NOTE TO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON COMBINATION OF KSSB AND KSSD

By Sanford J. Alexander, III

The following remarks were submitted to the Legislative Committee on the question of an interim study to consider closing, merging or altering the programs at the Kansas State School for the Blind (KSSB) and the Kansas State School for the Deaf (KSSD).

During a time of concern over budgetary constrictions and pressure to use tax dollars most wisely, the concerns raised by the Ways and Means Committee which resulted in the question before us are understandable. It is clear to me after extensive deliberation that the alternatives to leaving the current programs located where they presently are would be grossly inadequate in rendering any positive results and would create new obstacles that would lead to degraded outcomes.

To an observer lacking knowledge of the fields of education and rehabilitation of individuals who are blind, deaf or deaf-blind, the seeming efficiencies inherent in combining the two programs is seductive. Also, the significant cost of providing the specialized services required seems unreasonably high. These conditions have created past instances when the question of reconfiguration resulted in studies which always reached the inevitable conclusion that the status quo was the best state of existence for the well being of the targeted populations.

The unique needs of the blind and of the deaf student demand unique, and considerably different, modalities if positive outcomes are to be expected. In the case of blind individuals, the ability to absorb and process information that is naturally thrust upon the sighted individual, demands careful attention to ensure that the individual is exposed to the stimuli that will permit cognitive processes comparable to their sighted peers. It is estimated that 85% of all data processed by our brains is captured through vision and failure to develop alternative pathways will result in cognitive insufficiencies. A blind person who does not have visual stimuli transferred to other sensory modalities will probably lag socially and intellectually behind their sighted peer despite the fact that they may possess superior potential intellectual capabilities.

The KSSB program has taken many steps over the past eight to ten years to improve its exemplary program. Renovations and modifications to the campus have created an environment that allows a student to enjoy both a predictable environment that preserves his safety while exposing him to challenges that encourage him to grow beyond his current comfort zone. The school's outreach efforts have enabled students to spend as much or as little time as is required to secure an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment as mandated by the IDEA. It has also made access to necessary resources easier and most cost effective for local school districts. Closing the school would cut these resources off and create a situation where each individual local district would be forced to duplicate resources now available that would become far beyond their capacities to provide. Blind students, who can presently enjoy the interaction of sighted peers in their local districts as well as the invaluable experiences only available when interacting in an environment with other blind students, would be relegated to the desolate condition of often being the only blind child in the school with no blind peers.

In addition to being certain that similar conditions would be mirrored at the KSSD with respect to the unique challenges created by overcoming the condition of deafness, I am sure that one of the unforeseen consequences of combining the two programs would be the inevitable clash between differing and profound needs of these two populations that would result in either vastly inferior outcomes or incredibly higher costs to ensure provision of adequate environmental factors to facilitate satisfactory results. The appearance of cost saving would quickly degenerate into a fiscal nightmare. The potentially harmful and likely devastating consequences of mixing populations with such different special education needs could exacerbate the negative factors connected with the challenges each disability group faces.

Although periodic review of this question is justified, the ultimate answer has not changed. Combining the programs on the Olathe campus would abandon vast commitments of resources that have been invested on the KSSB campus, the duplication of which would be either prohibitively expensive or impossible. The advantages of having statewide resources available to local school districts would be jeopardized at best and most likely lost altogether. The strengths in terms of outcomes resulting from the ability to spend time in both environments, as the student's needs dictate, would be lost and the pressure to produce impossible conditions would create totally untenable situations for the local VI teachers. It is therefore strongly recommended that the question of further study of this issue be resolved in the negative, resulting in saving of additional tax dollars that can be better directed.