1	No Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Child Left Behind: They Can Have It All Bilingual Bicultural Education at The Indiana School for the Deaf
2	Presenters Educational Aud. & Director of Outreach Services Cindy Lawrence, MA, CCC-A Educational Audiologist Linda Charlebois MS, CCC-A Educational Consultant David Geeslin, M.Ed., Doctoral student Family Resource Coordinator Diane Hazel-Jones, M.S., Elementary Education and Deaf Education Language Specialist Louise Fitzpatrick, M.Ed., Deaf Education and Elementary Education School Psychologist Terri Waddell-Motter, Psy.S Speech Language Pathologist and Audiologist Holly Geeslin, M.S., M.S., CCC-A/SLP
3	Nursery School
4	"For the purpose of this..." For the purpose of this presentation, “Deaf” refers to both deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the Deaf education system Ground Rules for Communication with Interpreters
5	Presentation Overview History of Bi-Bi Rationale for Bi-Bi Education How We Met the Challenge Assumptions About the Bi-Bi Philosophy Outcomes and Current Findings Future Challenges
6
7	What is Bi-Bi Education? The Bilingual/Bicultural Philosophy provides language acquisition and facilitates proficiency in two languages, American Sign Language (ASL) and English. By providing an enriched academic and cultural learning environment, our Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students develop a sense of identity within the Deaf community. Students also develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to function effectively with members of a multicultural, diversified community.
8	Where Did Bi-Bi Education Start? William Willard (1809-1888), founder of ISD, student of Laurent Clerc “father of Deaf Education” , used ASL as language of instruction ISD established in 1843 ISD changed the philosophy following the Milan conference of 1880, to become an oral school for the next 80 years
9	Where Did Bi-Bi Education Start? Oral education went unchallenged until the 1970’s with the introduction of Total Communication Total communication was thought to be a way to improve the educational achievement of Deaf children Total Communication became sim-com in practice and still did not improve the educational outcome of students
10	In the Beginning at ISD Communication Curriculum committee established in 1986, chaired by an Audiologist Looked at areas of Speech, Auditory Training, Lipreading, Sign Systems and Sign language Discovered research from fields of linguistics, sign language and language development Realized a focus on language needed to occur first
11	Rationale for Bi-Bi Education Communication Committee changed to Bi-Bi Education Committee and embarked on research Held a meeting with administration and Bi-Bi Committee - shared findings and community view of need for fundamental change in educating Deaf Children (6 Administrators, 6 BiBi committee members) 1988
12	Meanwhile in Washington DC 1988, Civil Rights movement at Gallaudet University Hearing person who did not know the language was appointed president of the university Deaf community spoke out against oppression of the Deaf candidates
13	Bi-Bi Education established in 1989 Administrative changes to include Deaf leadership Changes based on research and acceptance of ASL as a language Changes based on Vygotsky principles of language and thought Changes based on unacceptable academic results of previous educational practices
14	In Summary “The present status of educ- ation for persons who are deaf in the United States is unsatisfactory. Unacceptably so.” (1988 Report from Commission of the Deaf) Deaf children of Deaf parents academically out-perform Deaf children of hearing parents regardless of pedagogical method used
15	How We Met the Challenge The Challenge: Create a school environment that provides all Deaf children with the same tools for success that Deaf children of Deaf parents enjoy
16	Developmental Benefits of Having Deaf Parents 1) Normal language acquisition American Sign Language (ASL) from birth & normal language milestones achieved 2) Social and emotional acceptance of the deaf child No grieving & normal bonding 3) Benefit from the Deaf community at large The knowledge and experience of the Deaf Community made available to the child from birth
17
18	1) Normal language acquisition Services available from birth to age 21 Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) Parent Infant Program: Deaf & Hearing staff provide support and education to newly identified or referred parents birth through 5 years Center based and fully accredited school for ages 18 months – 21 years
19	How We Met the Challenge Educational staff includes native and non-native fluent signers to provide direct and indirect language models Signing environment allows for “overseeing,” i.e. incidental learning ASL/English curriculum to evaluate and monitor each child’s ASL and English development Sign Language classes for parents and staff
20	Parent Involvement
21	2) Social and emotional acceptance Staff KNOW that Deaf/HOH children are as capable as hearing children Staff KNOW that Deaf children are able to develop language normally Staff recognize that spoken English is an additional skill that many children can learn
22	3) Benefit from Deaf community Parent involvement at all levels Community-driven education Bilingual role models: Deaf adults modeling how to interact with the community at large Increased awareness of Deaf history, Deaf culture, ASL as a language, and community traditions Academic decision-making made by individuals from both Deaf and Hearing communities
23	Bilingual/Bicultural Philosophy in Practice Drasgrow, E. (1992). School embraces American Sign Language -natural and most accessible language for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students -allows for normal acquisition of ASL as a first language -used as the language of instruction. Emphasis on early exposure to both ASL and English
24	"Bilingual/Bicultural Schools" Bilingual/Bicultural Schools embrace partnerships with Deaf people as role models, cultural brokers, instructors, program shapers. celebrate Deaf Culture in the educational setting. recognize that Deaf children are members of both the Deaf Community and the (hearing) community at-large.
