Disempowerment

Disempowerment The editorial in the October, 1995 issue of the Annals entitled "Inclusion and Segregation: Separate and Unequal" generated as much comment as any editorial I have written in my six years as editor. The responses were to two separate issues. The first had to do with what I consider to be disturbing trends at the level of state departments of education . (Please refer to the Letter to the Editor in this issue to place this in context.) The second had to do with what I consider to be contradictory trends in the education of deaf and hard of hearing children; namely pushing for "inclusion " of deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing children while simultaneously segregating signing deaf and hard of hearing children from non-signing deaf and hard of hearing children. Much of my communication on this question has taken place via phone calls, face-to-face discussion, and email , but not through formal channels. Therefore, I want to address systemic questions at this time and hold the inclusion /exclusion debate until the March issue of the Annals. Letters to the Editor are welcome. First, it seems to me that the education of deaf and hard of hearing children is suffering from an enormous numerical weakness, in terms of both the general school age population and the special education population. We are able to advocate for the unique needs of our children only to the extent that they are distinguished from other populations. Thus we push for the rights of our children under such umbrellas as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but at the same time seek specific legislation such as the Education of the Deaf Act (EDA). The distinctiveness was relatively easy to maintain when most deaf and hard of hearing children attended residential schools or local day schools separate from hearing children . The fact that this is no longer the case exacerbates our declining influence over how deaf and hard of hearing children are educated. Approximately one child in a thousand in the United States has what would be characterized as an "educationally significant" hearing loss. Of this number, perhaps half have a profound hearing loss. To put it in perspective, a relatively large school district might have 50,000 pupils, of whom about 6,000 would be labelled as disabled and receive services. The bulk of these children would be in two categories—speech problems and learning disabilities. Within the special education population there might be 25 deaf and 25 hard of hearing pupils. These children can be swallowed up by the system if there is not a solid base of advocacy and support. Many of us have watched at local, county, regional, and state levels as the lines of administrative responsibility have blurred, with perhaps a coordinator for "low incidence" programs assuming responsibility for services for deaf and hard of hearing children, among other "low incidence" groups. Decentralization and local control might be effective for general education. I really do not know, but I do know that it can be devastating for the children we serve because of their small numbers and special needs. One of the many reasons for my enthusiasm for the Texas system of regional offices for the deaf was that the existence of independent, free-standing offices responsible for technical support and for the flow of money to the public schools was a symbol of commitment. Dismantling this system and folding remaining resources into larger service centers sends a clear signal of reduced commitment. It has happened across the United States and Texas is the most recent and dramatic example. It is incumbant upon all of us to reestablish at local, state, and national levels a commitment to the importance of educating deaf and hard of hearing children. Donald F. Moores Editor Volume 140, No. 5 American Annals of the Deaf ...