Superintendent's FORUM

Summer 2005

 Dear Parents and Guardians,

 Summer break will be over soon, and we are looking forward to your children returning to school in September. For us, this summer has been busy with a variety of projects - summer programs for children, cleaning, painting, and strategic planning, to name a few.

 I would like to take this opportunity to announce several reassignments, which might affect you directly. As the school’s new director of teaching and learning, Ms. Hayward will be working with the school’s principals, supervisors, and teachers to improve our instructional program. Since your primary contact person is your child’s principal, here is a list of school’s instructional leaders by program. 

 During the coming school year, we will be developing a new strategic plan for the school. Families, staff members and others in the school community have a wealth of ideas on ways we can improve teaching and learning, and we need to hear from you. There will be opportunities for you to participate in planning for our school’s future. Look for additional information coming your way when school opens.

 During the summer you received a variety of forms that we need you to fill out and return. If you have a question or encounter some difficulty, we are here to help. Please contact the person identified on the form itself, if possible. Otherwise, contact the appropriate school office listed above for assistance. 

If I can be of assistance, contact me.
 
Dennis Russell, Superintendent -
(609) 530-3100 voice
 (609) 530-6620 TTY
(609) 530-5791 FAX

 The National Deaf Education Project has developed a communication and language-driven statement of principle, which has served as the foundation for deaf education reform efforts in several states. In his keynote address, Lawrence Siegel, who currently holds the prestigious Powrie V. Doctor Chair at Gallaudet University, stressed that communication and language are foundational and central to all human experience. What it is we know about a child’s communication and language should serve as the starting point for discussions about the child’s educational programs, but it is not. In federal special education law[1], the starting points are least restrictive placement and FAPE.[2] Communication and language are simply items on a long agenda for the IEP team. The only right that exists under the law is the right to “consider” each student’s unique needs. If there is disagreement, the law provides for an adversarial resolution process, at best. It is more likely that questions related to a student’s communication and language needs will be treated as questions of methodology, left to the discretion of the local school and not open for discussion.

Educators know that communication and language are foundational to a child’s education. The disconnect between the starting points in special education law and the education of deaf children has been the target of grass roots educational reform efforts for many years. Nationally, there was the report of the President’s Commission on the Education of the Deaf and later, the Guidelines developed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. States have made their own attempts to address education reform. Here in New Jersey, we have seen the adoption of standards for educational interpreters and teachers of the deaf. At the least, these standards have raised the bar so that schools and programs will employ teachers of the deaf and educational interpreters who are properly trained to provide the services identified in each student’s IEP. Is this enough?

A number of states, most notably Colorado and New Mexico, are engaged in efforts to reform deaf education so that it is communication and language based. These states have brought together parents, educators, and policymakers to review their state’s practices and recommend changes. The premise is simple; namely, that access to communication and language is human rights issue and needs to be treated as such. Since 1993, six states have adopted a Deaf Child’s Educational Bill of Rights; another seven other states are currently in the process of doing so. In these states, deaf and hard of hearing children are guaranteed access to role models and peer groups where there can be a full and uninhibited communicative interaction. The New Mexico Bill of Rights states, Given the central importance of communication to all human beings, the purpose of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Educational Bill of Rights is to encourage the development of a communication-driven and language-driven educational delivery system in New Mexico for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.

 In Colorado, the Department of Education has developed a Communication Plan, based upon their Bill of Rights. The parent fact sheet states,

 An outcome of the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights is that your child's IEP (Individual Education Plan) will be directly affected by this law in the form of a "Communication Plan". The Communication Plan is the document referred to in the rules that contains an action plan that the IEP team (especially parents) has created to address specific areas of a student's social and emotional development.

All too often, IEPs do not thoroughly address, if at all, these critical areas of growth for a child who is deaf or hard of hearing. The Communication Plan creates a mechanism for having conversations and taking action where gaps are identified in these areas. And the Communication Plan will serve as a quality control monitor, making sure that a more comprehensive, qualitative view is taken of each child's experience in school.

 In addition to establishing the importance of communication and language as the foundation of education programs, states engaged in reform movements are examining accountability plans. The information that we gather about student performance must be credible so that it can assist us to make decisions about education programming. If we are serious about leaving no child behind, then comprehensive communication and language must begin at birth, so that deaf children arrive at school “ready to learn.” Once in school, nothing less than a year’s growth in a year’s time should be an acceptable outcome.

There is much work to do, both on the campus and across the state, if we are to provide the kind of programs that New Jersey’s deaf students deserve.