1

Executive Summary of State-by-State Reviews of Content

March, 2005

Kathleena Whitesell and Susan Easterbrooks

In the fall of 2003 the Association of College Educators for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACEDHH) received a federal grant referred to as the “Join Together”grant to look at improving practices for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (D/HH). This grant is divided into 8 sections, one of which is section 2.2, Content Best Practices. As part of the activities for this section of the grant, a review of states’ standards was conducted.This paper summarizes that review; that is, it summarizes content per se, but not necessarily best practices for instructing students in that content.. Part I of this review summarizes the commonalities among the standards and Part II summarizes the responses from the states’ specialists to a set of questions regarding their expectations of teachers of DHH students in the use of their state’s standards or curriculum.

Method

During the first year of the Join Together grant, team members were identified from the ACE-DHH membership and assigned to investigate information from states in regions that corresponded to the regions identified by the Regional Resource and Federal Centers (RRFV) Network.. The six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) are specifically funded to assist state education agencies in the systemic improvement of education programs, practices, and policies that affect children and youth with disabilities.

Thetasksassigned to each team member were: 1) to provide a summary of the standards in the assigned states, and 2) to interview via telephone state program directors, project assistants, education associates, service directors, state specialists, and other individuals responsible for providing state-level direction to school systems in serving the DHH school-aged population.

Data were gathered from 33 states’ websites and from specialists in the same 33 states.

Results

Part I: Commonalities Among the Standards: Content Matter all Future Teachers Must Know

There is a commonality of structure among the standards. Most are broken down into strands or categories as well as by grade level or grade range. Listed below are topics and concepts that appeared in virtually all of the states’ curriculum documents. Topics that did not appear repeatedly, such as science safety and vertex-edge graphs, were not included. Interestingly, in none of the summary documents gathered by the team members was there mention of motivation as a factor in literacy. This may be a result of the fact that summaries were presented, not comprehensive content requirements. This is not an exhaustive list of curriculum objectives or standards but is intended to present content with which all future teachers of students who are DHH must be familiar.

Mathematics

Math skills

  • Solve problems
  • Understand and use math terminology, processes, and operations
  • Reason mathematically
  • Make real world mathematical connections and applications

Math topics

  • Number sense and computation
  • Measurementand estimation
  • Ratios, proportions and percents
  • Algebra
  • Spatial sense and geometry
  • Statistics, data analysis, and probability
  • Patterns, functions and relationships
  • Discrete mathematics

Science

Science skills

  • Scientific process and inquiry
  • Scientific classification
  • Communicating and reasoning scientifically
  • Application of science and technology to the individual and to society
  • Critical thinking and problem solving

Science topics (science themes)

  • History and principles of science
  • Natural sciences: Matter,its properties, structures, and functions
  • Energy and its effects on matter
  • Earth and space
  • Earth’s dynamic systems; ecology; diversity and continuity of living things
  • Life science; cycles
  • Chemistry and physics

Literacy

Literacy Skills (Broad)

  • Understanding and using oral and written English (listening, speaking, reading, writing)
  • Skill application
  • Evaluation, analysis and reasoning of and through text
  • Connections and application to self and society

Literacy Topics (and specific skills)

  • Genres (e.g., mysteries, science fiction, poetry) and types of written materials (e.g., texts, manuals, newspapers, forms, visuals)
  • National Reading Panel categories: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension
  • Purposes: informative, narrative, persuasive, outline; reading for enjoyment
  • Research reading and writing

Part II: Interview Results: What help is available to teachers of DHH students from their states regarding content instruction of DHH students.

Following is a summary of the interviews that were conducted in the 33 states. Those reporting represented a wide array of representatives of state agencies.

1. Most (but not all) states have highly specified core curriculums. In reviewing the standards most of the curriculums appear to be consistent with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the breakdown of the National Reading Panel. Though the state curriculums may be organized a bit differently from state to state, they have relatively consistent content categories.

2. With the exception of one state, all states require all of their teachers of the D/HH to teach “from the general curriculum.” What specifically “from the general curriculum” means or “how” this is to be done varies from state to state, and little to no definitive direction is available on the states’ websites. States that did give direction gave vague answers such as “learn in smaller groups,”, “slower pace,” or “increase vocabulary practice.” One state indicated that at this time it does not require a general curriculum.

There appear to be three different approaches taken to the general curriculum:

1) The “one size fits all” version.

“There are no alternatives. All children will achieve”

2) The “mix and match” version.

