Access to Language is a Human Right

Authors: Brenna Brillhart, Educational Diagnostician

Language is how we ask for our wants and needs to be met; it’s how we express emotions and share ideas; it’s how we tell others our hopes, dreams and fears. The gift of language is one of the most important things we pass on to younger generations. Access to language is a fundamental right to which every human on the planet is entitled. Human rights are not granted by a government and can never be taken away, for “They belong to all people, regardless of gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status such as disability or deafness” (Human Rights of the Deaf, 2016). Language serves as an essential tool for interaction, social connections and education. “Every child, every person, has the right to be their own person with thoughts and opinions that others listen to; likewise, to exist in communicative and social contexts in which they are given the opportunity to express themselves.” (Malmgren, Sofi. 2019). Ensuring that fully accessible language is provided consistently by fluent individuals is the foundation on which future language skills are built. This holds true for all children, including those who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs. Accessible languages such as American Sign Language (ASL), ProTactile and other manual languages are guaranteed by law.

Families play an essential role in determining preferred modes of communication for their children who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs. Communication modes may be signed, spoken or tactile. Languages can include American Sign Language, English, ProTactile or another native language. Assistive Technology (AT) may enhance communication and language learning. Certain children may benefit from using amplification and other Hearing Assistive Technology (HAT) to increase access to sound. Using objects, pictures, high-tech devices and other forms of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) can help some children with expressive communication. Complete access to ASL, Tactile American Sign Language and ProTactile is often overlooked or denied for children who are deafblind or deaf with complex access needs. The human right granted to all children with hearing differences and their families to select preferred modes of communication is protected by state and federal laws (see Statutory Codes below). When families and the education team collaborate in providing access across the school and home settings, children who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs have the greatest opportunity for success.

Potential for Communication

Evaluation information collected to determine eligibility as Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Deafblind must include a communication assessment. Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) committees determine the need for updated evaluation at least every three years. At a minimum, a student should have a communication assessment every three years during that reevaluation process (Texas Sensory Support Network, n.d.) “to ascertain the student’s potential for communication through a variety of means, including through oral or aural means, fingerspelling, or sign language” (TEC 30.083(a)(6)). Even if a student does not use a particular mode of communication, it should be addressed in the communication assessment (Texas Sensory Support Network). 

Consideration of potential communication modes and languages is especially important for students who have yet to develop formal language. Potential accommodations and adaptations must also be considered in each of these areas. For some children who are deaf or hard of hearing, personal amplification and Hearing Assistive Technology (HAT) can increase access to sound. For children who are deafblind, the ARD committee must consider the influence of vision on the student’s ability to learn and use sign language. Individualized adaptations can ensure that sign language is accessible to children who are blind or have low vision. The need for individualized adaptations is not typically addressed in communication assessments due to the limited knowledge of evaluators working with children who are deafblind. As a result, many qualified students are considered incapable of learning sign language (Blaha & Carlson, 2007). The multidisciplinary evaluation team’s goal is to determine the potential for communication across a variety of modalities including the possibility of multiple modalities. The current lack of formal sign language skills is not a valid reason to deny a child the opportunity to learn and use sign language. 

Statutory Codes

Texas Deaf Children’s Bill of Rights is a nickname for a portion of the Texas Education Code (TEC) that lists the rights of deaf children, including those who are deafblind and deaf with complex access needs, in the educational setting. The law guarantees the right to an appropriate, ongoing, fully accessible education including peers who use the same language mode and with whom the student can communicate directly (TEC §29.305). Opportunity to develop proficiency in English and ASL is safeguarded (TEC §29.302.b). The law affirms the right of families and their children to choose communication modes that include a variety of modalities, languages and technologies to be used in any combination (TEC §29.302.a). It is important to remember that unique communication modes can be different receptively and expressively, but that both must be provided and respected. For example, a child who prefers to use ASL for receptive language input and spoken English for expressive language has a legal right to an education that includes both communication modes and languages. A child who is unable to access spoken language due to the significance of their hearing difference but is unable to form complex handshapes used in ASL has a right to an education where they are provided ASL receptively and taught to use AAC to enhance their expressive language. The chosen unique communication mode must be respected, used, and developed (TEC §29.303). Local education agencies must provide opportunities for students to be exposed to deaf or hard of hearing role models (TEC §29.307). Children who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs are entitled to an education that may not be available at their home campus. To meet these unique needs, Texas law established regional programs for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, including those who are deafblind and deaf with complex access needs, that will meet the unique communication needs of students who can benefit from them (TEC §29.308). Texas Deaf Children’s Bill of Rights is a powerful law that families, educators, and administrators must be knowledgeable about to ensure their advocacy efforts are most effective.

