The 2012 Michigan A.G. Bell summer camp at the YMCA Storer Camp was a huge hit!  Fifteen children received scholarships and were able to enjoy a wonderful summer camp experience in a natural mainstream setting. Each camper was able to sign up for certain tracks in which they could participate.  Some of the tracks included horse-lessons, glee, nature, team sports, arts and crafts, swimming, boating, archery and adventure.  Many campers signed up for the boating and adventure tracks.  The adventure tracks included a 50ft. rock wall, ropes courses and zip-line.  The boating track included kayaking, paddle boating, paddle-surfing, aqua biking and sail boating.  Each day following lunch, our campers met for a speech-language activity.  Some of the learning activities included writing letters home, making picture frames, playing improv-style storytelling, bracelet making and much more. In the afternoon our campers enjoyed “free-time” with their cabin mates.  Campers had their choice of participating in open-swim, sports, arts and crafts and board games.

It was truly an honor to work with the campers and also the YMCA Storer Camp staff this year.  Seeing our children with smiles on their faces 24/7 was a priceless experience.  I can’t wait for next year to meet some new faces and also see who will return for another great camp experience!  Thank you to all the parents, donors, YMCA Storer Camp staff and A.G. Bell summer camp committee for making this experience possible.

The second annual MI A.G. Bell Summer Splash was held on July 15, 2012 at Kensington Metro Park. It was a beautiful day for a picnic! Aside from some unforeseen construction on 96, the event was perfect. Over 80 board members, families, professionals, and friends of MI A.G. Bell were in attendance. The event kicked off with a fun ice breaker activity; the first person held a ball of yarn, gave a brief introduction, and explained how hearing loss had touched their life. They then held onto a piece of the yarn and threw the ball of yarn to another person who did the same. This continued until everyone had been introduced. The result was a great visual representation of how we are all part of a network and are connected by hearing loss.

After the ice breaker, lunch was served. Picnic attendees were encouraged to walk around and visit with some of the vendors. Comfort Audio, Med-El, and Advanced Bionics had tables set up with great displays. Hayleigh Scott sent a nice assortment of her Cherished Charms. Our vendors were very generous; in addition to showing off their great products, many provided us with donations. We are so thankful for their support!  Comfort Audio has donated a Contego FM system to MI AG Bell and we are selling raffle tickets to locate the lucky winner of this incredible device!  Please see the following article for more details

After lunch, the relay games, silent auction, and bake sale began. The kids had a great time playing relay games such as water balloon toss, melt-the-ice, sponge relay, ladder ball, and corn hole. Families enjoyed treats from our bake sale, buying new MI A.G. Bell T-shirts, and bidding on the amazing baskets at the silent auction. Some of the auction items included Detroit Tiger’s tickets, suite tickets to a concert at the Palace of Auburn Hills, outdoor/beach toys and a coupon for a family photo shoot by Van De Steene Photography, handmade Amelia Bedelia dolls and books, an adorable sock monkey basket from Sound Support, and early literacy materials and evaluation through Listening and Language Connections, LLC. Thank you again to everyone who donated a basket for our silent auction; this was a very successful fundraiser for our chapter. We are sure that the families who won a basket were very happy! Thank you to our guests who bid generously during the silent auction. We greatly appreciate your support.

After games, treats, and bidding, families were encouraged to visit the water park, located steps away from our picnic shelter. Kids and adults could swim and play with new friends they met. One of our board members, Dan Seraphinoff and Advanced Bionics held a demonstration of their new product, Neptune, the swimmable processor! Dan enjoyed being able to hear while splashing at the water park with his family and new (and old) friends.

Overall, we couldn’t have asked for a better Summer Splash. Our board members worked hard to host this event; their hard work definitely paid off. We can’t wait to see you all next year at our third annual Summer Splash! Stay tuned for details!

DEA 2004 Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, students with disabilities are entitled to receive special education and related services that they need to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The individualized educational plan (IEP) is developed at the IEP Team meeting where the parent participates as an equal member.