“Teachers may use the standards appropriate for a child’s current level of functioning in each subject area.” One state allows teachers to choose language arts and math objectives based on current levels of functioning, but all subject area standards must be age-appropriate.

3) The “rungs of the ladder” version.

Some states require teachers to show a connection between IEP objectives and curriculum standards but allow teachers to teach objectives in the IEP.

3. No states reported giving teachers of the D/HH specific guidance on how to make appropriate modifications to the general education curriculum. Although most states indicated the politically correct terms, such as differentiating instruction, modifying as needed, or individualizing as recognized and required, only one state actually provided specific suggested adaptations/modifications to their general curriculum guidelines.Generally states indicated that they provided some staff development, annual training, site visits, mentoring and/or coaching on an “as needed” basis. Additionally, there are general comments that made such recommends as: maximizing use of residual hearing, appropriate amplification, audiological services, specialized teaching and support services, using specialized materials and special techniques, and referring to the variety of websites to address lesson planning and resources.

4. No states gave specific guidance on how to decide when a student should be on the regular curriculum or a special curriculum. Almost all state that “it is determined by the IEP team”. The general assumption one can infer from the data is that the expectation is for all students to be in the regular classroom. This is in contradiction to what we know as best practice of offering a continuum of placement options.

5. Most states that gave an answer regarding alternative assessments indicated that their alternative assessments were given to students with severe to profound cognitive impairments. Some states identified mandated test objectives. Of these, some indicated that it was the responsibility of the local schools to identify appropriate curricula to meet these objectives. One state indicated that it was important to look at the child’s “level of independent performance” in making a decision. Several states mentioned that they have “differentiated performance standards”, but there is no discussion as to whether child A, who must perform in one manner, and child B, who must perform in another, are able to achieve equally on state-mandated high-stakes tests. Nor did anyone describe at what degree of differentiation of performance it becomes appropriate to switch to an alternative assessment. One state (Ohio) did indicate that it is engaged in “focused monitoring” of the “gaps between the general population and students with disabilities in proficiency scores at the sixth grade level in reading and math.” It would be worthwhile to review their results at some point in the future.

6.No state provided any graduation data on D/HH students that is disaggregated from all of special education or from all D/HH learners.

7. Very little is being done to address the problems surrounding high school exit exams. All states stress the importance of all students participating in their state assessment programs and that their must be alignment between assessment and instruction. One state has responded to high stakes literacy testing by using state adopted direct instruction reading programs. They have placed great emphasis on early phonemic awareness via audition and Cued Speech. They are exploring the use of visual phonics with their profoundly deaf students. Otherwise, states’ representatives simply stated the law, policy, and/or procedures concerning the fact that all students must participate in statewide testing programs but gave no direction on how to accomplish such.

Discussion

After a review of the states’ structures of curriculum in literacy, science and math, there seems to be a lack of clarity of what is the difference between a standard and a set of curriculum entries. In other words, curriculum is often used interchangeably with standard when data were collected. In written documents many the states’ indicate that their standards provide the targets for instruction and student learning and that they are not to be seen as a curriculum or a prescribed series of activities. Instead it is written that school entities are to use the standards to develop a local school curriculum that will meet local students’ needs. Again, the standards provide a definition of the categories of skills or strategies that local schools must address, but they are not “standards” by vocabulary definition. In practice, most constituents indicated that their standards or their Standard Course of Study is in fact their curriculum for all students. Thus, there still appears to be confusion between content standards, knowledge, skills, and/or strategies that every child should master.

Presently, the overall expectation is that students with hearing loss will be placed in the regular curriculum. While people use terms such as individualizing and differentiating learning, none of the states provide a definition of what those terms mean, neither do they provide guidance for their teachers on how to implement them. In addition, even though there is an attempt to align the curriculum content with standards, there seems to be a fracturing of how this is addressed as indicated by such terms as parallel curriculum, or modified curriculum. Again,no clarification is provided of what those terms mean. Moreover, while all states indicated that teachers of D/HH students must differentiate materials, instructional strategies, and methods, no state delineates how. Teacher preparation programs need to make sure that TODs have had experience in navigating the state’s curriculum and curriculum website.

To address the problems identified in this review of content standards, we recommend the following:

Teacher preparation programs must make sure that their teachers in training understand the basic set of literacy, math, and science concepts outlined above as well as how to teach these.

Teacher preparation programs need to give teachers in training experience in identifying general education curriculum objectives and relating these to IEP objectives to identify how to bridge the gap between what is expected of students and their present levels of functioning.

Deaf education professionals need to support dis-aggregation of data on students who are DHH from the general special education data.