Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of disability policy studies 2018-06, Vol.29 (1), p.32-42
Hauptverfasser: Luft, Pamela, Amiruzzaman, Stefanie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 32
container_title Journal of disability policy studies
container_volume 29
creator Luft, Pamela
Amiruzzaman, Stefanie
description Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). States have responded in a variety of ways with several that supplement their IEPs using a communication plan. This article examined states’ IEP or communication plan templates to identify the format and specificity with which they addressed these requirements. The IDEA language was parsed into distinct items to allow ratings using a Likert-type scale. The analyses performed descriptive, t test, and ANOVA comparisons on the forms posted on states’ website. Those states using a communication plan had significantly higher ratings overall. Kentucky’s form was the most highly rated IEP and identified each required item. Most state IEP forms identified these factors more generally with a majority rated as only minimally specified. Use of a communication plan or IEP form that incorporates IDEA language similar was the most effective strategy. Overt specificity ensures that DHH students’ language and communication needs are being met in the educational environment and facilitates states’ oversight in meeting their educational responsibilities.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1044207317751675
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2039035633</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1044207317751675</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2039035633</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-6950c6ee9826ae3d3f531c434e75e3d6cc67ccce9faa4035798601cbaa1554773</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UMtKAzEUDaJgre5dBlyPJnPzmFmWvqEgWMXlENM7dUo7M00yoDt_w9_zS0ypIAiu7rn3PC4cQq45u-Vc6zvOhEiZhoglV1qekB6XkCUiY-lpxJFODvw5ufB-wxgD4KJHnsdvZlfVVb2my2AC-q-PT_qAvm1qj56GhoZXpPPReECXLdrKbOnE2NA4H1X7rnK4wzp4WjaOjmazGNKtDodLclaarcern9knT5Px43CWLO6n8-FgkViQPCQql8wqxDxLlUFYQSmBWwECtYyrslZpay3mpTGCgdR5phi3L8ZwKYXW0Cc3x9zWNfsOfSg2Tefq-LJIGeTRogCiih1V1jXeOyyL1lU7494LzopDfcXf-qIlOVq8WeNv6L_6bxVYbs4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2039035633</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Luft, Pamela ; Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</creator><creatorcontrib>Luft, Pamela ; Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><description>Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). States have responded in a variety of ways with several that supplement their IEPs using a communication plan. This article examined states’ IEP or communication plan templates to identify the format and specificity with which they addressed these requirements. The IDEA language was parsed into distinct items to allow ratings using a Likert-type scale. The analyses performed descriptive, t test, and ANOVA comparisons on the forms posted on states’ website. Those states using a communication plan had significantly higher ratings overall. Kentucky’s form was the most highly rated IEP and identified each required item. Most state IEP forms identified these factors more generally with a majority rated as only minimally specified. Use of a communication plan or IEP form that incorporates IDEA language similar was the most effective strategy. Overt specificity ensures that DHH students’ language and communication needs are being met in the educational environment and facilitates states’ oversight in meeting their educational responsibilities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1044-2073</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4802</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1044207317751675</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Academic achievement ; Communication ; Deafness ; Education policy ; Educational Environment ; Educational Responsibility ; Federal legislation ; Hearing ; Hearing loss ; Individualized Education Programs ; Individualized Instruction ; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990-US ; Language ; Oversight ; Schools ; Students ; Students with disabilities ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of disability policy studies, 2018-06, Vol.29 (1), p.32-42</ispartof><rights>Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-6950c6ee9826ae3d3f531c434e75e3d6cc67ccce9faa4035798601cbaa1554773</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-6950c6ee9826ae3d3f531c434e75e3d6cc67ccce9faa4035798601cbaa1554773</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1044207317751675$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1044207317751675$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21817,27864,27922,27923,43619,43620</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Luft, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><title>Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students</title><title>Journal of disability policy studies</title><description>Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). States have responded in a variety of ways with several that supplement their IEPs using a communication plan. This article examined states’ IEP or communication plan templates to identify the format and specificity with which they addressed these requirements. The IDEA language was parsed into distinct items to allow ratings using a Likert-type scale. The analyses performed descriptive, t test, and ANOVA comparisons on the forms posted on states’ website. Those states using a communication plan had significantly higher ratings overall. Kentucky’s form was the most highly rated IEP and identified each required item. Most state IEP forms identified these factors more generally with a majority rated as only minimally specified. Use of a communication plan or IEP form that incorporates IDEA language similar was the most effective strategy. Overt specificity ensures that DHH students’ language and communication needs are being met in the educational environment and facilitates states’ oversight in meeting their educational responsibilities.</description><subject>Academic achievement</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Deafness</subject><subject>Education policy</subject><subject>Educational Environment</subject><subject>Educational Responsibility</subject><subject>Federal legislation</subject><subject>Hearing</subject><subject>Hearing loss</subject><subject>Individualized Education Programs</subject><subject>Individualized Instruction</subject><subject>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990-US</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Oversight</subject><subject>Schools</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students with disabilities</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>1044-2073</issn><issn>1538-4802</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UMtKAzEUDaJgre5dBlyPJnPzmFmWvqEgWMXlENM7dUo7M00yoDt_w9_zS0ypIAiu7rn3PC4cQq45u-Vc6zvOhEiZhoglV1qekB6XkCUiY-lpxJFODvw5ufB-wxgD4KJHnsdvZlfVVb2my2AC-q-PT_qAvm1qj56GhoZXpPPReECXLdrKbOnE2NA4H1X7rnK4wzp4WjaOjmazGNKtDodLclaarcern9knT5Px43CWLO6n8-FgkViQPCQql8wqxDxLlUFYQSmBWwECtYyrslZpay3mpTGCgdR5phi3L8ZwKYXW0Cc3x9zWNfsOfSg2Tefq-LJIGeTRogCiih1V1jXeOyyL1lU7494LzopDfcXf-qIlOVq8WeNv6L_6bxVYbs4</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Luft, Pamela</creator><creator>Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students</title><author>Luft, Pamela ; Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-6950c6ee9826ae3d3f531c434e75e3d6cc67ccce9faa4035798601cbaa1554773</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Academic achievement</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Deafness</topic><topic>Education policy</topic><topic>Educational Environment</topic><topic>Educational Responsibility</topic><topic>Federal legislation</topic><topic>Hearing</topic><topic>Hearing loss</topic><topic>Individualized Education Programs</topic><topic>Individualized Instruction</topic><topic>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990-US</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Oversight</topic><topic>Schools</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students with disabilities</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Luft, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Journal of disability policy studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Luft, Pamela</au><au>Amiruzzaman, Stefanie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students</atitle><jtitle>Journal of disability policy studies</jtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>32</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>32-42</pages><issn>1044-2073</issn><eissn>1538-4802</eissn><abstract>Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students have exhibited deficient language competencies and low academic achievement for over four decades. As a result, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 requires schools to address special language and communication factors through each student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). States have responded in a variety of ways with several that supplement their IEPs using a communication plan. This article examined states’ IEP or communication plan templates to identify the format and specificity with which they addressed these requirements. The IDEA language was parsed into distinct items to allow ratings using a Likert-type scale. The analyses performed descriptive, t test, and ANOVA comparisons on the forms posted on states’ website. Those states using a communication plan had significantly higher ratings overall. Kentucky’s form was the most highly rated IEP and identified each required item. Most state IEP forms identified these factors more generally with a majority rated as only minimally specified. Use of a communication plan or IEP form that incorporates IDEA language similar was the most effective strategy. Overt specificity ensures that DHH students’ language and communication needs are being met in the educational environment and facilitates states’ oversight in meeting their educational responsibilities.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1044207317751675</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1044-2073
ispartof Journal of disability policy studies, 2018-06, Vol.29 (1), p.32-42
issn 1044-2073
1538-4802
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2039035633
source PAIS Index; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Academic achievement
Communication
Deafness
Education policy
Educational Environment
Educational Responsibility
Federal legislation
Hearing
Hearing loss
Individualized Education Programs
Individualized Instruction
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990-US
Language
Oversight
Schools
Students
Students with disabilities
Variance analysis
title Examining States’ Responses to the IDEA Special Factors Requirements for DHH Students
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T14%3A33%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Examining%20States%E2%80%99%20Responses%20to%20the%20IDEA%20Special%20Factors%20Requirements%20for%20DHH%20Students&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20disability%20policy%20studies&rft.au=Luft,%20Pamela&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=32&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=32-42&rft.issn=1044-2073&rft.eissn=1538-4802&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1044207317751675&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2039035633%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2039035633&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1044207317751675&rfr_iscdi=true