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’...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of disability policy studies 2018-06, Vol.29 (1), p.32-42 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 |