Deaf Education: Delivered the Friendly Way

Nancy Leffel Carlson
E. Jane Irons
Melissa M. Rusher
Mary Anne Gentry
Lamar University

Introduction

     With implementation of PL94-142 in 1975 and now IDEA, most recently reauthorized in 2004, students with disabilities and handicapping conditions were integrated, or included, into the general education classroom in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 school programs (Alper, Ryndak, , & Schloss, 2001; Andrews, Leigh, & Weiner, 2004; Lewis & Doorlag, 2006; Moores, 2001; Rosenberg, Westling, and McLeskey, 2008). It has been more than 30 years since federal law required public schools to include these students in general education programs. Teachers in classrooms are likely to have students with a variety of capabilities, including disability conditions. With implementation of inclusion practices in the Pk-12 grades, more students with disability conditions are successfully completing high school graduation requirements and are entering institutions of higher education. Consequently, teacher preparation programs include practices that focus on learning needs for students of all capabilities and learning differences or challenges. Additionally, university teacher preparation programs now include students with disability conditions, e.g., Deaf students, who are preparing to teach children who may or may not have disability conditions. This article focuses on expectations of Deaf graduate students who receive teacher certification through a Deaf Education program and who must take pedagogy courses through general education teacher preparation program for certification requirements.

Background and Literature Review

Inclusion and Deaf Education
     Inclusion is the term most often used today to describe the placement of a student with special learning needs in general education (Lewis & Doorlag, 2006, p. 4). Alper, Ryndak, and Schloss (2001, p. 2) define inclusion as the process of “providing individualized education to students with disabilities in integrated settings for as much of the school day as possible.” Moores (2001, p. 2) reported that educating the Deaf child has historically been the oldest field of special education. Rosenberg, Westling, and McLeskey (2008, p. 349) reported there are 150,000 children between the ages of 0 to 12 who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and 11,000 who are deaf-blind; additionally, 78,000 who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and 1,300 who are deaf-blind received special education services through the public school system. Approximately 5% of the population may be considered to be deaf or hard-of-hearing (Woodcock, Rohan, & Campbell, 2007).
     Prior to federal legislation enacted in 1975 (PL94-142, now IDEA), Deaf and hard-of-hearing students were primarily educated in residential schools. With the implementation of PL94-142 in 1975, Deaf children were no longer segregated from hearing students for appropriate educational programs. The most common programs for Deaf students expanded to include residential schools, day schools, day classes, resource rooms, and itinerant programs (Moores, 2001, p. 21). With individualized educational programs (IEPs), a Deaf child may have access to these and other different types of placements to meet the Deaf child’s specific educational needs through the public schools, including full access to the same classes and similar curriculum. Consequently, a major shift has occurred with more than 70% of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children now being served in public school settings (DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews, 2007; Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005).
     Integrating into, and implementing, a general education may be difficult for the large numbers of Deaf children who may enter the educational system without having effective language and communication skills (Andrews, Ferguson, Roberts, & Hodges, 1998; DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews, 2007). The average reading achievement of students who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing remains well below that of their age-matched hearing peers, with approximately half of all Deaf high school graduates reading below a fourth-grade reading level (Cawthon, 2004; Holt, Traxler, & Allen, 1997; Padden & Ramsey, 1998). With mounting pressure to meet state accountability measures, understanding the needs of this population is vital. Additionally, it is paramount that options for teacher preparation for Deaf educators receive consideration. And with the advent of inclusion practices, it is likely that Deaf students are included into general education classrooms.
Deaf Culture and Deaf Education
     Moores (2001) defines a “deaf person as one whose hearing is disabled to an extent that preludes the understanding of speech through the ear alone, with or without the use of a hearing aid.” (p. 11). Moores further defines a “hard-of-hearing person as one whose hearing is disabled to an extent that makes difficult, but does not preclude, the understanding of speech through the ear alone, with or without a hearing aid.” (p. 11). Rosenberg, Westling, and McLeskey (2008, p. 350) use the U.S. Department of Education’s definition of deafness as “a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
     Generally the public and school programs have considered the condition of being Deaf as one of the handicapping, or disability, conditions that meet the eligibility criteria for receiving special education services under IDEA. Beginning in the 1970s, the use of “Deaf culture” was recognized to describe the lives of Deaf people that focused on beliefs and practices, rather than the lack of hearing ability, and included the role that sign language has in the everyday lives of the community (Ladd, 2003; Padden & Humphries, 2005). The use of sign language is the main characteristic that distinguishes Deaf people from hearing and hard-of-hearing people who do not use sign language, but rely on other forms of communication or other adaptations. The capitalized “Deaf” distinguishes the cultural practices of a group within a group (Padden & Humphries, 2005, p. 1). Deaf is considered cultural instead of a handicapping or disability condition (Ladd; Padden & Humphries).
