Colorado Deaf Education
Reform: Where we have
Been and the Challenges we
Face
Cheryl DeConde Johnson
Colorado Department of Education
Janet DesGeorges
Hands & Voices-Colorado
Carol Hilty
Colorado School for the Deaf and the
Blind
Colorado Deaf Education Reform Timetable
2000
2001
2002
Phase 1 – Data
Collection &
Development
of Plan
2003
2004
Phase 2 –
Develop
Implementation Plan
2005
2006
2007
2008
Phase 3 - Pilot
Implementation
Phase 4 –
Implementation
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform
Activities – Phase 1

Deaf Ed Reform Task Force (2000-2002)

All relevant stakeholders



Review of existing reform efforts nationally and in
other states
Statewide Student Assessment




Department of Ed, School for the Deaf, LEAs, DHH
Parent/Professional organizations, community agencies,
higher education
Colorado Individual Performance Profile (CIPP)
Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP)
Successful Attributes (Luckner & Muir, 2001)
Task Force Recommendations

A Blueprint for Closing the Gap: Developing a Statewide
System of Service Improvements for Student whoi are
Deaf and hard of Hearing (2002)
Statewide Assessment Summary
(2000-01)





CIPP: Average performances indicated 2-3 year
delay
CSAP: 70% of DHH students were performing in
the unsatisfactory/partially proficient range
Functional Assessment: Rating of functional
performance (cognitive/behavioral/social/life
skills) indicated most students were functioning
normally to near normally
Teacher Perception: 90% felt students were
receiving adequate services
Inclusion: DHH students in CO who receive the
majority of their education in the general ed
classroom is 26% higher than national average
A Blueprint for Closing
the Gap
Developing A
Statewide
System of
Service
Improvements
for Students
who are Deaf
and Hard of
Hearing
High
Standards
Communicationdriven
Full
Access
Critical Mass
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform
Activities – Phase 2

Deaf Ed Reform Implementation Task Force
(2002-04)


All relevant stakeholders
Plan for Implementation – 3 Work Groups



Develop program & service standards
Develop accountability plan
Develop funding plan and means for getting legislative
support
 Pilot data needed to support budget request

Key Question for Legislature: Will the implementation
of the recommended program and service standards
improve educational outcomes for DHH students?
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform
Activities – Phase 2

Colorado Quality Standards: Programs and
Services for Students who are Deaf and Hard of
Hearing (August 2004)



Educational Interpreter Handbook (2004)
Audiology Standards of Practice (2004)
Accountability Plan

Annual data collection/analysis - CIPP




Demographic Information
Parent Input
School-based Indicators
Student-based Indicators
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform
Activities – Phase 3

Deaf Ed Reform Implementation Advisory
Council (2004-)


All relevant stakeholders
Implementation of pilots


RFPs (Spring 2004)
3 year pilots
 planning year (2004-05)
 Implementation years (2005-06, 2006-07)


Funding provided by CDE-ESS Federal VIB
Funded Pilots



Pikes Peak – Colorado Springs (4 LEAs and CSDB)
Rocky Mtn – 3 LEAs (20 school districts)
South Metro – 4 LEAs
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform –
Phase 3 Pilots

Pikes Peak Pilot – Colorado Springs



Goal – develop regional model of continuum
of services to implement Colorado Quality
Standards
Funding - $70,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2
&3
Year 1 Priorities (2004-05)



Hire administrator to oversee development and
implementation of model
Create advisory council to guide activities
Years 2 & 3: Implementation
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform –
Phase 3 Pilots

Rocky Mountain Pilot

Goals



Develop regional model that brings staff under the umbrella of
CSDB
Provide supervision by qualified administrator to implement
elements of Colorado Quality Standards (11/36)
Implement a Technology Plan in collaboration with Join
Together/Naster Teacher Project (H Johnson, Kent State)
 Create distance learning opportunities for DHH students
 Increase contact between itinerant deaf ed teacher and local
classroom teacher
 Provide Web-based inservices

Funding:



$20,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2 & 3
$50,000 technology grant for year 1
Year 1 Priorities



Hire administrator
Develop plan to move teachers, interpreters, audiologists to
CSDB staff
Develop technology plan, train master teachers, pilot use of
webcams and video systems
Colorado Deaf Ed Reform –
Phase 3 Pilots

South Metro - Denver

Goal


Funding:



Development regional teacher inservice model
$10,000 – 1st year; TBD for years 2 & 3
supplemental funding from LEAs
Year 1 Priorities


Hire teacher trainer
Develop training plan – content and delivery
Challenges


Finding qualified administrators
Staff




LEA barriers
Funding



Justification to the legislature
Insurance benefits
Data collection and analysis


Buy-in
Fear of change
How do we measure benefit?
Standards/services

1:1 Expectation
Assessment Model
Communication
Assessment
Academic
Social
Standardized and Functional Assessments
STUDENT PORTFOLIO
Communication
Classroom Participation
Questionnaire; Functional
Assessment
CIPP
Academic
CSAP; Standardized
and Functional
Assessments
Colorado
Individual
Performance
Profile
Social
Social Skills
Rating System;
Meadow-Kendall
Extra-curricular activities
The Colorado Model
…Through the eyes
of Families
What’s Different about Now?
(What makes us think we’ll succeed this time?)
In Colorado:
 A new emerging generation of students
and parents
 Precedent of advocacy set by Deaf/Hard of
Hearing adult consumers and advocates
 Getting beyond the method debate to the
great ‘education debate’
 The ‘Fruitcake’ Theory
 If not now, when?
Foundations leading us towards
success in Colorado
VISION
 Deaf Child Bill of Rights



The Communication Plan
Collaboration between systems and people

(state and nation wide)
Leadership of individuals resulting in
systemization of reform
 Strong Parent Involvement

Setting a Standard of Parent
Involvement

Creating a SYSTEM of formalized Parent
Involvement






Utilizing organizations
Paid parent positions provide meaningful contribution
The healthy tension between collaboration and
‘watchdogging’
Parents who train other Parents
Creates ownership of reform
The real issues emerge
Providing Structure to Programs
Standard 35
 “The Program actively promotes parents as equal
partners, encouraging strong collaboration
between program/school staff and the
development of parent leadership. This is reflected
in every aspect of the program and includes a plan
for involving parents in program development”
Colorado Quality Standards, CDE

In Colorado: Active parent org.s; regional parent
reps; training by parents to professionals. Longterm commitment and involvement; pro-active vs.
re-active

Next step: Formalizing ‘regional’ participation
Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Adults &
Community Involvement

Standard 36

The program involves the deaf and hard-ofhearing communities in program development
and encourages strong collaboration between
school staff, parents, and deaf and hard-ofhearing community members.

In Colorado: Deaf/HH Connections; consumer
advisors on boards; collaboration between
parent org.s and deaf/hh consumer org.s
Disturb the Peace
Sustain Tension
Contain Anxiety
Provide Leadership
www.handsandvoices.org
Colorado Website
www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped
/sd-hearing.asp