In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Under Fire Our discipline, as part of special education, is under perhaps its most serious threat since the end of World War II more than fifty years ago. American education has always had a local and state flavor, with much less federal influence and control than most other nations. Given the low incidence of deafness, most of our children were served through a system of state supported residential schools and large city day schools for the deaf. Even during the worst of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when there was a 25% unemployment rate, deaf children were served well by the states and large cities. The federal role in education of the deaf began to grow and became formalized in the 1960s with legislation that led to the establishment of regional vocational technical programs for the deaf, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, the Leadership Training Program (LTP) in Deafness at California State University at Northridge (CSUN). graduate training for teachers, school psychologists, speech pathologists, counselors, and rehabilitation workers, and support for large scale research activities that was never available before. The passage of PL 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 by Congress solidified the federal commitment to special education, a commitment that was strengthened over the years as the original legislation evolved into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I have observed the impact of federal support and commitment to education of the deaf and the difference is like that between night and day. Like so many of my colleagues, federal support has enhanced my education and skills. I participated in the LTP program and was able to study for a research oriented Ph.D. because of federal fellowships. Subsequently, I was involved in teacher training programs and research activities that would not have been possible without federal support . Throughout the country the upgrading of personnel preparation programs has been significant and research has contributed greatly to our understanding of family dynamics , communication, and education. I believe that it is no coincidence that there has been an improvement in academic achievement of deaf children over the past 25 years concomitant with the increase in federal support. As of the preparation of this editorial (February, 1996), Congress has not decided on the fate of IDEA, which officially ran out of funds at the end of the last fiscal year. There is an impact on around 5,000,000 children in our schools. Like so many programs, it has been supported through continuing resolutions, with some discretionary programs cut up to 25%. The Senate and House of Representatives have passed bills that have major differences for fiscal year 1996, which began October 1, 1995. The Senate version would maintain funding for 1996 at FY 95 levels and would continue the discretionary programs. The House version would cut appropriations and eliminate or reduce discretionary programs. This includes severe cuts in personnel training and elimination of all funding for research. The House version would allow states to waive the "Provider Standards" that are now in effect and stipulate that services to children be provided by professionals with the highest level entry degree required by states. The House version would allow states to waive the standards and would include paraprofessionals as qualified. Regardless of how the final version passed by Congress and signed by the President reads, the implications for the education of deaf children are grim. The seriousness of the situation is underlined by a sentiment held by some that financial support to special education has taken resources away from general education . Unfortunately, the situation is exacerbated by what appears to be a growing tendency of some states to abrogate their responsibility to deaf children. Several months ago I noted my perception that organizational changes in Texas implied reduced state commitment for public school education for deaf children, a perception that was strongly challenged. Recently, there has been a proposal in New York to cut state support for children in center schools for the deaf, both day and residential, by around 50%. Such legislation, if passed, would eviscerate center schools and make a mockery of the most appropriate placement requirements mandated (ironically) by Congress since...

pdf

Share