25
26	Assumptions About Bi-Bi Many myths, mis-understandings and assumptions about Bilingual-Bicultural Education are evident from other professionals and reported in some published work
27	Spoken English is not permitted Spoken English instruction occurs in the Communication Center Pull out speech-language therapy Communication Center in the Preschool About 45% of our kids use spoken English for interpersonal communication
28	Children who have cochlear implants can’t enroll in a Bi-Bi school All students with an educationally significant hearing loss are welcome at our school. 6% of our students in the PS & Elem departments have CI; 7% in the Middle School and 4% in the High School. Cochlear implant users function in the classroom much like our HOH students.
29
30	Speech leads to literacy Speaking and reading are two separate skills – even for hearing people September 1993: The National Education Association reports 20 to 22 million native English speaking adults are functionally illiterate - having Level 1 literacy skills (on a scale of 5)
31	"The number of programs reporting..." The number of programs reporting to use a Bilingual/Bicultural Philosophy is growing According to the American Annals of the Deaf, Vol 148, No. 2 54% Special Schools or residential programs for the Deaf 25% of local programs Bi-Bi philosophies are well established world-wide; Denmark, Sweden, Venezuela, France, and England
32	Bi-Bi schools are only for profoundly deaf children Preschool/Elem 23% have less than 70 dB loss in the better ear Middle/High school 15% have less than 70 dB loss 38% have less than 90 dB loss
33	Bi-Bi schools are only for profoundly Deaf kids. Preschool/Elementary 76% have amplification Middle/High School >50 % have amplification
34	Hearing loss causes language impairment Deaf children have normal language learning capacity. Only language deprivation or developmental language impairment (i.e. SLI) cause a language delay. Language delay from lack of access (environmental problem) is lumped in with true language impairment (child based problem). We have a professional culture that accepts language problems in Deaf kids as normal (i.e. “Pretty good for a deaf kid.”)
35	More Myths to ponder… BiBi means rejecting the “hearing world”. Bilingual Bicultural children only identify with the Deaf world. Bilingual Bicultural children do not have full access to language. English is taught late in the program.
36	"Bi-Bi is only for children..." Bi-Bi is only for children of Deaf parents. ASL should be the language of last resort for children. Children who use ASL do not develop spoken communication skills. Only Deaf individuals can work at Bi-Bi school.
37	"Children in a Bi-Bi program..." Children in a Bi-Bi program do not learn about the hearing community at large. Deaf people are limited to interacting with only other Deaf people. Students who use Signed English cannot enroll in a Bi-Bi school. A school can “be Bi-Bi” by simply hiring a Deaf teacher or two.
38
39	Outcomes and Current Findings Percent of graduates obtaining diplomas and pursuing college education increased to 100% Percent of students who read at grade-level increased
40	Grade 3 Mean Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics
41	Grade 6 Mean Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics
42	Grade 8 Mean Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics
43	Grade 10 Mean Scores in Language Arts and Mathematics
44
45	4^th Grade Reading Level? 3^rd – 4^th grade is still commonly the reported “average” WHY?
