Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Language And Communication Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and disability attorney urge statewide language and communication plan for deaf students
Summary
Public commenters and the USDB advisory council urged the State Board to require language-and-communication plans for deaf, deafblind and hard-of-hearing students in IEPs and 504 plans, citing inconsistent services, rural access gaps and the model plan submitted to the board.
Public commenters pressed the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB) standing committee on March 17 to adopt a formal language and communication plan to guide Individualized Education Programs and 504 teams.
Sarah Williams, a special-education attorney at the Disability Law Center, told the committee she researched other states and drafted a model plan for Utah that she said would help teams “ask the right questions” and make child-centered, data-driven decisions about access to language and communication. Williams said recent operational changes have shifted costs to districts and placed long-standing services for deaf students at risk.
Christy Lee Mortensen, a deaf adult who said she benefited from fully resourced supports as a child, urged statewide implementation “through the rules and through statute” so families in rural communities get consistent services. Mortensen said deaf adults, parents and communication experts should help draft any plan.
Superintendent Nelson reported that the USDB advisory council unanimously recommended the State Board consider options to make language and communication plans a required component of IEPs and 504 plans for deaf, deafblind and hard-of-hearing students. The advisory council also formed a subcommittee to vet FY27 enrichment-fund requests.
Why it matters: Supporters said a formal plan would reduce inconsistent decision-making, improve access to appropriate communication modes for students, and help districts avoid complaints or litigation. Board members asked staff to review the model materials submitted in advance and invited public participation in further discussions.
What’s next: The advisory council will continue work and report back; the board may consider options for rule or statutory changes following staff review.