     “Deaf” vs. “deaf” explains that using the lower case “deaf” refers to the condition of deafness. Upper case “Deaf” is used to refer to institutions or practices used by Deaf people to identify cultural identities such as Deaf clubs or Deaf churches and individuals who share in the cultural, community, or society (Ladd, 2003; Padden & Humphries, 2005). The Deaf culture recognized degrees of deafness in the Deaf community including people for whom deafness is an audiological experience, that is, people who lost some or all of their hearing at some point and who wish to remain associated with the hearing and speaking community. Another degree, or group, includes those born deaf or become deaf early in life and their primary association and communication is with sign language and Deaf cultural communities (Ladd; Padden & Humphries).
     “There is a Deaf Nation, which will either wither or blossom according to the quality of the education provided” (Ladd, 2003, p. 441). Ladd described how historical and current models of educating Deaf children vary. Oralism, described by Ladd (p. xviii), removed Deaf educators, Deaf communities, and sign languages from the Deaf educational system and replaced it with hearing-led systems that promoted speech, lipreading, and hearing aids only. The model called total communication encouraged the use of various forms of communication determined to be appropriate for the individual child (p. xviii). The ‘Bi-Bi’ education model described a bilingual-bicultural approach which taught children in signs and moved to written language (p. xvii). Currently, the “ASL/English Bilingual Education” model uses a bimodal bilingual language delivery for all content instruction (DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews, 2007). Finally, the mainstreaming model or inclusion assimilates Deaf children into hearing schools (Ladd; p. xix).
Teacher Preparation
     The US Department of Education (USDOE) reported that over 315, 000 new teachers received teacher certification in 2004 (USDOE, 2005). Research documents that a well-trained teacher has the greatest impact on students’ achievement, more so than socioeconomic status, race, class size, and classroom grouping (Archer, 1998; Sanders, 1998; Sanders & Horn, 1998). Research supports that in general, teachers teach the way they were taught (Archer, 1998). Teacher preparation programs incorporate teaching strategies and methodologies for general education and special education teachers to be effective with students with various learning differences and challenges. Pedagogy as well as content area should be emphasized in teacher preparation programs (Grant & Klein, 2002).
     Planning for all students in a class requires consideration of the needs of individuals as well as the class as a whole (Vaughn, Bos, Schumm, 2006). Effective lesson planning promotes learning for all students and incorporates strategies and methodologies designed to meet individual students’ strengths and weaknesses; specific objectives should be part of lesson planning activities (Blair, 1988).
     Teacher preparation programs and schools that hire their graduates have been significantly influenced by NCLB of 2001 and the revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 (Samuels, 2005).  Teacher preparation programs, influenced by NCLB, require that the Special Education teacher become more collaborative for inclusive settings (Samuels).
     In addition to being well-trained, teachers must meet the “highly qualified” definition according to NCLB (2001); section 602(10) of IDEA parallels NCLB’s language on the requirements for teachers to be highly qualified. A “highly qualified” teacher is one who has a bachelor’s degree, meets the requirements, holds a state standard teaching certificate, and demonstrates knowledge of the subject taught. To be considered “highly qualified”, new teachers must pass tests in their subject or content area or complete the equivalent of a college major (Irons & Harris, 2007, p. 33). Additionally, Deaf educators must have their Deaf Education certification and exhibit subject area competency for each subject area taught. If Deaf educators do not have both certifications, Deaf students taught in self-contained classrooms are not eligible for high school diplomas in most states (DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews, 2007).
     Effective classroom management techniques and best practices for general education and Deaf Education must be implemented for students to be successful. Friend and Bursuch (2002) recommended specific steps to facilitate successful teacher–student interactions including: (a) establishing classroom procedures and expectations and following them consistent; and (b) establishing clear, concise verbal and written communications so that students understand what is expected of them. Effective teachers use a variety of teaching and learning strategies that allow students to be successful, that remove negative practices which impact marginal students, use innovation, and promote success (Barr & Parrett, 2001; Kennedy, 1996; Rossi & Stringfield, 1995).
     Johnson (2004) suggests that Deaf and hard-of-hearing students have critical learning needs and the ability of these students is tied to the instructional effectiveness of their teachers (p. 75). Furthermore, he proposed that the most effective way to address the learning needs of Deaf students was to improve interpersonal relationships and learning opportunities (p. 76). Johnson recommended that Deaf Education strengthen settings for educating Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, provide for instructional support, and professional development for school systems and teachers. Johnson proposed that Deaf Education must find new strategies for critical masses of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, teachers, instructional resources, and learning opportunities. Teacher preparation programs for Deaf students and teachers of Deaf students must be strengthened to maintain and support their educational opportunities and progress.

Purpose Statement

     The purpose of this study was to investigate the expectations that graduate students who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing have for the teacher preparation program in a university in southeast Texas. The graduate students were in the Deaf Education teacher preparation program with the goal to become teachers of students in prekindergarten through grade 12 in public schools or in schools with a dominant population of deaf or hard-of-hearing students. Students were asked to identify their concerns and their recommendations for the delivery of teacher education programs for more effective instruction for teachers of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students. The expected outcome of this investigation was to determine what Deaf education students expect of teacher education professors regarding teaching methods and practices and the impact these expectations have on the delivery of teacher preparation courses.

Research Questions

The research questions for this investigation were:

1. What do Deaf education graduate students expect of professors in the delivery of teacher preparation classes?
2. What do Deaf education graduate students expect to get out of the teacher preparation classes?
3. What are the differences in the way Deaf Education students are trained to become teachers?
4. What specific suggestions do Deaf education graduate students have to make pedagogy courses more effective for teacher preparation needs?
5. What do Deaf education teacher preparation students expect to get from the pedagogy courses taught in Teacher Education courses that will help them become effective teachers?
6. What suggestions do the Deaf education teacher preparation students have for other teacher education students regarding training expectations to become teachers of Deaf students?

Methodology

     The methodology for this project was qualitative and used the following: (a) interviews with graduate students in a Deaf Education program who attended teacher preparation courses for teacher certification requirements; (b) written survey questionnaire completed by the Deaf Education students (see Appendix I); and (c) interviews with two interpreters who served the Deaf Education students in graduate courses. The following provided the framework for this section: sample, data collection, limitations, data analysis, and findings.
Sample
     The sample was purposive and limited to the Deaf students attending a general education teacher preparation program for graduate students who already have a college degree (i.e. a post-baccalaureate degree program). These students were graduate students in the Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (DSDE) who were taking courses in the College of Education and Human Development as required for state teacher certification. The DSDE’s mission is to prepare teachers and leaders to create culturally- and linguistically-affirming environments that empower Deaf students and the Deaf community. The graduate program in Deaf Studies and Deaf Education is accredited by the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED). The Deaf education Master of Science program provides preparation for teachers entering the classroom with a ASL/English Bilingual Education philosophy. The teacher certification plans are offered in conjunction with the major study of Deaf Education and is a collaborative program between the Deaf Education and College of Education Departments.
     The sample included Deaf graduate students in the first of the series of pedagogy courses, Effective Teaching, totaling 18 students. Each semester over the past three years there were between four and six Deaf or hard-of-hearing students in section of the course. These students have a Bachelor’s Degree in their area of study and are completing additional course work for teacher certification. These students are Deaf or hard-of-hearing and plan to be teachers of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students in either the public school or schools with a population of Deaf children.
Data Collection
     Data were collected through three methods. First the students were interviewed and observed during class participation and activities with the assistance of the interpreters assigned to the class under accommodations for students with disabilities. Second, a directed interview and a written survey instrument were used during the fall semester 2007 with the five female graduate students in the beginning teacher education course. These graduate students were asked for voluntary participation in the directed interview and written survey regarding Deaf students’ expectations in classroom instruction. The students enthusiastically volunteered to participate. During the interviews, the students indicated their preference for providing written responses to the survey questions over interview questions. Therefore, the dominant form of data collection is through the written survey responses. The third method of data collection was to interview the interpreters who were assigned by the Office of Student Disabilities to assist in the class activities. The observations and comments of the interpreters are included in the data collection.
Limitations
     Glatthorn and Joyner (2005, p. 168) define limitations as “the boundaries of the study and ways in which findings may be generalized.” The limitations of this study include the following:

1. The sample was one of convenience and limited in the number of respondents.
2. The respondents were from one university in one geographical area of southeast Texas.
3. The study was delimited to adult Deaf university graduate Deaf Education students.
4. The study is subject to the specific limitations of survey research; specifically data were collected at one point in time and relies on the personal perception and biases of the respondents.