46	4^th Grade Reading Level? How are we doing? “Deaf only” includes students with ADHD, EH, Aspergers and Deaf-blind “Deaf only” excludes MR, autism, LD, multiple disabilities
47	4^th Grade Reading Level? 8.25 grade reading level (all graduating seniors 2003) 8.6 grade reading level (deaf only graduating seniors 2003) range was 2.7-12+
48
49
50	Graduates College-Bound 100% of students who receive a diploma went on to college or university. 59% of class of 2003 went on to a college or university.
51	Drew Robarge selected to receive Jim Mills Memorial Athletic and Scholarship Award Drew Robarge was selected by the Kiwanis Club of Indianapolis, a first ever award of its kind to a student of ISD. The award was presented by the late Governor O’Bannon.
52	Meg Katter selected winner of “Focus on People” Meg Katter, ISD 3^rd grader, was selected one of 12 most outstanding Deaf and Hard of Hearing achievers in the nation. Meg was named by Oticon during the American Academy of Audiologists Conference
53	Samantha Krieger - An Actress in the Making Samantha Krieger, ISD 8th grader, was selected to act on a “NCAA for Kids Foundation” series. “Making the Play” is a short story about whether or not hearing kids should allow a Deaf girl to play. This program will appear at the NCAA Headquarters for visitors in November.
54	Amanda Krieger and Bethany Shelly Invited To Co-Present at Conference in Croatia Amanda Krieger and Bethany Shelly, ISD 9^th graders, have been invited to present their research on colors of light reflected from leaves as they change color at the G.L.O.B.E. Learning Expedition International Conference to be held in Croatia.
55	Common Traits Shared by Parents of Successful Students Sign with their child early Accept and celebrate their child Use Deaf community as resource All students highlighted, have two working parents
56	Outcomes and Current Findings Strategic use of the two languages (ASL & English), multiple teaching strategies used Improved English skills Increased hearing aid use Increased numbers of students who have cochlear implants
57	Outcomes and Current Findings Increase in auditory services requested, including Listening Centers, computers, and CDs & tapes. English/Language Arts: 6+1 Trait Writing and Building an Effective Literacy Program Percent of speech therapy requests from students increased
58	Teacher Interview
59	ISD Students Continue Giving to the Community at large The Middle School students raised $108 for the American Red Cross. The High School Honors English class helped auction off $575 by designing race cars and participating in the Art in Motion program to benefit the Herron School of Art Foundation. The high school students designed and made a Christmas wreath that was auctioned off at $175 which was donated to the Phoenix Theater.
60	Outcomes and Current Findings Bilingual Methodology Approaches Utilizing concurrent use of language (Baker, 2001) Preview, View, Review (PVR) Translanguaging Purposeful Concurrent Usage (PCU) Translating
61	ISD Wins Academic Bowl Won Mid-west Region Competition at ISD Won National Competition at Gallaudet University Team accomplishments recognized on TV, Indy Star, DOE web page Parents attribute student successes to BIBI program
62	Parent Interviews
63	Key points from Parent Interviews Plain and simple terms (dogs barking) All opportunities explained Trust Language development Child as a whole Respect me as a Deaf adult and my choices Nothing taken away- Deaf children can have it all!
64	Parent Interviews Hearing parent
65	Parent Perspective: BIBI Strengths Early access to language Communicate in the most accessible language Deaf role models Information unbiased
66	Parent Perspective: BIBI Strengths Speech and language are 2 different things Respect for ASL/English and honoring of both Deaf and hearing people Peer interaction Signing early Acceptance of child as normal
67	Future Challenges Within ISD How to better meet the needs of our students with additional educational concerns How to support students who enter Bi-Bi with minimal language after the critical window for acquisition of language How to better serve our Deaf students who have true language impairments How to better serve the auditory development of our hard of hearing students and students with cochlear implants
68	Future Challenges Partnering with other professionals and researchers to present objective information to parents How to share our specialized knowledge of Deaf Education with other programs Modeling successful principals of Bi-Bi Education in other settings ie: local public schools, private schools BiBi programs need to partner with cochlear implant centers to support families for child’s successful implant use
69	Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children will not be Left Behind!
70	Take Home Points Deaf education in the United States has undergone a transformation in the past 10 years Complete access to language is the key to academics and identity. Bilingualism enhances brain development Awareness that language issues can be child-based or environment based We are gate-keepers to a child’s access to early learning through objective parent education Deaf people in your community may be one of your best untapped resources Don’t wait to provide language
71	Questions?
72	How To Contact Us Outreach Department Indiana School for the Deaf 1200 E. 42^nd Street Indianapolis, IN 46205 1-800-722-6166 www.deaf-kids.org www.hh-kids.org (This presentation available at the ASHA Papers website)
73	Bibliography Antosch, S. (1986). Attitudes Toward Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., The Florida International University. Baynton, D. (1996) Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bridges, W. (1991) Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming Again, Again, and Again. Educational Researcher, January, pp. 3-13. Drasgrow, E. (1992). Bilingual/bicultural deaf education: An overview. Sign Language Studies. 80:243-65. Indiana School for the Deaf. (1992). Indiana school for the Deaf Position paper on Bilingual/Bicultural Educational Philosophy. (4 pages). 1-800-722-6166
74	Bibliography cont. Isaelite, N., Ewoldt, C., & Hoffmeister, R. (1989). Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard –of-hearing students: A review of the literature on effective use of native sign language on the acquisition of a majority language by hearing-impaired students. Ontario: Ministry of Education. Johnson, R.E., Liddell, S. K., & Erting, C. J. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Knoors, H. & Renting, B. (2000). Measuring the quality of education: the involvement of bilingually educated deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 268-274. Lane, Harlan (1984) A History of the Deaf: When The Mind Hears. New York: Random House. Lane, Harlan (1992) The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Knopf. Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R. & Bahan, B. (1996) A Journey into the Deaf-World. San Diego: Dawn Sign Press.
75	Bibliography cont. Livingston, S. (1997). Rethinking the Education of Deaf Students: Theory and Practice from a Teacher’s Perspective. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Mahshie, S. N. (1995). Educating deaf children bilingually. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Mahshie, Shawn (1997). A First Language: Whose Choice Is It? Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C. Meadow, K. (2001). Research and Deaf Education: Moving Ahead While Glancing Back. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 6:2, 143--46. Meadow, K. (1968). Early manual communication in relation to the deaf child’s intellectual, social, and communicative functioning. American Annals of the Deaf, 113, 29-41. Ninteenth Star Productions, Videotape (2001) Indiana School for the Deaf: Through Unity, Identity; Through Identity, Pride. 1-800-722-6166
76	Bibliography cont. Poizner, H., Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1987) What the Hands Reveal about the Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press This book not only offers new insights into the biological foundations of American Sign Language, but also provides evidence that language is not limited to hearing and speech. Reynolds, D. & Titus, A. (1992). Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf students: Changing the system. Bilingual considerations in the education of deaf students: ASL and English. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University. 48-53. Salk Institute for biological Sciences in San Diego, CA. Sanders, D. (1988) Teaching Deaf Children: Techniques and Methods. Boston: College-Hill Press. Sass-Lehrer, M. & Yoshinago-Itano, C. (2002) Early Beginnings for Families with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children: Myths and Facts of Early Intervention and Gudelines for Effective Services. Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Times Books.
77	Bibliography cont. Strong, M. & Prinz, P. (1997). ASL and English Literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2:1, 37-46. Tyack, D. (1991). Public School Reform: Policy Talk and Institutional Practice. American Journal of Education. November Vol. 100:1, pp. 1-19. Vernon, M., & Koh, S. (1970). Early manual communication and deaf children’s achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115, 527-536. Vernon, M., & Koh, S. (1971). Effects of oral preschool compared to early manual communication on education and communication in deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 116, 569-574 “Unacceptably so.” Commission on the Education of the Deaf (1988). Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. viii. Weisel, A. (1988). Parental hearing status, reading comprehension skills and social-emotional adjustment. American Annals of the Deaf, 133, 356-359. Zweibel, A. (1987). More on the effects of early manual communication on the cognitive development of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf. 132, 16-20.
78	The End