that
        all three components of my office -- the National Institute on
        Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Office of Special
        Education Programs, and the Rehabilitation Services
        Administration -- have zeroed in on these recommendations
        and have worked hard to address them.  We have taken these
        recommendations to heart, and they have had a real effect on
        federal programs and funding priorities.  And today you have
        seen that they are having a real effect on federal policy.

        The Department is researching language acquisition in deaf
        children, and we have plans to put even more money into this,
        including ALS research, next year.  Our support of interpreter
        training, especially educational interpreters, has increased
        dramatically since the COED report, as has our support of all
        types of personnel training related not only to deafness but
        also to the significant numbers of deaf people with additional
        disabilities.  We have increased services for low-functioning
        deaf persons, and we are taking significant steps to improve
        services for deaf-blind children and adults.  Just last month we
        supported the National Symposium on Technology Applications
        for Deaf Students, as recommended by the COED, and we asked
        the symposium sponsors and participants to help us as the
        Department develops a national agenda in this important area
        as we move into the next century.

        The COED also made some recommendations in the area of
        postsecondary education.  The Department is now conducting a
        study on postsecondary educational opportunities for deaf
        persons.  We plan to use this information as part of our
        assessment of existing postsecondary programs, and to help us
        determine future directions.  We already know from previous
        research that deaf students enroll for coursework at the
        postsecondary level at a higher rate than any other disability
        group, but that they also have a high attrition rate.  We hope to
        find out why, and then to be able to focus federal support in a
        way that will help ensure success for more deaf students.

        Finally, several recommendations for the COED deal with areas
        that are covered by the Education of the Deaf Act, the law that
        authorizes Gallaudet University and the National Technical
        Institute for the Deaf.  It happens that this legislation is due to
        be reauthorized by the Congress this year, and the Department
        has already been sent our legislative proposal to Congress, so I
        want to share a few of the key points in our bill with you that
        relate to COED recommendations.  We are recommending that
        Kendall Demonstration Elementary School (KDES) and the Model
        Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD) have a clearly defined
        responsibility for serving students with a broad spectrum of
        needs, including students who are academically lower
        functioning, who are from non-English speaking homes, who
        have additional disabling conditions, or who reside in rural
        areas.  We also propose expanding MSSD's authority to include
        students preparing for postsecondary opportunities other than
        college, and we are proposing some provisions that will
        increase Gallaudet's and NTID's accountability in the use of the
        approximately $116 million in federal funds these two
        institutions receive annually.

        This past March I had the honor of participating in the
        Excellence and Equity conference on the Black deaf experience
        in Atlanta.  I want to congratulate the NAD for co-sponsoring
        this conference, and the upcoming conference on the Hispanic
        deaf experience in San Antonio this fall.  The Department is
        providing financial support for these two conferences, even
        though we do not, as a rule, fund conferences.  We are doing it
        because we have been appalled at the serious needs in these
        sectors of the deaf community.  As I have traveled the country
        these past three years, I have seen again and again that our
        deaf community is really many communities.  Yes, we have
        similarities and common concerns, and we also have significant
        differences and broadly divergent needs.  As the most
        powerful and nationally-recognized representative of deaf
        people in this country, the NAD has a special responsibility to
        give attention to the concerns and the needs of deaf people
        who are African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian
        Americans, and Native Americans.  Speaking personally, I have
        developed a whole new awareness and appreciation of my own
        Hispanic culture during the past three years.  Without any way
        minimizing my respect for my own deaf culture, moving into a
        broader arena outside the field of deafness has given me a
        chance to explore and appreciate the Hispanic part of Robert
        Davila in a way that I never did before.  I am sure some of you
        in the audience understand what I mean.  As you go home to
        scale new heights after this conference, I implore you to attend
        to the deaf community's multicultural aspects and to broaden
        your advocacy efforts to include those who need the NAD the
        most and who have the most to contribute to our increased
        understanding of the community's diversity.  It is time for the
        NAD to be truly representative of all deaf people.  A large
        segment of the deaf community is still absent, and we have a
        responsibility to be inclusive.  The NAD has been talking about
        the inclusion of representative groups within its membership
        for years.  It is time for bold, concerted action to support this
        commitment.  We in the federal sector expect this leadership
        from you.

