Colorado Deaf Education Reform: Where we have Been and the Challenges we Face

1. Colorado Deaf Education Reform: Where we have Been and the Challenges we Face Cheryl DeConde Johnson Colorado Department of Education Janet DesGeorges Hands & Voices-Colorado Carol Hilty Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind

2. Colorado Deaf Education Reform Timetable Phase 1 – Data Collection & Development of Plan Phase 2 – Develop Implemen-tation Plan Phase 3 - Pilot Implementation Phase 4 – Implementa-tion

3. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform Activities – Phase 1 • Deaf Ed Reform Task Force (2000-2002) • All relevant stakeholders • Department of Ed, School for the Deaf, LEAs, DHH Parent/Professional organizations, community agencies, higher education • Review of existing reform efforts nationally and in other states • Statewide Student Assessment • Colorado Individual Performance Profile (CIPP) • Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) • Successful Attributes (Luckner & Muir, 2001) • Task Force Recommendations • A Blueprint for Closing the Gap: Developing a Statewide System of Service Improvements for Student whoi are Deaf and hard of Hearing (2002)

4. Statewide Assessment Summary (2000-01) • CIPP: Average performances indicated 2-3 year delay • CSAP: 70% of DHH students were performing in the unsatisfactory/partially proficient range • Functional Assessment: Rating of functional performance (cognitive/behavioral/social/life skills) indicated most students were functioning normally to near normally • Teacher Perception: 90% felt students were receiving adequate services • Inclusion: DHH students in CO who receive the majority of their education in the general ed classroom is 26% higher than national average

5. A Blueprint for Closing the Gap Developing A Statewide System of Service Improvements for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing High Standards Communication- driven Critical Mass Full Access

6. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform Activities – Phase 2 • Deaf Ed Reform Implementation Task Force (2002-04) • All relevant stakeholders • Plan for Implementation – 3 Work Groups • Develop program & service standards • Develop accountability plan • Develop funding plan and means for getting legislative support • Pilot data needed to support budget request • Key Question for Legislature: Will the implementation of the recommended program and service standards improve educational outcomes for DHH students?

7. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform Activities – Phase 2 • Colorado Quality Standards: Programs and Services for Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (August 2004) • Educational Interpreter Handbook (2004) • Audiology Standards of Practice (2004) • Accountability Plan • Annual data collection/analysis - CIPP • Demographic Information • Parent Input • School-based Indicators • Student-based Indicators

8. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform Activities – Phase 3 • Deaf Ed Reform Implementation Advisory Council (2004-) • All relevant stakeholders • Implementation of pilots • RFPs (Spring 2004) • 3 year pilots • planning year (2004-05) • Implementation years (2005-06, 2006-07) • Funding provided by CDE-ESS Federal VIB • Funded Pilots • Pikes Peak – Colorado Springs (4 LEAs and CSDB) • Rocky Mtn – 3 LEAs (20 school districts) • South Metro – 4 LEAs

9. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform – Phase 3 Pilots • Pikes Peak Pilot – Colorado Springs • Goal – develop regional model of continuum of services to implement Colorado Quality Standards • Funding - $70,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2 & 3 • Year 1 Priorities (2004-05) • Hire administrator to oversee development and implementation of model • Create advisory council to guide activities • Years 2 & 3: Implementation

10. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform – Phase 3 Pilots • Rocky Mountain Pilot • Goals • Develop regional model that brings staff under the umbrella of CSDB • Provide supervision by qualified administrator to implement elements of Colorado Quality Standards (11/36) • Implement a Technology Plan in collaboration with Join Together/Naster Teacher Project (H Johnson, Kent State) • Create distance learning opportunities for DHH students • Increase contact between itinerant deaf ed teacher and local classroom teacher • Provide Web-based inservices • Funding: • $20,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2 & 3 • $50,000 technology grant for year 1 • Year 1 Priorities • Hire administrator • Develop plan to move teachers, interpreters, audiologists to CSDB staff • Develop technology plan, train master teachers, pilot use of webcams and video systems

11. Colorado Deaf Ed Reform – Phase 3 Pilots • South Metro - Denver • Goal • Development regional teacher inservice model • Funding: • $10,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2 & 3 • supplemental funding from LEAs • Year 1 Priorities • Hire teacher trainer • Develop training plan – content and delivery

12. Challenges • Finding qualified administrators • Staff • Buy-in • Fear of change • LEA barriers • Funding • Justification to the legislature • Insurance benefits • Data collection and analysis • How do we measure benefit? • Standards/services • 1:1 Expectation

13. Assessment Model Communication Assessment Academic Social Standardized and Functional Assessments

14. STUDENT PORTFOLIO Access Communication Classroom Participation Questionnaire; Functional Assessment Role models Technology CIPP Colorado Individual Performance Profile Peer Opportunities Accommodations Social skills Academic Social CSAP; Standardized and Functional Assessments Social Skills Rating System; Meadow-Kendall Self-concept Extra-curricular activities

15. The Colorado Model …Through the eyes of Families

16. What’s Different about Now?(What makes us think we’ll succeed this time?) In Colorado: • A new emerging generation of students and parents • Precedent of advocacy set by Deaf/Hard of Hearing adult consumers and advocates • Getting beyond the method debate to the great ‘education debate’ • The ‘Fruitcake’ Theory • If not now, when?

17. Foundations leading us towards success in Colorado • VISION • Deaf Child Bill of Rights • The Communication Plan • Collaboration between systems and people • (state and nation wide) • Leadership of individuals resulting in systemization of reform • Strong Parent Involvement

18. Setting a Standard of Parent Involvement • Creating a SYSTEM of formalized Parent Involvement • Utilizing organizations • Paid parent positions provide meaningful contribution • The healthy tension between collaboration and ‘watchdogging’ • Parents who train other Parents • Creates ownership of reform • The real issues emerge

19. Providing Structure to Programs Standard 35 • “The Program actively promotes parents as equal partners, encouraging strong collaboration between program/school staff and the development of parent leadership. This is reflected in every aspect of the program and includes a plan for involving parents in program development” Colorado Quality Standards, CDE • In Colorado: Active parent org.s; regional parent reps; training by parents to professionals. Long-term commitment and involvement; pro-active vs. re-active • Next step: Formalizing ‘regional’ participation

20. Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Adults & Community Involvement • Standard 36 • The program involves the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities in program development and encourages strong collaboration between school staff, parents, and deaf and hard-of-hearing community members. • In Colorado: Deaf/HH Connections; consumer advisors on boards; collaboration between parent org.s and deaf/hh consumer org.s

21. Disturb the Peace Sustain Tension Contain Anxiety Provide Leadership www.handsandvoices.org

22. Colorado Website www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/sd-hearing.asp