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

Chapter 3 Placements and Contexts: What Is a Public School Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program? Over time, I noticed an intriguing contrast in the ways the deaf children were perceived by school personnel. The special education administrators , the principal, and most of the general education staff viewed the deaf students very differently from the way they were regarded by the teachers and staff of the deaf and hard of hearing program. Deeply concerned about their obligation to place the deaf children appropriately, the former group spoke of following legislative guidelines and identifying "least restrictive environments." On the other hand, Ms. Roberts, Ms. Adams, and Mrs. Hart rarely discussed these topics. Their most common consideration was the educational needs of deaf children in general. The deaf and hard of hearing program staff were most involved with how to structure their classroom so that Tom, Robbie, and Paul and their classmates could develop the basic skills needed to proceed successfully through elementary, middle, and high schools. The distinction between educational placements and contexts for learning for deaf students does not exist in a vacuum and was not unique to Aspen School. On the contrary , concerns about school placement are among the most durable in deaf education (e.g., Commission 1988), and disputes about where deaf students' schooling should properly take place have a long history (e.g., Moores 1996; Lane et al. 1996). The first schools for deaf students in the United States were residential schools in Hartford, Connecticut (1817), New York (1818), and Philadelphia (1820). As time passed, similar special schools, both state supported and private, were founded in other states, and by 1860 there were more than twenty schools for deaf students in the country. By the mid-twentieth century each state had at least one school, and until the 1960s the majority of deaf students attended a school for deaf students, either a residential school or a special day school. After World War II, the trend in the 26 United States toward offering education for deaf children in local schools rather than in residential schools (Moores 1996; Commission 1988) culminated in a rapid increase in local public school deaf education programs beginning in the 1970s. Two events contributed to this trend. First, the 1963-1965 rubella epidemic engendered a large group of deaf children who needed schooling. Because existing programs could not absorb this large population of students, new local programs were created. Second , PL 94-142 (now termed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA) was enacted in 1975. This law and its accompanying regulations and guidelines codified the notion of educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (or LRE). Although not explicitly stated in the text, the law was widely interpreted as favoring educating children with disabilities in local public schools. PL 94-142 and IDEA are built upon an important American ideal: that society is obligated to provide equal educational opportunity for Americans with disabilities, a group that has been shamefully underserved by educational institutions in the past. Pointing out the weaknesses in the implementation of this ideal is not a rejection of the ideal itself. However, in critical ways, the ideas suggested by or codified in these laws have overlooked the social obligation of schools to actually educate students with disabilities once they are invited into the school building. In particular, the belief that integration with able-bodied peers is the preferred vehicle for ensuring educational opportunity has motivated many of the policy changes that grew out of PL 94-142. In the process, the specific developmental and educational needs of young deaf Americans have been underestimated . The LRE has been the most confusing and controversial legacy of PL 94-142/IDEA. Given the wide range of abilities, learning preferences, and objectives found in this large, highly diverse group, defining the "appropriate " and the "least restrictive" settings for teaching and learning among disabled students is not a simple task. In addition, conflicting notions of appropriateness and restriction easily arise because several people participate in educational decisions made on behalf of a student with disabilities . The outcome has often been that LRE is taken at its most literal meaning to indicate a setting where no visible barriers are apparent. Regular settings with architectural, technological, or human accommodations that seem to eliminate obstacles and make it possible for ablebodied and disabled students to be integrated are favored. Despite the fact that the law itself does not explicitly advocate "mainstreaming" or even Placements and...

Share