Educational Consequences of Alternative School Placements

Abstract

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.

Long‐term improvements in oral communication skills and quality of peer relations in children with cochlear implants: parental testimony

“…Social relationships are crucial to children's future development, yet many deaf children have difficulties forming and sustaining relationships with hearing peers (Antia & Kreimeyer 1997;Calderon & Greenberg 2003;Stinson & Kluwin 2003;. They have more difficulty making friends and are more likely to be socially rejected compared with hearing peers (DeLuzio & Girolametto 2011;Punch & Hyde 2011a;van Gent et al 2012); they have lower social status (Nunes et al 2001); and report more loneliness than do hearing children (Kent 2003;Most 2007).…”

“…Social relationships are crucial to children's future development, yet many deaf children have difficulties forming and sustaining relationships with hearing peers (Antia & Kreimeyer ; Calderon & Greenberg ; Stinson & Kluwin ; Weisel et al . ).…”

Evidence‐based practice in educating deaf and hard‐of‐hearing children: teaching to their cognitive strengths and needs

“…That is, more academically successful DHH students are more likely to be placed in general education classrooms, and, as is true for hearing students, those who begin with higher skill levels tend also to make faster progress over time (Powers 1999). In fact, across studies involving DHH students, after accounting for initial student and family characteristics, type of school placement has been found to account for only about 1-5% of the variance in academic outcomes (Stinson and Kluwin 2011). Overall, an average of 75% of the variance in academic outcome has remained unexplained.…”

Do you see what I see? School perspectives of deaf children, hearing children and their parents☆

“…In the United States, for example, since passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, there has been a shift from approximately 80% of deaf children attending schools for the deaf to the point where now over 85% spend all or part of the school day in regular school classrooms (Data Accountability Center, 2008). Although there is still considerable debate concerning which deaf children will benefit from mainstreaming and to what extent (Stinson & Kluwin, 2011), there is no doubt that the influx of students with special needs has changed the face of public education (e.g., Fish, 2002). …”