In Michigan, school districts must comply not only with the federal regulations under IDEA 2004, but also with the Michigan Special Education Rules. Together, these rules and regulations explicitly define types of programs and services for students with disabilities and provide explicit and detailed procedural safeguards designed to benefit the students.

Programs and services. For example, under Michigan Special Education Rule R340.1742 Programs for Students with Hearing Impairment shall have a teacher of the deaf and hearing impaired and an enrollment of not more than seven students; there is a provision for group amplification devices.

Under the IDEA 2004 regulations the school must ensure that the cochlear implant, hearing aid, or FM unit worn by the child is working properly. Under the IDEA 2004 regulations, students with hearing loss are entitled to receive audiological and speech and language pathology services they need and the school district must provide the parents with counseling and training to help parents acquire the necessary skills to allow them to support implementation of their child’s IEP.

For students with disabilities who are mainstreamed into their neighborhood schools, there are explicit provisions under the Michigan Special Education Rules for resource programs where the resource room teacher may provide direct instruction to up to 10 students at any one time and also provide support to the student in the general education classroom. This is often done by team teaching with the general education teacher. Importantly, there is a provision for teacher consultants for the hearing impaired.

Eligibility. In order to be eligible under IDEA 2004, the IEP Team must determine a child has an impairment, such as a hearing impairment, that requires special education or related services.

Special Education and Related Services. Under Michigan Special Education Rule 340.1701c, “special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique educational needs of the student with a disability and to develop the student’s maximum potential. Special education includes instructional services… and related services.”

Related services include audiology and speech and language pathology and many other services listed in the IDEA 2004 federal regulations at 34 CFR sec. 300.34.

A student with a hearing impairment who just needs an assistive listening device and audiological services would be entitled to receive those services under IDEA 2004 and would also benefit from the procedural safeguards.

Under IDEA 2004 there are explicit and detailed procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the students with disabilities and their parents and to benefit the children. The procedural safeguards under IDEA 2004 include specific provisions for independent educational evaluations at public expense, obtaining educational records, notice, participants at the IEP Team meeting, mediation, and Due Process Hearings.

Section 504. Section 504 is a part of a broad federal civil rights law, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To be eligible for protections under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a student must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities such as “walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 34 CFR§104.3(j).

Picture a student that utilizes a wheelchair and is fully independent, a good student on the honor roll, and who only needs access to the school by a ramp and a desk to sit at that is at a height that would accommodate his wheelchair. That student could be appropriately served under a section 504 plan.

Similarly, a student with a mild to moderate hearing impairment who chooses not to use a hearing aid or an assistive listening device and does need any special education or related services would not qualify for special education under IDEA 2004. But, that student may need preferential seating to better hear the speaker in the school auditorium or other settings, and it would then be appropriate to utilize a Section 504 plan for that student.

Section 504 protections in the public schools are in the federal regulations at 34CFR 104.31-104.39, and they are very, very short compared to the IDEA 2004 regulations and the Michigan Special Education Rules. Under section 504 there is a requirement for an evaluation but the parents do not have a right to an independent educational evaluation if they disagree with the evaluation. Under Section 504 there is lacking a set of explicit procedural safeguards designed to protect the child and the rights of the child and the parents.

Conclusion: If a student with a hearing impairment qualifies for special education and related services under the IDEA 2004, then that is what he or she should receive, and the parent should insist on it and ask for an IEP for the child. But, some students with mild to moderate hearing losses may not need special education and related services, and a Section 504 Plan may be appropriate to meet their needs.

Atty Sid Kraizman can be reached at sidkraizman@sbcglobal.net

In the previous article, “How Does the IEP under IDEA 2004 Compare to a Section 504 Plan?” two types of educational plans for students with disabilities were addressed to show what schools may provide. But how does each of these plans differ in meeting the needs of children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (D/HOH)?

The majority of students who have hearing loss are being educated in the general education classroom in their neighborhood schools and some begin their education in center-based D/HOH Programs and transition to their home schools. Many of these students already receive special education services and have IEP plans that provide support and related services. However, there is a growing trend for school districts to create 504 plans for D/HOH students that provide general classroom and instructional accommodations. Let’s take a closer look at how IDEA 2004 and Section 504 Plans differ in the ways that they help support students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in the classroom. As parents of students with a disability, we need to decide which plan will be the best for our child.

