This article investigates the basis for the frequently reported statement that ten percent of deaf persons are born to families with one or more deaf parents. The prevalence of deaf children born to deaf parents (deaf-of-deaf) is important because it is often cited when describing linguistic and educational advantages, along with social and cultural differences, associated with deaf children born to deaf parents compared to deaf children of hearing parents. This analysis provides a current estimate for the distribution of parental hearing status among deaf and hard of hearing students in United States using data from the Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth (1999�2000). This is the first national estimate that fully utilizes the distinction between children having deaf parents and hard of hearing parents, as well as hearing parents. The authors propose that the key demographic to report, other than that the overwhelming majority of deaf and hard of hearing students have hearing parents, is whether the child has one or two deaf parents. The annual survey findings indicate that less than five percent of deaf and hard of hearing students receiving special education are known to have at least one deaf parent, which is less than half of the presumed ten percent. Reasons for the difference between the present and previous estimates are suggested.

The first large-scale, nationwide academic achievement testing program using Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford) for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the United States started in 1969. Over the past three decades, the Stanford has served as a benchmark in the field of deaf education for assessing student academic achievement. However, the validity and reliability of using the Stanford for this special student population still require extensive scrutiny. Recent shifts in educational policy environment, which require that schools enable all children to achieve proficiency through accountability testing, warrants a close examination of the adequacy and relevance of the current large-scale testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This study has three objectives: (a) it will summarize the historical data over the last three decades to indicate trends in academic achievement for this special population, (b) it will analyze the current federal laws and regulations related to educational testing and special education, thereby identifying gaps between policy and practice in the field, especially identifying the limitations of current testing programs in assessing what deaf and hard-of-hearing students know, and (c) it will offer some insights and suggestions for future testing programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

This article examines some key similarities and differences between two leading perspectives on public participation: the natural resource management literature and deliberative democratic theory. We assert that contemporary deliberative democratic theory, as proposed by Habermas and others, provides important theoretical and applied insights that are often unexamined in the natural resource literature. Specifically, deliberative democratic theory maintains a focus on the value of public deliberation (dialogue and debate), attention to internal as well as external forms of exclusion, and constructive forms of distrust. The article demonstrates that a deliberative democratic perspective on public participation may serve to challenge some established traditions within the natural resource literature and lead to new ways of conducting and evaluating public participation.Scholarly and applied interest in public participation and natural resource management has proliferated in recent years. This has paralleled a broader wave of interest in situations where citizens come together and communicate with each other about matters of public concern. Fueled by increasing scientific complexity and uncertainty, along with a lack of social consensus about how natural resources should be managed, demand for and academic interest in public participation appear to be relentless. Writers have theorized and studied how ''deliberative spaces'' (defined as virtual and real sites where meaningful public dialogue and debate can occur) have emerged and how they play a crucial role in generating ideas and information that can improve knowledge, improve understanding, and enhance the quality of decisions.

This article traces the sources of the estimates of the number of American Sign Language users in the United States. A variety of claims can be found in the literature and on the Internet, some of which have been shown to be unfounded but continue to be cited. In our search for the sources of the various (mis)understandings, we have found that all of the data-based estimates of the number of people who use ASL in the United States have their origin in a single study published in the early 1970s, which inquired about signing in general and not ASL use in particular. There has been neither subsequent research to update these estimates nor any specific study of ASL use. The article concludes with a call to action to rectify this problem.

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is one of a few national surveys that regularly collects data identifying the American population of persons with hearing loss or deafness. Estimates from the SIPP indicate that fewer than 1 in 20 Americans are currently deaf or hard of hearing. In round numbers, nearly 10,000,000 persons are hard of hearing and close to 1,000,000 are functionally deaf. More than half of all persons with hearing loss or deafness are 65 years or older and less than 4% are under 18 years of age. However, these findings are limited to those who report difficulty hearing "normal conversation" and do not include the larger population of persons with hearing loss for which only hearing outside the range and circumstances of normal conversation is affected. Policy makers, communications technology manufacturers, health and education service providers, researchers, and advocacy organizations have an interest in these results.