Special Education IEP Planning for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

Introduction: Students with Hearing Loss

This paper examines three students with hearing loss and develops individualized education plans, communication strategies, and lesson adaptations suited to each student's unique profile. The three students — Kate, Andy, and Kevin — represent a range of hearing loss severities and communication needs, from moderate bilateral hearing loss to total deafness with ASL as a primary language.

Hearing loss exists on a spectrum, and educational planning must reflect each student's specific audiological profile, communication preferences, and academic context. The following sections address each student in turn.

Kate: Accommodations and IEP Goals for Bilateral Hearing Loss

Kate is an 11th grader with moderate bilateral hearing loss — that is, a loss of hearing affecting both ears, which may be symmetrical (equal loss in both ears) or asymmetrical (one ear hearing better than the other). In either case, both ears are affected (Hear-it, 2020). Kate barely passes her exams and has stopped using personal amplification at school. She had already ceased using her FM system during middle school when she began cycling through classes.

Equal learning opportunity requires that hard-of-hearing or deaf students like Kate be able to access the same information that normally-hearing peers can access through listening. Captioning, sign language interpretation, and other visual supports may be necessary to provide Kate with access to a specialized, instruction-based curriculum.

Acoustic modifications can offer significant benefits to students with hearing loss such as Kate; however, such modifications may not always be feasible and may not be sufficient for full access to communication. Various hearing technologies may be utilized for Kate and for this student population more broadly. To varying degrees, these technologies can improve the audibility of a talker's voice and reduce the adverse effects of echo, distance, and background noise.

In Kate's case, traditional ear-level hearing aids may be used in the classroom. Such aids function best when the listener and speaker are relatively close to one another. Specialized seating arrangements may therefore be made to allow Kate to sit closer to the teacher, while also improving speech-reading conditions for her.

The following goals were determined with reference to the Standard Aligned System:

The goals above are supported by the following objectives:

Distinguishing between and identifying consonants and vowels in quiet/noise: (1) Kate can distinguish between consonants and vowels when provided with flashcards. (2) She can determine whether sounds are the same, with 80% accuracy as measured by educator observation. (3) She can identify words beginning with consonants and vowels.

Using alternate terms: (1) Kate can use alternate terms when responding to requests for clarification two-thirds of the time, as measured by the educator. (2) She understands why alternate words must be used. (3) She can differentiate between words (Arnoldi, 2011).

To monitor Kate's progress, rubrics, portfolios, curriculum-based evaluations, criterion-referenced checklists, mastery tracking measures, and similar instruments will be employed. These evaluation tools have been utilized by intervention programs and researchers, and have been applied to progress-tracking practices (Rose, n.d.). Progress evaluation will occur once every six months. Goals will be reviewed and progress assessed based on whether Kate has accomplished them.

Andy: Communication Planning for a Cochlear Implant User

Andy is a 9th grader with a cochlear implant. He depends on this device and associated support for better comprehending texts and writing Standard English. In addition to hearing support, Andy receives language and speech support. He is somewhat self-conscious when speaking and hesitates to participate in class by volunteering answers or asking for clarification when unsure.

Because Andy has already been receiving language, speech, and hearing support, it is recommended that he also receive the assistance of a transliterator or educational interpreter for participating in and benefiting from classroom instruction and social interactions.

When making decisions about communication and language approaches for a student with a cochlear implant, developing a personalized communication and language plan can provide a systematic framework for guiding and monitoring choices matched to the individual student's characteristics. Developing a communication and language functioning profile for Andy may prove valuable in forming such a plan. This profile should reflect both formal and informal assessments completed by the student, as well as observations of his communication and linguistic functioning in natural settings.

The communication approach must offer meaningful opportunities for spoken language development during both natural and structured activities. Andy's education will not be sacrificed in favor of a singular focus on developing spoken language; rather, efficient communication will be available to support his socialization with peers. Communication and language approaches will be used in combination and adjusted over time as his oral language skills evolve.

It is important to ensure that Andy is not frustrated by the communication and language approaches included in the plan, as frustration will undermine his engagement with them. Approaches such as sign language may also be incorporated, since spoken language can be developed and refined within a signing environment. With appropriate resources and purposeful planning, an English bilingual/ASL strategy for Andy can meet his spoken language needs (Gallaudet University, 2017).