        Our schools have a multicultural responsibility to students from
        diverse ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds.  I grew up in a
        Spanish-speaking family, and my 90-year-old mother still
        primarily speaks Spanish.  I value and respect the Spanish
        language, just as I value ASL and English.  My Hispanic culture
        is as important to me as my deaf culture.  Our deaf children's
        family cultures, heritages, and languages should be honored
        and nourished, and at not time should we try to fit all deaf
        children into any one mold.  My point is that even a bicultural
        instructional approach alone is not sufficient for many of us.  It
        is not the federal government's business to go into schools and
        advocate for any one method of instruction over another.  We
        leave decisions about methods of instruction in the hands of
        competent professionals and parents.  It is the educators'
        responsibility, along with parents, to work through the IEP
        process as required by law to determine the appropriate
        education for each individual deaf child.  Our responsibility, in
        the federal government, is to be sure that the rights of each
        deaf child are not violated or compromised as a result of any
        one type of programming, and that programming decisions are
        made on an individual basis as required by law.

        I do have a concern that programs adopting a narrow
        communication approach, one that proscribes a single
        communication method or philosophy across the board, may
        dangerously narrow their focus to the point that such school's
        admissions will ultimately be far more limited than they would
        wish and their very viability will be threatened.  In the past,
        residential schools or center schools were appropriately viewed
        as comprehensive programs that could meet the individual
        needs of any deaf child, largely due to the skill, expertise, and
        adaptability of specially trained staff.  This concept of the
        comprehensive school was also instrumental in the
        establishment of the Special School of the Future project, the
        founding of MSSD and Kendall as national demonstration
        schools, and in many schools becoming educational resource
        centers on deafness for entire states or regions.  But now,
        schools that adopt a much narrower approach and limit
        themselves to a stringent communication policy, regardless of
        the mode, run the risk of excluding themselves from the list of
        viable options when families are making decisions about
        education.  We also have to realize that the fewer children our
        schools serve, the more expensive their individual education
        becomes.  And in these times of tight state budgets, this is an
        area that has to be considered.  It greatly concerns the public
        that the per capita cost of some residential school placements
        exceeds $50,000 per year.  Those who have designed programs
        that limit children's and teachers' communication to a single
        mode, as a school-wide, all-encompassing policy or practice,
        may not have thoroughly considered these long-range issues.
        These are not areas that the federal government involves itself
        in, but I hope that this field is seriously thinking of these issues
        as it looks to the future.

        As a final word on this subject, I go back to my responsibility
        to ensure that decisions about the education that an individual
        deaf child receives is based on his or her individual needs.  We
        have no more right to make a unilateral statement that every
        deaf child should learn exclusively through the use of
        American Sign Language, than we have to say that every deaf
        child should learn exclusively through speech and lipreading.

        I have told you a lot today about our activities in the federal
        government, what we have done in response to the
        recommendations of the Commission on Education of the Deaf.
        We still need to do more, and we will.  But we are not alone in
        our responsibilities.  You, too, have grave responsibility, as
        individuals and collectively as the National Association of the
        Deaf.

        I have outlined some of the actions the Department will take in
        the near future to refocus federal policy as it relates to the
        education of deaf children.  But the effect of my actions, the
        actions of the Department, are dependent upon you and your
        responses.  If you, the NAD, truly want to achieve lasting
        change and reclaim the future for the education of deaf
        children, you must take action.  Work with your state
        association to take the Pennsylvania policy I spoke about your
        state department of education.  Work with officials in center
        schools and local school districts to make sure the services for
        every deaf child in your state are of the very highest quality.
        Help those schools and programs become accountable for the
        education of every deaf child.  Be part of your community's
        plan for AMERICA 2000, President Bush's strategy to achieve
        the National Education Goals for all students.

        I want to close by complimenting your leadership's wisdom in
        selecting the theme of this conference, "Scaling New Heights,"
        because the real promise of NAD is for the future.  The actions
        you take today and next week and during the next two years
        back in your own communities and states will shape the future
        for deaf children and adults.  it is an awesome responsibility to
        shoulder.  I thank you for accepting that responsibility, I wish
        you every success, and I look forward to continuing to work
        with you to create the future for deaf children and adults.

        oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU