LEAD-K wishes to acknowledge the triggers that the announcement about the agreement with AGB created, and sincerely apologizes.  We definitely could have done a better job providing more information at the time the press release was shared with the Community. In an effort to address concerns regarding the LEAD-K agreement with AGB, we provide the following statements:

What is the goal of LEAD-K?

LEAD-K is a Deaf-run, Deaf-centric organization. The goal of LEAD-K is that ALL children who are Deaf or hard of hearing, ages 0 to 5, achieve age-appropriate language.

Language assessment that measures language acquisition and development outcomes will provide an early indicator if the child is not developing age-appropriate language and will improve accountability of the IFSP (Individualized Family Service Plan) and IEP (Individualized Education Program) teams to ensure that the child is on track with developing language. Assessment results that do not show age-appropriate language development will compel actions.

Additionally, the LEAD-K bill requires the state’s department of education to gather and combine language assessment results in a report that is publicly available on the overall effectiveness of the education system in ensuring deaf and hard of hearing children achieve age-appropriate language development outcomes.  This is groundbreaking and long overdue.

Preliminary data results of SB210 (California’s LEAD-K bill) show that approximately 70% of Deaf children have not achieved an age-appropriate language foundation by kindergarten.  This is not acceptable!

Prior to LEAD-K, we never had that data before.  Now, we do because of LEAD-K.  Without this data, the education system was not held accountable.  Now, they are because of LEAD-K.

Was the LEAD-K Meeting with AGB a secret? 

No. Sadly, this perplexing misconception is being held by those who either didn’t read the series of open letters from LEAD-K to AGB, specifically the one from February 23, 2018 which outlined the structure of the meeting (and was posted on the Facebook as a press release) or didn’t see the ASL interpretation of the letter (also posted on the Facebook as part of the press release).   Follow up correspondence was also posted on FB with ASL interpretation. The leadership of LEAD-K has been transparent and will continue to be so.

OPEN LETTER TO AGBELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ABOUT VIRGINIA’S LEAD-K – February 23, 2018

Open Letter from Sheri Farinha, National LEAD-K Director, to AGB CEO – May 9, 2018

Open Letter to AGBell From LEAD-K – September 21, 2017

Why partner with AGB?  You can’t trust them.  Have you forgotten history?

To be clear, the history of AGB is long & horrid.  No one in LEAD-K has forgotten that or is disputing it. No one in LEAD-K has forgiven AGB.

The agreement with AGB is solely focused on an amended LEAD-K model bill.  In the recent past, AGB has proven to be a MAJOR roadblock to getting LEAD-K legislation passed.

Thus, this agreement is hugely important for finally getting LEAD-K legislation passed.

There has been concern expressed by some in the community that AGB will sabotage the passing of LEAD-K state bills. 

If true, that will become very apparent, very quickly.  In the recent past, AGB has already effectively opposed LEAD-K bills.  In the near future, in the next legislative cycle, we will see if they support the amended LEAD-K model bill that they agreed on.

As Dr. Roz Rosen said in a recent FB post:

” We do understand the skepticism and emotional reactions regarding AGB as a partner.

But instead of increasing strife and divisiveness, let’s work together and keep our eye on the child’s success. When the child wins, everyone wins.”

The AGB agreement will weaken LEAD-K bills.

That is not true. It’s important to note that ABG and LEAD-K worked from LEAD-K bill; LEAD-K did not merge their model bill with AGB’s competing bill.  AGB has agreed to support LEAD-K model bill because they agree on the importance of measurable language development outcomes, and the accountability that results from collecting and reporting data.

LEAD-K did not give up on any of its principles which are as follow:

1. Deaf Children have the right to acquire both American Sign Language and English by Kindergarten.
2. Communication skills do not equal language proficiency.
3. Language developmental milestones are universal regardless of language choice.
4. Early intervention services and assessments must focus on language development.
5. Assessments must be valid, include language benchmarks and conducted by assessors with expertise with Deaf children.
6. There must be accountability for outcomes to ensure that Deaf children are Kindergarten-Ready.

The heart of the amended LEAD-K model bill still provides the following:

1. ASL equal to English when language development outcomes are being measured. This feature is the first of its kind for legislation.
2. Statewide assessments to measure language development outcomes and data collection on language development outcomes of deaf and hard of hearing children 0-5 that reflect on the effectiveness of the state education system.
3. Information provided to parents to understand language development outcomes and track their child’s language development.
4. Information provided to the child’s IFSP or IEP team, including the parents, on whether the child measured at an age-appropriate language development level.
5. A majority Deaf membership in the ad-hoc committee that selects the language development assessments and milestones.

Again, the key components of the LEAD-K model bill are the same in the amended bill.

Why doesn’t LEAD-K address audism & linguicism?

The LEAD-K bill provides for the measurement and reporting of language development outcomes. By doing this, the LEAD-K bill supplements the implementation of current federal IDEA law by different states. As a consequence, LEAD-K is limited to the focus and scope of IDEA law. The broader civil rights issues of audism and linguicism are not addressed within IDEA law and will require different kind of legislation and legislative efforts.

What is extremely important and groundbreaking about LEAD-K is that it expressly states ASL as one of the languages used by Deaf children in the United States in addition to English.

Why isn’t LEAD-K concerned about saving ASL from AGB?

One of the core principles of LEAD-K legislation is establishing that ASL is one of the languages used by Deaf children in the United States as well as English.

LEAD-K did not give up on this principle in the amended model bill. ALL of the critical legislative wording about ASL in LEAD-K bills has been preserved in the amended LEAD-K model bill.

In other words, AGB agreed to support ASL and English languages as referenced in the model bill.

What was the most recent LEAD-K meeting about?

The LEAD-K Summit meeting was a training resource to 60+ representatives from 27 state LEAD-K teams. The meeting reviewed in depth the model LEAD-K bill as amended and provided information on different aspects of getting legislation passed.  Since most of the people in attendance were from state teams that had personal experience dealing with AGB opposition, the agreement was celebrated and cheered.

Any further questions can be addressed to LEAD-K via info@lead-k.org.

Thank you.