- 15% of the children had unstable hearing that declined over the study period
- Over half of the children had hearing aid fittings that did not meet prescriptive targets and 35% of the total had below average audibility due to poor hearing aid fit; only 65% of the children had adequate aided audibility of speech
- The majority wore their hearing aids at least 8 hours per day, with young children wearing just a few hours, increasing wear time gradually until they achieved more usage in preschool
- 10-15% had declining or limited hearing aid wear
- Children with mild to severe hearing loss, on average, showed depressed language levels compared with peers with normal hearing who were matched on age and socioeconomic status; amount of language delay increased with greater severity of hearing loss
- Better audibility with hearing aids was associated with faster rates of language growth in the preschool years.
- Children fit early with hearing aids had better early language achievement than children fit later. Any degree of hearing loss, even mild loss, can place children at risk for learning issues. The risk can be minimized with early and aggressive intervention.
- 1. White, K. R. (2018). Demographic Considerations in Serving Children who are Hard of Hearing or Deaf. Journal of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention, 3(2), 14-17.
- 2. Ear and Hearing, November/December 2015, Volume 36, Supplement 1 Conclusions article
- 3. Advocacy Facts. NCHAM handout.
1. Following receipt of the request for due process, the school district has 15 days to offer the family an Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) meeting.1 The IDR can be waived only if both the family and the district agree to waive the meeting. I would recommend attending IDR. It is a wonderful opportunity to explore misunderstandings, clarify what is being requested, and work with the decision makers to resolve the disagreements that have arisen from the IEP meetings. This is a meeting that typically will not include attorneys for either the family or the district. Because this is the first opportunity to speak candidly as well as confidentially, it can be quite beneficial for families of children with hearing loss. If this meeting begins to feel like another IEP meeting, it can be ended at any time.
2. The State Department of Education will set dates for both the mediation, which is completely voluntary and confidential,2 and the hearing. A judge or mediator and representatives for the family and district voluntarily attend. For the mediation meeting the job of the judge is to facilitate a compromise. Surprisingly, while the unknown aspects of this process are understandably stressful for families, mediation can be the experience that repairs the relationship. This is not a promise, but a true possibility. As such, it is a wonderful opportunity for families of children who have hearing loss. There are so many unique and different needs regarding students with all degrees of hearing loss and all modes of communication that administrators do not always understand the nuances. Because hearing loss is a low incidence disability, many of these administrators have relied on regionalized programs or Non-Public schools to educate their students. These administrators may honestly be unaware, until the mediation, what the student needs are or that parents have options regarding mode of communication and language development. Administrators may not realize that students with hearing loss have the right to “opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode.”3 In my experience supporting families and districts, as long as both parties are willing to participate in mediation, the strained relationships can begin to heal during mediation. In 2018 approximately 83% of cases were resolved in mediation in Minnesota4 and 97% of cases were resolved at, or just following mediation, in California.5
3. Should the case go to hearing, following a due process decision the family and district have 90 days to file an appeal.The special education system can be overwhelming for families as it has a language all its own. Families do not need to enter any of these steps alone. Consulting with either a special education attorney or an advocate to prepare and navigate the process can be beneficial. Someone who not only understands special education law, but also understands the unique needs of children with hearing loss has the potential to facilitate getting appropriate placement and services, help to the repair of the relationship, and provide additional education for the district administrators. Just as the path of due process may feel intuitively adversarial, it may also feel adversarial to think about bringing an attorney or advocate. However, again, this can actually take the stress off of the family and provide the path to ending the cycle of IEP meetings and amendments that seem to be going nowhere.
- 1. IDEA [20 USC 1415 (f)(1)(B); 34 CFR 300.510]; Preparing for Special Education Mediation and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families and Advocates
- 2. IDEA [20 U.S.C. 1415(e); 34 CFR 300.506]; Preparing for Special Education Mediation and Resolution Sessions: A Guide for Families and Advocates
- 3. IDEA section 300.324(2)(iv)
- 4. ldonline.org/article/6302/
- 5. amsterlawfirm.com/blog/what-happens-after-you-file-for-due-process
|Download an updated version of Resources for Identifying DHH Student Needs: Eligibility Assessment and Beyond that reflects some of the information discussed in Steps to Assessment and additional recent tests not included in that book.|
|Title II of the American’s with Disabilities Act requires that schools ensure that communication for students who are deaf and hard of hearing “are as effective as communication for others through the provision of appropriate aids and services, thus affording an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others.|
1. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, June 1, 2018, S.P. v. East Whittier City School District: https://successforkidswithhearingloss. com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Court-case-RE-need-for-thorough-assessment-highlighted.pdf 2. IDEA section 300.324(2)(iv): Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode. 3. LEAD-K: Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids. https://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Court-case-RE-need-for-thorough-assessment-highlighted.pdf 4. The 2004 IDEA Commentary provides an overall ‘setting the stage’ for the IDEA law; on this webpage. 5. Language underperformance in young children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing: are the expectations too low? Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. September 19, 2017. Results2 focused on children with hearing loss who have language levels within the average range on standardized measures. Researchers identified a mismatch between the cognitive level children test at and the expectations for their language skills. In examining the abilities of their 152 young child subjects they found that at least 40 percent have a capacity for higher language levels – beyond what their language test scores indicate. 6. The Effect of IQ on spoken language and speech perception development in children with impaired hearing. Cochlear Implants International, (11)1, June, 370-74. A 2010 study3 found that children were learning language at approximately 2/3 of the rate (or 70% of the rate) of their normally hearing peers. Subjects were 62 children ages 5-12 years who used oral communication and attended oral early intervention or school settings. Children in preschool learned language at a faster rate than children attending primary school. On average, children attending preschool were learning at 0.78 of the rate for normal hearing children as compared to a rate of 0.67 for students in primary school. Speech perception scores did not plateau until children had, on average, the language ability of a typically hearing 7-year-old. 7. Epilogue: Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice. Ear and Hearing, 36, 92S-98S. Sole reliance on norm-referenced scores may overestimate the outcomes ofCHH. When the children who are hard of hearing (CHH) were compared with the norm-referenced group on various measures, the differences were small. However, when compared the CHH to a sample of CNH who were matched on age and SES, the size of the effect of HL on language doubled to two thirds of a standard deviation. These results question the sole reliance on comparison to norm-referenced test scores for judging eligibility. Standardized test scores may overestimate CHH as they are unlikely to reflect the level of effort that students are expending (cognitive and perceptual resources) to maintain competitiveness with peers in secondary schooling, where the cognitive demands increase. We need to closely monitor the outcomes of CHH including comparing their performance relative to neighborhood grade-mates. Many CHH in the OCHL study represent the best-case scenario. We might expect that a sample with greater diversity on these dimensions would not perform as well as the OCHL cohort 8. Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 2012, 9-16. Today, 80% of children born deaf in the developed world are implanted with cochlear devices. Due to brain plasticity changes during early childhood, children who have not acquired a first language in the early years might never be completely fluent in any language. If they miss this critical period for exposure to a natural language, their subsequent development of the cognitive activities that rely on a solid first language might be underdeveloped, such as literacy, memory organization, and number manipulation.9. Addressing the Need for Appropriate Use of Norm-Referenced Test Instruments. Supporting Success, December 2017.Click here to Download this Article