If a school district only wants to consider a 504 plan for your child with hearing loss instead of special education services under IDEA, find out what accommodations the school will provide for your child. Will assistive listening devices be provided, and if so, who will monitor the equipment and what qualification will this person have? Who will be responsible for implementing the plan and instructing the classroom teachers on how to provide appropriate accommodations? How often will your child be re-evaluated to determine if the plan is successful, who will do the re-evaluation and what criteria will be used? Another thing to consider is the fact that Michigan Special Education Law is provided from birth to age 26, but 504 plans do not begin until a child reaches Kindergarten.

Eligibility for special education as D/HOH is determined by two pieces of medical documentation, a hearing evaluation by a licensed audiologist and a medical clearance from an ear nose and throat doctor (ENT) certifying a child as Deaf or Hard of Hearing and needing support. These two specific criteria will qualify a child for special education services under IDEA. In addition to medical information, to be eligible for special education and related services under IDEA, a child’s hearing loss must interfere with development or adversely affect their educational performance in the general education setting. A D/HOH child will be eligible for a 504 plan without establishing whether his disability adversely affects his education, but they will still need documentation of their hearing loss. Sometimes classroom teachers, school personnel, and even parents believe that the D/HOH child is doing well educationally, but may overlook some obstacles that the child faces in everyday situations within the classroom setting. These are questions you will want to consider about your child when asking, “Does my child’s hearing loss adversely affect his education?”

• How is my child doing academically in comparison to the other students in his classroom?
• Has my child made a year’s progress academically within the past school year?
• Is he able to follow conversation and instruction in large groups and answer questions correctly during classroom discussions without repetition?
• Does he currently use assistive technology such as FM amplification system in addition to his cochlear implant or hearing aids in order to understand the teacher better in the classroom?
• If he doesn’t currently use an FM amplification system, do you feel that he would benefit from using it in the classroom?
• Is he often confused over oral directions and need clarification?
• Does he need more time to process information presented orally even with amplification?
• Does he need a lot of assistance and explanation when completing homework?

Many studies have already shown that children who are D/HOH have challenges in processing linguistic information, even with amplification, which includes speech and language discrimination and reception. This adversely affects their ability to hear and understand content within the general education classroom. Something else to consider is how even though the audiogram may indicate good speech discrimination, this is a representation of how a child hears single words in a quiet setting. Also, classroom acoustics are generally poor and the potential for background noise is increased with more students in classrooms and lack of carpet and/or noise dampening materials on the walls. Students who are D/HOH have difficulty hearing speech when background noise is present. This also affects their education adversely. When school districts suggest that your child is doing well academically and does not require an IEP, parents need to consider all the specific needs your child has in the classroom.

If an ENT and audiologist have recommended the use of a personal FM amplification system for the D/HOH child, the school district is required to provide that equipment to the child as part of a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) if it is determined that the child has a hearing loss that is educationally significant. Some school districts have agreements with local Intermediate School Districts (ISDs) that provide personal FM amplification devices to children identified as receiving special education services and may even provide equipment to students to use on a trial basis to establish whether a child benefits from it. Other ISD’s provide FM equipment to students with 504 plans on a trial basis and continue to loan the equipment out to the students on a long term basis. Parents will want to get clarification of what assistive listening devices are available to their child with IEP’s and 504 plans and who will be fitting them and in-servicing classroom teachers about how to use and care for FM systems.

Children who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing have unique educational needs that should be addressed within the classroom environment in order for them to reach their maximum potential. It is up to parents, educators, and school districts to make sure that their needs are being met.

The Michigan Chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing expects that this topic will be discussed in the near future due to the current educational climate in the State of Michigan. Please feel free to comment on this article and more to follow and tell us about your own personal experiences with IEPs and 504 plans.

You don’t need to be in the field of education to notice that your local school districts are reacting to the state and federal budget cuts to education. Many school districts have had to lay off existing teachers, support and related service staff caseloads are becoming larger, and class sizes are growing. Currently, approximately 10% of federal education funds are allocated to the States for use in Special Education and with less money for local educational agencies (LEA), filling in the gaps of meeting the needs of students with disabilities becomes less attainable. One school-wide initiative that schools are currently using to minimize students need for special education is Response to Intervention (RtI). In this article, I want to provide a brief description of RtI and give parents resources for learning more about your child’s school model. At the same time, I would also like to encourage parents to make sure that their child with a hearing loss receives the appropriate accommodations and services crucial to their academic and social success.

In accordance with the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), The National Association for the State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education in compliance with No Child Left Behind, put forth a set of policy considerations and implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) for schools across the nation. At the National Center on RtI, it states that the four essential components of RtI are:

• A school-wide, multi-level instructional and behavioral system for preventing school failure
• Screening
• Progress Monitoring
• Data-based decision making for instruction, movement within the multi-level system, and disability identification (in accordance with state law)

RtI was designed to help identify struggling learners early on before the need for special education. Each Local Educational Agency (LEA) has developed their own model based on the core principals set forth by the NASDSE.

I remember first hearing about RtI through the various workshops being held at the Intermediate School District. As a Teacher Consultant for the Hearing Impaired, my initial reaction after examining the multi-tier level of support (pyramid) was to wonder how a child with a hearing loss would benefit from any instruction or level of support if he or she couldn’t hear? For example, when teachers are addressing literacy skills in small groups within classrooms, the background noise alone may be impeding the HI child’s ability to hear and understand instruction. In reference to this, Cheryl Deconde Johnson, The President of Hands and Voices, wrote an excellent article shortly after RTI was set in motion. In RTI- What it is and What is isn’t, she said, “RTI strategies are tools that enable educators to target instructional interventions to children’s areas of specific needs as soon as they become apparent. A hearing impaired child’s first need is to hear what is being taught before targeting instruction.” This emphasizes the fact that if your child has a medical diagnosis of a hearing loss, you have every right as a parent to request an initial evaluation for special education if you feel that he or she has an educationally significant hearing loss. Your child would more than likely need to have an IEP or 504 Plan in order to take advantage of a personal FM system that will be monitored by an educational audiologist or teacher consultant for the hearing impaired. It’s important to remember that a school cannot deny or delay a referral on the basis that a child has not gone through the RtI process.

The other thing to consider is that professional support staff that understands the unique needs of hearing loss such as Teacher Consultants for Hearing Impaired and Educational Audiologists should be asked to consult with the classroom teacher as well as parents to ensure that the HI child’s needs are being met. I have spoken with many general educators about the supports and accommodations suggested to them as part of the RtI process in their school districts, and most are consistent with the same recommendations I would suggest to classroom teachers in addressing students with hearing loss in their classrooms. Maybe you’ve heard the expression, “Best practices for hearing impaired children are often best practices for all children.” Unfortunately, many teachers have not been in-serviced on the signs of hearing loss unless they have had an HI child in their classroom. Here are some of the considerations that teachers are asked to consider when implementing best practices in their classrooms.

• Staff awareness of signs of hearing loss
• Classroom acoustical considerations
• Classroom communication and accommodations including; consideration of classroom distribution system
• Hearing conservation
• Frequent checks for comprehension
• Good lighting
• Reduction of visual/auditory distractions
• Predictive routine with structure and paired with language
• Use of graphic organizers/outlines and written procedures
• Pre-tutoring vocabulary
• Differentiated instruction
• Link to prior knowledge

I recommend to parents that they first make sure their child has the appropriate accommodations and amplification including hearing aids and/or classroom and personal FM systems. Take time to explore their child’s school district policy on RtI and ask their child’s teacher how they are using strategies in their classrooms to address your child’s needs. Please refer to the following websites for more specific questions related to the RtI process. www.nasdse.org and www.rtiprogress4success.org (The National Center for the Response to Intervention)

WHY MIGHT WE USE A DHH MATRIX?