Data Analysis and Findings
     The graduate students’ responses to the written survey questions were recorded and grouped according to the research questions. Deaf education students’ responses are reported here as they were written on the survey form. Often Deaf students’ writing mirrors their language construction of signing concepts, resulting in written grammatical errors. These errors were included in the following responses to maintain the integrity of the students’ own words.

1. What do Deaf education students expect from professors?

     Overall, the Deaf graduate students responded that Deaf educations students do not expect anything different than what hearing students expect in lectures, handouts, and class activities. These students indicated a preference for being grouped with hearing students when participating in group activities. During group activities, interpreters were assigned to the groups and, where appropriate, other hearing graduate students in the class volunteered to interpret so the Deaf students could participate in more groups. Therefore, more groups could be created with the two formal interpreters and volunteer interpreters. The Deaf students did not want to be isolated into a group of only Deaf students during group activities. Additionally, Deaf students wanted recognition of the cultural aspect of being deaf. The Deaf Education graduate students’ written responses included:

“No need to change more understandable”.
“None that differs especially from what hearing students expect”.
“Need to be deaf-friendly by setting up tables or desks in a U-shape in the classroom”.
“Need to mix with other students in a group”.
“I think Deaf students need to interaction with hearing students to get different ideas.”
“Yes, it’s very important to have interaction and collaboration with different students to learning bicultural.”
“Be aware interpreter guidelines and make sure not stand front of them”.
“Ensure that time allows the Deaf student to share opinion – be aware of hands being raised, ensure that interpreters are available for group activity”.
“No extra accommodation needed. We can read!”

2. What do Deaf education graduate students expect to get out of the teacher preparation classes?

     In general, Deaf students in this teacher preparation program expected to get the same as all other students in the class. Written responses from the Deaf Education graduate students included:

“There are no a such thing to treat Deaf students difference. Teach US the same expectations & information.”
“Same. All students vary in terms of expectations.”
“Treat us the same except we have interpreters”.
“I expect to have a note taker, tutoring, & meeting with professor if I need.”

3. What are the differences in the way Deaf Education students are trained to become teachers?

     Deaf education graduate students reported that there are some differences in training, but did not explain fully how the training is different. The Deaf students indicated that accommodations are needed, specifically the use of interpreters and knowledge of sign language for certification requirements. The Deaf Education graduate students responses were:

“Yes, I have requirement get sign language courses to get my certification.”
“No difference, but more accommodations/modifications.”
“Yes, but same concept.”
“The certification is different, yes. I’d suggest that you talk to the Dead Ed. dept. for specifics.”
“We learned how to teach properly approach for Deaf child in Deaf education class. Ask Deaf Education if you really want to know. Those questions had already been covered in Deaf Education’s requirements.”

4. What specific suggestions do Deaf education graduate students have to make pedagogy courses more effective for teacher preparation needs?

     The Deaf education graduate students suggested that taking courses in the Pedagogy Department duplicated the teacher education program taken in the Deaf Education Department. The Deaf students indicated more instruction was needed in multicultural areas, legal issues, and individual education plans (IEPs) for students with handicapping and disability conditions. Specific comments included:

“I would prefer to take courses within the deaf ed. Department, as they are more applicable to deaf education.”
“N/A. Kind of pointless to take this class, but I got plenty of good information from this class.”
“To learn how to work with IEP. Have mock-up IEP.”
“I think, I would like suggestion PEDG courses more effective for my teacher edu needs are multicultural & Law course & IEP.”

5. What do Deaf Education teacher preparation students expect to get from the pedagogy courses taught in teacher education courses that will help them become effective teachers?

