Teacher proposes dedicated Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing English block to boost reading and writing skills

An English teacher who works with Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) students told the Culver Community Schools board that current classroom supports do not produce independent readers and writers and proposed a dedicated two-hour DHH English block to address the gap.

Tina (identified in the meeting transcript as an English teacher working with DHH students) told the board that many DHH students arrive in middle school with ‘‘little to no language’’ in print even when they have a working knowledge of ASL. ‘‘Their ability to read and write is their connection to the world,’’ she said. ‘‘It makes the difference between a DHH student being independent and a student being forced to be isolated in society to rely on people to do things for them.’’

Why it matters: Tina said current accommodations—interpreted content, extra time, and scribing—help students access class but do not build the independent reading and writing skills students need for adulthood. She described a proposed curriculum that would replace middle-school scribing with independent writing practice, and create a double block: one hour with an English teacher and one hour with a DHH special-education teacher to reinforce ASL-to-print mapping, vocabulary, morphology and classifiers (ASL elements that map to paper).

Tina outlined specific classroom practices she would use: targeted vocabulary instruction and word families, ASL ‘‘read aloud’’ where students produce ASL and staff identify gaps, practice translating ASL classifiers into cohesive written sentences, and graded reading libraries with picture books and age-appropriate texts matched to students’ current reading levels. She said the program would emphasize repeated practice, explicit instruction on written-language structure (nouns, verbs, tense), and teacher training on how to give constructive feedback on DHH writing.

On implementation, Tina said the model would require scheduling changes and use of the district’s intervention block. She estimated the program would affect a small group next year—five middle-school students and one high-school student—but argued the investment would be critical for long-term independence. ‘‘I really want that for the DHH students,’’ she said. ‘‘I want them to go out and read this novel and take on the world.’’

Board reaction and next steps: Board members thanked Tina and asked about conversations with administration; Tina said she had proposed the plan to administrators and was pursuing special-education licensure to support implementation. Administrators said they would continue scheduling conversations and consider fitting the proposal into the existing double-block intervention structure. No formal vote on the curriculum was taken at the meeting; Tina asked the board to allow further development and said she would follow up.

Clarifying details: The transcript identifies classroom practices and goals in depth but does not list a formal budget, precise staffing model beyond ‘‘an English teacher plus a DHH special-ed teacher’’ nor a final start date. The proposal as presented applies initially to five middle-school students and one high-school student (next year).