Effective communication, academic success, social competence, and independence are the goals for each of our students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH). Since each student is unique and has different needs, the IEP team uses DATA to define the necessary programs, supplementary aids, supplementary services, accommodations or modifications which will support independence and school success. The Matrix for Students who are Deaf/ Hard of Hearing is a TOOL for use with students who spend most of their time in the general education setting, are between the ages of 5 and 21 years, and do not have significant additional disabilities. The Matrix allows the team to look at individualized DATA.

HOW DID THE DHH MATRIX DEVELOP?

Fifteen years ago, teacher consultants from Oakland Schools in Michigan began developing and using this tool. Several other schools in Michigan also used versions of the tool. In 2010 and 2011, a small committee was established, supported by Michigan Department of Education-Low Incidence Outreach. The committee revised the documents, piloted the forms, analyzed the data and produced the updated DHH Matrix. It is intended to be an optional resource. Thanks to Oakland Schools, Midland ESA, and the Revision Committee (Marianne Titler, Tammy Hansford, Suzanne Raschke, Shannon Williams, and Nancy Mosher) for the DHH Matrix.

WHAT IS THE DHH MATRIX?

The DHH Matrix is a TOOL which may be used (not required or endorsed by MDE) as a way of collecting and quantifying DATA about a specific child’s needs and the EDUCATIONAL IMPACT of those needs. The Matrix is a grid which looks at the following “Factors for Consideration”: Audiological Factors, Language/Vocabulary, Functional Listening Skills, Use of Amplification, Educational Performance, and Personal Adjustment/Transition. Within each of these “Factors for Consideration” areas, statements are chosen which match the data about the child and a numerical score is obtained for each Consideration (row). The total score is then transferred to the cover page. Optional “Contributing Factors” (Age of Student, Program Demands, Student Cooperation, Interpreter/Captionist, Change in Program, Attendance, Challenging Condition, Other) can add or subtract points from the impact score. The student’s “Educational Impact” score can then be compared with the range of services which are currently being provided to students throughout Michigan who have similar scores. These ranges are only guidelines. THE IEP TEAM, including the PARENT, makes the decisions. Higher scores could indicate a greater need and level of service, while very low scores could indicate little or no service is necessary for the student’s continued success.

WHEN COULD THE MATRIX BE USED?

The Matrix Development Committee suggests that the DHH Matrix might be useful in preparation for: Annual IEP, 3 Year Re-evaluation, Changes of Placement (Educational Setting, Community Transition Placement, Re-location to new school or building), or Transition.

WHERE CAN I FIND the DHH Matrix?

The Educational Impact Matrix Introduction and Instructions, the DHH Educational Impact Matrix Student Profile and Factors for Consideration are available on the MDE-LIO website http://mde-lio.cenmi.org. If you have questions, contact the DHH Consultant at MDE-LIO.

Click here to read the full text from the proceedings.

Hearing loss affects 12,000 children born each year in the US. Over 90% of these children are born to parents who have normal hearing and have no knowledge about hearing loss. Because babies and children learn language by listening to the people around them, undetected or untreated hearing loss can have a devastating effect on the child’s ability to develop speech and language. A child with limited speech and language skills has a difficult time receiving an education. Hearing loss is an invisible condition. Because most parents have limited knowledge, and the child can’t tell you what they’re missing, educators of the deaf and hard of hearing play a more significant role with this particular handicap than others. Families must rely on the school systems to provide the expertise and services their child needs.