     The graduate students who are Deaf education students indicated that their expectations for pedagogy courses are the same as all teacher education students, indicating that there should be no difference in expectations between the programs. The Deaf Education students indicated satisfaction in course content areas of leaning about classroom management, teaching lessons, unit planning, and assessments for teaching lessons and unit plans. These graduate students indicated that they would like to have more exposure to multicultural disability, legal concerns, and IEPs. Specific comments were:

“Again, no differentiation in expectation from a hearing student.”
“More in-depth teaching.”
“I would like Pedagogy courses offer class to help me become better understand in multicultural disability, laws, & IEP.”
“Great job of covering classroom management plan, unit plans, and assessments.”

6. What suggestions do the Deaf Education teacher preparation programs students have for other teacher education students regarding training expectations to become teachers of Deaf students?

   “Encourage Deaf children to read. Teacher should explain the story first before they read it, not read the story then explain.”
   “I’ll suggestion for teacher education students to get foreign languages courses, & multicultural disability.”
   “Just be aware of interpreter guidelines.”

Recommended Teaching Strategies
     The Deaf Education students and the interpreters suggested several classroom management and teaching strategies that impact three areas of classroom instruction: Environment, Interaction, and Content.
Environment
     Specific strategies for an optimal teaching and learning environment recommended by the Deaf Education teacher preparation graduate students and interpreters are:

1. Create a classroom “visual-friendly” or “Deaf-friendly” environment that encourages and fosters interpersonal relationships and communication. This can be done by arranging desks, tables, and chairs in a horseshoe shape so that all students are able to see each other.
2. Reduce distractions and “visual noise.” Deaf students are distracted by extraneous visual stimulation that does not enhance the instructional process.
3. Provide for sufficient lighting and clean visual lines between teaching and learning areas. Darkened rooms or areas prohibit the Deaf student from being able to see and understand instructional activities.
4. Provide for sufficient space between activities and students. The Deaf student must be able to see to visualize the teaching and learning process.
5. Provide for sufficient interpreter space and access so that the interpreter is always easily seen and accessible to the Deaf students.
6. Teachers, students, and materials must not interfere with the line of sight between the Deaf student and the interpreter.

Interaction
     Specific strategies for optimal interactions between students and teachers recommended by the Deaf Education teacher preparation graduate students and interpreters are:

1. Allow students to have continual eye contact so that they “bond” with each other and interact. Student, both Deaf and hearing, must have visual access to one another and must be knowledgeable of how to use the interpreters for academic and social exchanges.
2. Provide for meaningful interaction for all students. Include Deaf students in discussions and class activities, the same as other students.
3. Teachers should meet with interpreters to clarify content and strategies for maintaining integrity of interpretation of content.
4. Be sensitive and train all students about cultural differences. Deaf students may not understand the subtly of tone of voice, or nuances of verbal jokes or puns, etc.

Content
     Specific strategies for instructional content recommended by the Deaf Education teacher preparation graduate students and interpreters are:

1. Conduct a short preview of a story or content before having students read about it. This introduces the concepts and ideas before the act of reading to understand.
2. Emphasize learning activities that focus on the Deaf student’s strengths and learning styles.
3. Distribute handouts and documents first; then begin talking about the content. The Deaf student can’t hear the teacher talk about the content while papers are being distributed.
4. Allow students to read documents before beginning to discuss them. The Deaf student requires time to read the materials before having the interpreter sign the discussion about the content.
5. Allow students to use authentic assessments and projects to demonstrate competency.
6. Accommodate the Deaf students in any activity where hearing students would use their eyes and ears simultaneously. For Deaf students, this allows them to fully participate in the activity instead of rendering them unable to participate fully because of visual competition.

Conclusion and Implications

     The findings suggest that the Deaf Education graduate students in this teacher preparation program want to be treated the same as other teacher education students. While wanting to be treated the same as other students, the Deaf Education students wanted recognition of the cultural aspects of being deaf and recommended training in diversity through multicultural or bi-cultural concepts.
     The Deaf Education students recognize that accommodations and modifications are necessary, particularly the use of interpreters. They reminded professors to be aware of and follow interpreter guidelines, including scheduling a meeting between the professors and the interpreters to clarify any special vocabulary or concept areas that may interfere with understanding of the course content through the sign language interpretation. The Deaf Education students also reminded the professors to not block their line of sight or their ability to always see the interpreters.
     The Deaf Education graduate students in this teacher preparation program want the same content and pedagogy instruction for understanding best practices and effective teaching strategies. Deaf Education teacher preparation students emphasized three areas that impact their ability to learn and interact in the classroom: environmental, interaction, and content (pedagogy or teaching strategies).
     The Deaf Education students prefer to interact and be included in all class activities, the same as general education teacher education students. Group interaction is important to share and exchange ideas. Deaf Education students felt that some pedagogy courses duplicated the courses from the Deaf Education department; however some students appreciated the interaction and inclusion into general education courses. Deaf education students emphasized that their teacher training should include good teaching practices of focusing on students learning needs, learning styles, using a variety of teaching and learning strategies that allow students to be successful, that remove negative practices which impact marginal students, use innovation, and promote success (Barr & Parrett, 2001; Kennedy, 1996; Rossi & Stringfield, 1995).
     The Deaf Education graduate students in the teacher preparation program recommend that a Deaf Friendly class room is one that focuses on individual learning strengths, provides an environment where students can interact effectively with others, emphasizes course content, best practices and effective teaching strategies. This study may have implications for teacher preparation programs both for general education and Deaf education teachers.

References

Alper, S., Ryndak, D. L., & Schloss, C. N. (2001). Alternate assessment of students with disabilities in inclusive settings.
       Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Andrews, J. F., Ferguson, C., Roberts, S., & Hodges, P. (1997). What’s up, Billy Jo? Deaf children and bilingual-bicultural
       instruction in East-Central Texas. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(1), 16-25.
Andrews, J., Leigh, I.., & Weiner, M. (2004). Deaf people: Evolving perspectives in psychology, education and sociology.
       Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Archer, J. (1998, February 18). Students’ fortunes rest with assigned teacher. Education Week 17(23), 3.
Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2001.) Hope fulfilled for at-risk and violent youth: K-12 programs that work (2nd ed.). Needham
       Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Blair, T. R. (1988). Emerging Patterns of Teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
Cawthon, S. (2004). Schools for the deaf and the No Child Left Behind Act. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 314-323.
DeLana, M., Gentry, M., & Andrews, J. (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English bilingual education: Considering public schools.
       American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 73-87.
Friend, M., & Bursuch, W. D. (2002). Including students with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2005). Annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth state summary report.
       Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.
Glatthorn, A., & Joyner, R. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
       Corwin Press.
Grant, T. J., & Kline, K. (2002). Developing elementary teachers’ knowledge of content and pedagogy through implementation
       of a standards-based mathematics curriculum. In Guyton, E., & Rainer, J. Research on Meeting and Using Standards in
       the preparation of teachers. Reston VA:Association of Teacher Educators, Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company.
Holt, J., Traxler, C., & Allen, T. (1997). Interpreting the scores: A user’s guide to the ninth edition Stanford Achievement Test
       for educators of deaf and hard of hearing students (Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Report No. 97-1). Washington
       , DC: Gallaudet University.
Irons, E. J., & Harris, S. (2007). The challenges of No Child Left Behind: Understanding the issues of excellence, accountability,
       and choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Johnson, H. A. (2004). U.S. deaf education teacher preparation programs: A look at the present and a vision for the future.
       American Annals of the Deaf, 149(2), 75-91.
Kennedy, M. (1996). A teacher’s manifesto: Designing learning which cures rather than causes academic risks: Part 2. The
       Journal of At-Risk Issues, 2(2), 16-27.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Clevedon, England; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (2006). Teaching special students in general education classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
       Pearson.
Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). (H.R. 1), 107 Congress, 110 (2002). Enacted.
Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (2005). Inside Deaf culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18(4), 30-46.
Rosenberg, M. S., Westling, D. L., & McLeskey, J. (2008). Special education for today’s teachers, an introduction. Upper
       Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Rossi, R. J., & Stringfield, S. C. (1995, September). What we must do for students placed at risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1),
       73-77.
Samuels, C.A. (2005, February). Subject qualification vexing for teachers in special education. Education Week 24(23), 1, 22.
Sanders, W. (1998). Value-added assessment. The School Administrator, 11(55), 24-27.
Sanders, W., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVASS)
       database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3),
       247-256.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2005). The secretary’s fourth annual report on teacher
       quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Washington, D. C.: author. Retrieved September 1, 2006 from the
       World Wide Web:
       http://www.ed.gov/about /reports/annual/teachprep/2005 Title2 Report.pdf.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2006). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education
       classroom. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Woodcock, K., Rohan, M., & Campbell, L. (2007). Equitable representation of deaf people in mainstream academia: Why not?
       Higher Education, 53, 359-379.