Deaf Education in America: Voices of Children from Inclusion Settings

3. Accountability and Legal Influences in Deaf Education

20 The path toward inclusion began with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 (PL 94–142), now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In one sweeping act, Congress declared that the injustices that had plagued the education of students with special needs would no longer be tolerated. Built upon the social forces of the civil rights movement, Congress created a strong foundation for the belief that all citizens could be educated and that society, in the form of public education agencies, was responsible for doing so (Ramsey, 1994). A bonding of the American vision of equality and freedom, coupled with the influence of Brown v. Board of Education, sent increasing numbers of children with disabilities into integrated environments under the belief that “separate cannot be equal.” The dominant message of IDEA is that all children, including children with disabilities, are entitled to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE). The “least restrictive environment” is not a place but a continuum of services requiring high sensitivity to the individual needs of students (Rafferty, Piscitelli, & Boettcher, 2003). This continuum includes options for encouraging social interaction between students with disabilities and their nondisabled, ageappropriate peers (Cohen, 1994a). Even though the law clearly requires that all placement decisions be made on an individual basis through the individual education plan (IEP), many parents and administrators have interpreted LRE to mean placement within a public school. Clearly, in some cases, this has led to an overshadowing of “appropriate” by the terminology of “least restrictive.” Prior to the passage of IDEA, millions of children received inadequate education or were denied an education altogether. This piece of legislation represented a conceptual starting point of a new attempt at addressing the needs of all students (Siegel, 2000). Parents who had negative attitudes Accountability and Legal Influences in Deaf Education 3 21 Accountability and Legal Influences in Deaf Education toward separate educational placements seized the opportunity to enroll their children in the mainstream of the public schools. This movement paralleled a general trend in the U.S. of deinstitutionalization, normalization , and integration into the larger society. As it became more apparent that a culture of inclusion was driving the understanding of LRE to mean a regular classroom, some policy makers became aware of the need to readdress this issue, especially for deaf children . In a special report, the Secretary of Education expressed concern that the “unique communication and related needs” of deaf children were being overlooked. The disability of deafness often results in significant and unique educational needs for the individual child . . . Compounding the manifest educational considerations , the communication nature of the disability is inherently isolating, with considerable effect on the interaction with peers and teachers that make up the educational process. This interaction, for the purpose of transmitting knowledge and developing the child’s self-esteem and identity, is dependent upon direct communication. Yet communication is the area most hampered between a deaf child and his or her hearing peers and teachers. Even the availability of interpreter services in the educational setting may not address deaf children’s needs for direct and meaningful communication with peers and teachers . . . [In light of this belief] the Secretary believes it is important that State and local education agencies, in developing an IEP for a child who is deaf, take into consideration: 1. Communication needs and the child’s and family’s preferred mode of communication; 2. Linguistic needs; 3. Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing; 4. Academic level; and 5. Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interaction and communication. Any setting which does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf, and therefore does not allow for the provision of FAPE, cannot be considered the LRE for that child. (U.S. Department of Education, 1992) Unfortunately, the belief that the regular classroom constituted the LRE had already become deeply embedded in the culture of schools, and the Chapter Three 22 report was largely ignored. Even worse, local and state educational agencies now tend to make fiscal and programmatic decisions based on a belief that non-regular classrooms are disfavored (Siegel, 2001). In the end, there is no legal mandate for inclusion. Instead, policy supports the concept of the LRE as a continuum of placements, and the need for communicative rich...