The link between hospitals that perform newborn hearing screenings, clinical audiologists that diagnose hearing loss in children and the educational systems in the state need to be strengthened. Every baby should have their hearing tested by one month of age. If a baby fails this newborn hearing screening, that child should be referred to an audiologist for further testing before they are three months old. If the child’s hearing loss is confirmed, the child should be in early intervention by six months of age. Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs are striving to decrease the loss to follow-up numbers, but their progress is painfully slow – if they show progress at all. Some vital component seems to be missing that continues to allow loss to follow up in every state. Nationally, only slightly more than half of the infants who do not pass hearing screening receive follow-up diagnostic testing and only a third diagnosed with hearing loss receive intervention by 6 months of age. http://www.asha.org/docs/html/tr2008-00302.html

Early intervention is absolutely critical in order for children with hearing loss to develop the communication skills they need to receive a free and appropriate public education. Children learn language during their preschool years and this establishes their communication skills for the rest of their lives. School districts that underfund early intervention end up spending far more in later years to educate children with hearing loss. These children will ultimately fall short of their potential to earn a living and thus will return less in tax dollars than those who develop good communication skills and are well-educated.

Children with hearing loss need proper amplification and educational audiologists to service them. They need teacher consultants of the hearing impaired, and speech and language teachers who are qualified to teach spoken English to children with hearing loss. In an attempt to cope with economic challenges, some school districts are laying off teacher consultants and audiologists and forcing the remaining staff to service exceedingly large numbers of students. Schools are placing assistive technology, educational audiology and teacher consultants on the IEP as “Other Services”. Under this heading, there are no caseload restrictions. Unreasonable caseloads make it impossible to provide adequate service to students with hearing loss. IDEA needs to establish case load maximums for educational audiologists and teacher consultants who provide either direct or consultative services. IDEA needs to specify who is responsible for implementing the IEP where goals are related to hearing loss.

Some school districts are combining the jobs of teacher consultants and audiologists – these professionals are being asked to perform both jobs so school districts can eliminate one position. Neither is qualified to do the others job. This is caseload manipulation to the detriment of services for children with hearing loss. Between the ages of birth and five years old, children absorb language like thirsty sponges. Every dollar spent on early intervention and early primary services to children with hearing loss is repaid ten-fold later in their education. By providing high quality, appropriate amplification that is serviced regularly by an educational audiologist, schools are ensuring children with hearing loss have access to spoken language. By providing early, high quality instruction by a well trained teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing, – a Listening and Spoken Language Certified Auditory Verbal Educator (LSLS Cert. AVEd), schools will reduce the number of hours of special education necessary later. Children with hearing loss also need speech therapy by a speech and language teacher specifically trained to work with the deaf and hard of hearing – a Listening and Spoken Language Specialist who is a Certified Auditory Verbal Therapist (LSLS Cert. AVT). Hiring professionals with these certifications guarantees high quality educators and speech and language instruction. In the Dec. 2010 issue of The Volta Review, the results of a 50-month study on the outcomes of auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) on children with hearing loss “Is Auditory-Verbal Therapy Effective for Children With Hearing Loss?” was published. Results indicate that children with hearing loss who use listening and spoken language are well-adjusted and have language skills on par with their peers with typical hearing.

Many school districts are pushing students with hearing loss into basic 504 Plans instead of IEP’s. Under a 504 Plan, there is no right to due process if a school district fails to provide necessary services. Another cost-saving strategy being implemented by some school districts is to eliminate or curtail periodic hearing screenings in the early elementary years. Unidentified hearing loss can lead to educational struggles or inappropriate labeling of children.

Children with hearing loss are the victims of all these strategies. Standards need to be developed for educational programs of deaf and hard of hearing students in the mainstream or in center-based programs. Standards need to define: the qualifications for professionals serving these hearing impaired students, their job descriptions, their responsibilities and additionally, specify caseload limits. Every IEP needs to state who is responsible for implementing the IEP where goals are specifically related to a child’s hearing loss.

Thank you, Shon Halacka

Among other provisions, the legislation requires telecom equipment used to make calls over the Internet to be compatible with hearing aids, provides for captioning on new TV programs online, and mandates that remote controls have a button or similar mechanism to easily access the closed captioning on broadcast and pay TV.

“This legislation paves the way for a brighter future for anyone with a hearing loss who needs access to information on the Internet and to equipment,” said Brenda Battat, executive director of HLAA. “As we all become more and more dependent on the Internet, this legislation will ensure people with hearing loss are included and able to enjoy its benefits.”

The Michigan Chapter submitted testimony in support of closed captioning at movie theaters.