All children with disabilities have a right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2019). Their education must be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) with placement based on the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). In a Notice of Policy Guidance by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, the former Secretary of the Department of Education explicitly makes note that the family’s preferred mode of communication for their child is a factor that must be taken into consideration for the development of the IEP (Alexander, 1992): “Any setting which does not meet the communication and related needs of a child who is deaf, and therefore does not allow for the provision of Free and Appropriate Public Education, cannot be considered the Least Restrictive Environment for that child” (Alexander, 1992). The Secretary recognizes that locations other than a regular education setting or home campus may be the Least Restrictive Environment in which the child’s unique needs can be met (Alexander, 1992). A child’s home campus may not have staff or peers with whom the student can directly communicate. All children are entitled to a FAPE in an environment where they can communicate directly with staff and peers. The ARD committee must “consider the child’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child’s language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child’s language and communication mode.” (IDEA § 1414.d.3.B.iv). IDEA supports the rights of children and their families to an equitable education in which their preferences are respected and supported. 

Legal Precedent

The right to language for all students who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs is very clear in state and federal law. In a Due Process Hearing between a student with a hearing difference and the local school district (Student v. Klein ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD), the school presented evidence that the child did not require ASL and was successful in their current placement without ASL. A special education hearing officer for the state of Texas ordered that Klein ISD and Cypress-Fairbanks ISD must honor the parents’ selection of the preferred communication mode and that the student’s educational placement and services must conform to the wishes of the student’s parent under the Texas Deaf Children’s Bill of Rights. The school district had to provide an education in which the family’s choice of ASL as a communication mode was “respected, used and developed.” (TEC §29.303). 

Conclusion

Receptive language is an essential component of developing expressive language. A child in an environment with no access to receptive language and the expectation to utilize a high-tech device for expressive language lacks access to building the foundational receptive skills needed to support meaningful expressive language. A child’s current lack of expressive proficiency in ASL does not mean they do not need it receptively. Communication modes are unique, can utilize a combination of approaches, and may be different receptively and expressively. As parents, educators and administrators advocate for students and their individual needs, it is important for all parties involved to be familiar with the law. All children have a right to accessible language.

Access to language is a human right. For children who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with complex access needs, access to meaningful language is fundamental for making progress in the educational setting. If there is a breakdown in this critical exchange, the child is essentially denied the right to a FAPE (Blaha & Carlson, 2007). The laws are clear in their support of providing ASL, Tactile American Sign Language, ProTactile and other manual languages when students and their families have decided it is part of their preferred mode of communication. 

References  

Alexander, L. (1992). Deaf students education services. (OCR Publication: OCR-000012). U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9806.html

Blaha, R., & Carlson, B. (2007). Assessment of deafblind access to manual language (ADAMLS). DBLINK: The National Information Clearinghouse On Children Who Are DeafBlind. https://documents.nationaldb.org/products/ADAMLS.pdf

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(iv). (2019). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1414/d/3/B/iv

Malmgren, Sofi. (2019). Illustrations of Multi-party Communication. If you can see it, you can support it: A book on tactile language. Nordic Welfare Centre. https://nordicwelfare.org/en/publikationer/if-you-can-see-it-you-can-support-it-a-book-on-tactile-language/

Student B/N/F Parents v. Klein Independent School District and Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District. Docket no. 185-SE-0411. Special Education Hearing Officer for the State of Texas. (2011). https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID =2147505809

Texas Education Code. Title 2, Subchapter D. Regional Day Schools for the Deaf. §30.083. (1995). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.30.htm#30.083

Texas Education Code. Title –, Subchapter I. Programs for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. §29.301. (1995). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.301             

Texas Sensory Support Network. (n.d.) Deaf and hard of hearing students: Communication assessment. Texas Education Agency. https://spedsupport.tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/deaf-and-hard-of-hearing-students-communication-assessment.pdf  

World Federation of the Deaf. (2016). Human rights of the deaf. https://wfdeaf.org/our-work/human-rights-of-the-deaf/