The vast majority of Deaf and hard of hearing children are born to parents who communicate through spoken communication. As such, these parents are usually not at all prepared to provide this type of rich language environment in a way that is easily accessible to their children. Mainstream education for Deaf and hard of hearing students is most often not inclusive. Being able to understand interac- tions in one’s environment is a critical part of language develop- ment. Books have been written about the impact of being the only Deaf or hard of hearing student in a school (Oliva & Lytle). Even schools with several Deaf and hard of hearing students who sign, or several hard of hearing students who use cochlear implants and don’t sign, are separated from each other and from the rest of their peers because their communication and educational needs are so different. Although sign language interpreters are frequently provided and meet accessibility standards, there are several systemic flaws with this as a single means to inclusion.
tion and peer interaction are most likely to be effective. As one of the foremost experts on educational inter- preting and an award-winning interpreter educator, I am keenly aware of the tremendous gap between the skills achieved by graduates of interpreting programs and readiness to work. My doctoral research revealed the complexities of the work and decisions of K-12 inter- preters, making discrepancies between interpreting education and the skills that are needed seem impos- sible given that most programs are not long enough for graduates to become highly proficient in their weakest language (usually sign language). THE COST OF THE STATUS QUO The result of mainstream practices for many Deaf and hard of hearing children and youth is isolation, not inclusion. Certainly inclusion is not possible without a critical mass of peers and adults with whom these children and youth can communicate freely and easily. For over a hundred years, the field of Deaf education has wrestled with this most urgent and persistent challenge: the communication gap that separates many Deaf and hard of hearing (D/HH) children from the language-rich environ- ments they need to thrive. Despite advances in early identifi- cation and intervention, the majority of these children spend the most critical years for language acquisition (0-3) without immediate access to a natural, accessible language. The conse- quences—cognitive delays, academic difficulties, social isola- tion, and family stress—are well documented and deeply concerning. The fiscal expense of these consequences include ongoing academic, behavioral and socio-emotional interven- tions. Furthermore, Deaf and hard of hearing students often experience tremendous disparities in academic achievement in higher education, health care, and employment that lead to a reduction of quality of life. After high school, additional chal- lenges arise as Deaf and hard of hearing youth transition to the adult world and struggle to contribute meaningfully to society as productive citizens. They rely on government-subsidized programs that step in to alleviate the inequities that result from barriers to gainful employment and access to higher education. This does not solve the problem. There has to be a way to do better. After all, many Deaf children become highly successful and highly bilingual in English and in American Sign Language. What will it take to ensure that Deaf and hard of hearing children have a fair shot at reaching their fullest potential? The problem is multi-faceted, and it is important to note we are making great strides in some areas (LEAD-K). As AI exponentially increases opportunities and access to information, we are facing another great divide that, like the
Problems include:
1. Lack of access to incidental learning and to interactions with peers. Research indicates that Deaf and hard of hearing students are exposed to 30% of the incidental learning that is consumed by their peers (Hopper, 2025).
2. Access to communication during non-instructional activities.
Interpreters are rarely available during times when students are engaged in non-academic activities–such as before the morning bell rings and after school, during recess, and during lunch. These are not only times of ongoing interactions, they are the times during which relationships develop and memories are created. In my son’s IEP, we asked that interpreters working with my son start the school day at the bus drop-off, where teachers met students as they arrived and escorted them to the classroom when the bell indicated the first passing period. When I conducted my doctoral research, I observed that the mainstreamed Deaf and hard of hearing students who signed congregated at the same table during lunch. Even those who could speak and lipread seemed more comfortable with each other instead of working so hard to communicate with non-signing peers. 3. Lack of clear findings as to the degree to which and the conditions under which interpreter-mediated instruc-
February / March, 2026 | https://www.closingthegap.com/benefits-of-membership/ 29 Closing The Gap © 2026 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator