Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Language And Communication Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and advocates press board to require language and communication plans for deaf students
Summary
Public commenters urged the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind committee to adopt statewide language and communication plan requirements for deaf and hard‑of‑hearing students; staff agreed to gather background materials and bring the item back to the committee in June for further consideration.
Two public commenters highlighted language and communication plans as a priority for deaf and hard‑of‑hearing students and urged the committee to pursue a statewide approach.
Sarah Williams, an attorney with the Disability Law Center, said she previously offered public comment in March and returned to press the committee for a collaborative, community‑driven approach. She cited a Connecticut law passed in 2012 that required language and communication plans and said that local advocates there "saw collaboration among communities" and improved outcomes. Williams told the committee she will send an introductory video and is pursuing aggregate data via a FERPA request to show statewide achievement gaps.
Kate Larson, introduced by staff, said language and communication plans should be a required component of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and 504 plans for deaf and hard‑of‑hearing students. Larson argued such plans can empower districts and parents, reduce reliance on limited USDB expert resources and provide clear accountability; she recounted a case file that switched responsibility between the LEA and USDB and led to a state complaint.
Board members thanked the speakers and asked staff to prepare background materials. Deputy Superintendent Voorhees and Superintendent Nielsen noted existing advisory council materials and prior presentations by advocates that the board has received; Voorhees said staff would work to provide implementation considerations and stakeholder input but cautioned that convening special‑education directors could affect timing. Members requested staff return a memo and backup material for the committee’s June meeting so the committee can consider options, pilot approaches and state examples.
Next steps: staff will compile the advisory council recommendation, available state comparisons, and potential implementation and pilot options and provide those materials for the committee’s June discussion.
