1. Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee
Educational Services for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Children in Washington State: Stakeholder Views
Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee
July 11, 2007
Annie Pennucci
Washington State Institute for Public Policy

2. Washington State Institute For Public Policy
Created by the 1983 Washington Legislature
Mission: carry out non-partisan research on projects assigned by the legislature or the Institute’s Board of Directors
Senator Karen Fraser Secretary Robin Arnold-Williams, DSHS
Representative Fred Jarrett Director Victor Moore, OFM
Representative Phyllis Kenney Sandra Archibald, University of Washington
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Andrew Bodman, Western Washington Univ.
Representative Skip Priest Robert Rosenman, Washington State Univ.
Senator Pam Roach Les Purce, The Evergreen State College
Senator Mark Schoesler Ken Conte, House Office of Program Research Representative Helen Sommers Richard Rodger, Senate Committee Services

3. Legislative Study Direction
“hire a meeting facilitator to conduct a series of meetings with a broad group of stakeholders to examine the strengths and weaknesses of educational services available to deaf and hard of hearing children throughout the state.”
“develop recommendations that would establish an integrated system of instructional and support programs that would provide deaf and hard of hearing children with the knowledge and skills necessary for them to be successful in their adult lives and the ‘hearing’ world of work.”
ESSB 6386, §607(12), Laws of 2006
Emphasis added

4. Stakeholder Views System weaknesses:
Lack of coordination.
Limited availability of professional expertise and services, particularly in rural areas.
Widespread use of unqualified educational interpreters.
Inconsistent provision of information and services.
Results of system weaknesses: inadequate services, social isolation, and poor academic outcomes for many students.
Meetings, focus groups, interviews, online surveys. November 2006 to April Parents, teachers, interpreters, administrators, current and former students. Nearly 600 (573) individuals from all over the state.
Lack of coordination and oversight is the recurring, underlying theme in all stakeholder consultations. Fewer than 2,000 students counted in statewide databases, dispersed throughout the state.
Limited availability: such as audiologists, early intervention specialists, medical staff for cochlear implant support, specially trained teachers. The unique learning issue for this population relates to language: because they can’t hear, deaf and hard of hearing children have difficulties developing language, which is a key factor in academic achievement. So, teachers and other support staff for this population need specialized training in how to help these children develop language. They are hard to find however because this is a specialty and it’s for a small population. Especially challenging for rural areas.
Interpreters: Many of these students also need interpreters. Most deaf and hard of hearing children attend local public schools, and we heard a lot from teachers and parents of students in local schools about widespread use of unqualified interpreters. That’s why this gets its own bullet. The commonly reported scenario is that school administrators hire interpreters with inadequate, rudimentary skills because that is the best that is locally available, but it’s a big barrier: it prevents students from fully accessing the curriculum.
Inconsistent info: We also heard from parents of infants and toddlers who are identified as having hearing loss. Some parents raised concerns about inconsistent provision of information about language development options, for example, choosing sign language, oral language, or some combination of the two, depending on what is locally available.
Essentially, what parents and students learn about and choose as to communication options and provision of services depends more on where you live and who you know than on accessing any sort of system. Stakeholders say that this results in inadequate services, the social isolation of children in schools, and poor academic outcomes.

5. Stakeholder Views Some programs are viewed as strengths:
Washington School for the Deaf
Washington Sensory Disabilities Services at OSPI
A few local schools/programs
However, there is no systematic way to ensure that all deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind children connect with needed services.
Locals: e.g., Children’s Hospital in Seattle, Listen & Talk (an oral school in Seattle), a couple of Educational Service Districts, a few local public schools.

6. Institute Recommendation
To reduce service gaps, direct a state agency to coordinate and oversee the quality and outcomes of local, regional, and statewide schools and programs that serve deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind students.
We asked stakeholders who should be in charge, held accountable for provision of services, program quality, and student outcomes. Three options identified; list & bring exhibit 5.
Some think it OSPI (WSDS) and WSD should be directed to partner in a more formal fashion.
Full report available at: