The education of the deaf in the United States is every bit as diverse as is American education itself (Moores, 1996, Stewart & Kluwin, 2000). Today, a deaf or hard-of-hearing child could find herself in a public, private, or parochial school, in a residential program, or in a day program. A teacher of the deaf could spend his entire career in one school in a small town or ride the subway in a big city from one school to another. This diversity in part reflects the continuum of types of educational placement available in the United States today. This continuum is important because individual deaf students have different levels of need for support (Schirmer, 2001). The term “deaf ” will be used here to refer to the full range of deaf and hard-of-hearing students who receive special educational services.). This chapter discusses the following four categories of alternative placements: (a) separate schools, (b) resource rooms and separate classes, (c) general education classes, and (d) co-enrollment classes. Two questions that immediately occur regarding these options are: “What are the differences in the experiences of students in these alternative placement types?” “What are the differences in the characteristics and attainments of students in these placement types?” A more complex question isasks “Is it possible to relate these different educational experiences to characteristics and attainments of the students?” That is, do different experiences produce different educational consequences? The second and third sections of this chapter consider the research that best answers these questions. The first section provides background, description, and conceptualization that aids understanding of the research that this chapter reviews and of thinking in the field in regard to alternative types of placement.

The authors conducted a preliminary telephone interview study of a random sample of 35 parents whose children had received cochlear implants through a large-scale implant program. Parents were asked about their child's preimplant and postimplant communications skills, how they learned about implants, and how they arrived at the decision to have their child receive an implant. Results of the interviews suggest, a least for this program, that two types of decision sequences are followed. One type of parent has initial and primary contact through a medical practitioner, uses that source of information exclusively, and is motivated by a desire for a "normal" communication situation. The second type of parent learns about implants from another parent, family member, or teacher. This individual will seek other sources of information and is most often motivated by the child's lack of communication skill. Generally, from parents' perspective, language and speech rather than improved social skills or social contact are the primary benefits of the implant.

Studies of social processes and outcomes of the placement of deaf students with hearing peers cannot be easily summarized, but can be grouped into a least four major categories of focus: social skills, interaction and participation, sociometric status and acceptance, and affective functioning. We review 33 studies available since 1980 in which a mainstreamed or included deaf sample was compared to another group. Studies indicated (1) that hearing students were more socially mature than deaf students in public schools, (2) that deaf students interacted with deaf classmates more than hearing ones, (3) that deaf students were somewhat accepted by their hearing classmates, and (4) that self-esteem was not related to extent of mainstreaming. There was a tendency for studies to use observational methods with very young children, teacher evaluations with middle school children, and questionnaires with older children. Three major areas of methodology limit general conclusions: samples, measurements of variables, and experimental manipulations. The reviewed studies provide a basis for understanding the social processes and outcomes in these placement situations; however, it is not possible to make broad generalizations about effects of placement.

No abstract

C oteaching , also known as team teaching , offers an alternative to the dilemma of choosing between the residential school, which offers a deaf community but sometimes a poor record of achievement, and inclusion, which promises better achievement but results in increased social isolation. Under a coteaching arrangement, deaf or hard of hearing students can share a deaf peer group while being exposed to the social contact and academic requirements of a mainstream class. The study sample consists of the deaf or hard of hearing students at one elementary school on the West Coast with extensive experience with coteaching, plus a random selection of their hearing peers. Students were administered the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Franklin, 1981), My Class Inventory (Fisher & Barry, 1985), and the Childhood Loneliness Scale (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984). Consistent results indicated that while age differences appeared, there were no negative social consequences of coteaching for deaf students. The study indicates that on the basis of social benefits, coteaching warrants further systematic research.

The selection of a mode of communication by members of a family with a deaf child is a critical decision in the life of that family since it will condition how the family will be able to function in the future. However, while some writers have considered the outcomes of this decision, there is little information on factors that influence the decision. The purpose of this study was to examine why families developed one pattern of communication rather than another. The data came from the parents of 192 deaf adolescents who responded to a nationally distributed questionnaire. Results suggest that the mother takes the lead in determining the family's choice of a mode of communication. The single largest influence on the mother's mode of communication was the child's degree of hearing loss, followed by the child's mode of preschool education and the mother's level of education. The implications of this study for those who wish to promote the use of manual communication in families with a deaf child is to target mothers, particularly those who are less well educated, for intervention and training programs.

A longitudinal study of 451 deaf adolescents in 15 local school districts across the United States addressed the cumulative impact of mainstream placement on achievement and grade point average (GPA). Initial between-group differences accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in actual achievement but less so for GPA. Advantages accrued to the more mainstreamed students; however, this may be as much related to overall course selection during high school as to the degree of mainstreaming of the student. Students who attended more classes and attended more academically demanding classes did have higher achievement levels across placement categories. The apparent cumulative effect of mainstream placement may be as much a product of different patterns of educational programming as of the advantage of a specific placement. Race as an expression of a constellation of variables was the largest factor in achievement differences but did not affect cumulative GPA.

This study, involving 215 students and 63 teachers, addressed three concerns related to mainstreaming for hearing impaired students: the selection process, the difference between a mainstream placement with an interpreter and a self-contained placement, and the quality of the educational experience. Almost half of the variance in achievement between the two settings is described. Three conclusions can be drawn. First, student background factors are a primary determinant of achievement. Second, mainstreaming with an interpreter has no specific effect on achievement for hearing impaired students. Third, the quality of instruction is the prime determinant of achievement, regardless of placement.