Colorado Deaf Education Reform: Where we have Been and the Challenges we Face Cheryl DeConde Johnson Colorado Department of Education Janet DesGeorges.

Colorado Deaf Education Reform:

Where we have Been and the Challenges

we FaceCheryl DeConde Johnson

Colorado Department of EducationJanet DesGeorges

Hands & Voices-ColoradoCarol Hilty

Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

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

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)

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

A Blueprint for Closing the Gap

Developing A Statewide System of

Service Improvements for Students who are Deaf and Hard of

Hearing

Communication- driven

High Standards

Critical MassFull

Access

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment Model

Assessment

SocialAcademic

Communication

Standardized and Functional Assessments

STUDENT PORTFOLIO

CIPP

Colorado Individual

Performance Profile

SocialAcademic

Communication

Extra-curricular activities

Role models

Access

Peer

OpportunitiesSocial skills

Self-

concept

Accommodations

TechnologyClassroom Participation

Questionnaire; Functional Assessment

Social Skills Rating System; Meadow-Kendall

CSAP; Standardized and Functional Assessments

The Colorado Model

…Through the eyes of Families

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?

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

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

Providing Structure to ProgramsStandard 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

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

www.handsandvoices.org

Disturb the Peace

Sustain Tension

Contain Anxiety

Provide Leadership

Colorado Website

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