Updates and current trends in deaf education teacher preparation programs: an update to Dolman (2010)

Abstract

Deaf education teacher preparation programs (TPP) are essential for ensuring that teachers entering the classroom are equipped with the most up-to-date knowledge and skills for providing effective education to deaf and hard of hearing learners. However, research over a decade old already suggested that enrollment, graduation rates, and even numbers of programs has been on the decline even while demand for deaf education teachers remains steady. The purpose of this article was to update our current knowledge in the field of deaf education TPP, including the number of programs still operating, their student enrollment and demographics, their instructor employment, demographics, and areas of expertise. We found that despite a deep need for trained teachers, programs have continued to close since the most recent survey (completed in 2010). We also note a significant demographic mismatch between current faculty leading preparation programs, the pre-service teachers enrolled in these programs, and deaf and hard of hearing students enrolled in PK-12 schooling. These findings indicate the need to push for programs to operate despite relatively small numbers, as well as the need to purposefully recruit diverse faculty and future teachers working in deaf education classrooms.

For years, researchers and professionals in the field have noted a critical shortage of certified deaf education teachers (Andrews & Covell, 2006; Dolman, 2010; Johnson, 2004; Kennon & Patterson, 2016; Lenihan, 2010), with many positions going unfilled (Lindow-Davis, 2019). There is evidence that by 2031 there will be increased demand for deaf education teachers by as much as 4% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). More recently there has been a call for expanding the racial and linguistic diversity of deaf education teachers to better align with a diversifying student body (Cannon & Luckner, 2016). Although many have noted the need to prepare more teachers in this field, few have examined the specific characteristics and enrollments of deaf education teacher preparation programs (TPP) across the US. In 2010, Dolman obtained deaf education TTP graduation rate data from the previous 35 years (1973–2009) and found that the number of graduates decreased across this time span. Correspondingly, the number of deaf education TPPs decreased dramatically, from a peak of 81 in 1985 to a low of 65 in 2009.

In the 14 years since the Dolman study was published, there has been little research conducted to explore more recent changes; however, an anecdotal review of sources that track deaf education TPPs (e.g., deafed.net, “American Annals of the Deaf”) reveals that the number of programs has continued to decline to its current number of 51, 22% fewer than the 65 Dolman (2010) identified. Further, although we recognize Cannon and Luckner’s (2016) calls for diversifying the deaf education teaching force, we are unaware of any available data regarding potential markers of diversity among both those who work within deaf education TPPs as full time (FT) and part time (PT) faculty, or among program graduates (e.g., disability status, gender identity, race/ethnicity). Thus, while there is clear evidence that greater numbers of deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students in the US come from multilingual homes and/or who are BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) individuals (Simms et al., 2008), it is unknown whether this is reflected in the population of future teachers. The study described here intends to fill these gaps in the knowledge base.

Literature review

Previous research exploring deaf education TPP

Over the past 50 years, several studies have attempted to summarize the state of deaf education TPP in the US. Dolman’s (2010) study was perhaps the one with the most expansive goals to summarize enrollment trends over a 36-year period (1973–2009). Dolman looked at both TPP and interpreter training programs. Here, we focus specifically on TPP. Dolman found that the number of deaf education TPPs decreased by 16 over a period covering the 1980s and 1990s. Equally alarming is the (perhaps related) significant drop in program graduates, from 1,365 in 1973 to 737 in 2009. From these numbers, Dolman calculated a ratio of one teacher for every 56 DHH students. This dire state is confirmed in Johnson’s (2004) summary of the state of preparation programs, where he argues that the demand for deaf education teachers is high, but the supply is dwindling.

A study with a slightly different focus was conducted shortly after Dolman’s (2010) by Benedict et al. (2011). They noted a shortage not only of deaf education teachers, but also of faculty members working within deaf education TPPs. At the time of their writing, of the 48 faculty who participated in the study, 10 reported that their programs were either in the process of closing (n = 3) or in danger of closing (n = 7). This was partially attributed to a faculty shortage, with 50% of faculty members across programs reported to be PT and seven programs reporting that they had no FT faculty members within their programs at all (Benedict et al., 2011). Published over 10 years ago as of this writing, both Dolman (2010) and Benedict et al. (2011) share alarming trends with regard to the future of deaf education programs.

The shortage of faculty dedicated to deaf education TPPs and the closure of those programs has, and will continue to, render a teacher shortage in deaf education.

Deaf education teacher shortage

As noted above, for at least 20 years researchers have been sounding the alarm that a teacher shortage in deaf education is present and worsening (Dolman, 2010; Johnson, 2004). With a call for smaller class sizes in deaf education to better support the learning needs of PK-12 DHH students (Muiruri et al., 2015) there is a greater need for more teachers to serve them. Yet, a shortage persists. An insufficient number of TPP faculty is likely to have an exacerbating effect on the teacher shortage.

Another likely contributor to the teacher shortage in PK-12 deaf education is high rates of teacher burnout. Concern about burnout for deaf education teachers has been in the discourse for at least 40 years (Meadow, 1981). While the majority of deaf education teachers report feeling satisfied or very satisfied with their careers (Luckner & Dorn, 2017; Luckner & Hanks, 2003), there is evidence that they may experience burnout at a higher rate than teachers in other areas (Johnson, 2021–2022; Meadow, 1981). Some factors that have been identified as sources of burnout include high volume of paperwork, lack of support from administration, lack of resources for deaf education (Kennon & Patterson, 2016; Luckner & Hanks, 2003), and feeling unable to meet the diverse needs of all students (Meadow, 1981). Hall (2021) found that teacher perception of their own self-efficacy was a major factor in teacher burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a recent dissertation on the topic by Rabe (2020) suggests that for deaf education teachers in mainstream classroom settings in particular, lack of adequate preparation from university programs, along with workplace stressors, plays an important role in the decisions of teachers to leave the classroom.

Regardless of the causes, the current and potentially worsening teacher shortage in deaf education will have significant impacts on DHH students in PK-12 classrooms. Plainly stated, if there are no educators knowledgeable and effectively prepared to teach DHH students, teaching and therefore learning will suffer. Fewer teachers also means a higher teacher student ratio, which in turn affects the amount of time current deaf education teachers can spend with each child, leading again to academic challenges for DHH students. Perhaps due to such a shortage, the majority of DHH learners receive services through an itinerant teacher (Antia & Rivera, 2016). DesGeorges (2023) recommends a caseload of 10–24 students per itinerant teacher caseload, however, Dolman found a ratio of one deaf education teacher for 56 students overall. Itinerant teachers have reported difficulty with providing effective services due to a lack of time (Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013), which a caseload of fewer students may alleviate. However, the numbers alone are not the only reason to be concerned about the landscape of graduates of deaf education TPPs. There is also evidence of changing demographics among DHH learners that is relevant for this exploration.

Changing demographics

Another area that has likely changed since the Dolman survey of TPPs in deaf education are the demographics of DHH students in PK-12 settings, of their future teachers, and of TPP faculty. According to Mitchell (2004), 20 years ago white students made up a slight majority (53.32%) of the DHH students in PK-12 education in the US, with the next largest percentages being Latinx/Hispanic (21.77%) and Black/African American (16.59%). Johnson (2004) also reported that the racial/ethnic background of DHH students had changed significantly, although the same could not be said of the teachers who graduated from preparation programs at that time. By 2012, the number of DHH students identified as Latinx/Hispanic increased by about seven percentage points to 28.4%, while Black/African American students stayed relatively steady at 15.7% (GRI, 2012).

In contrast, the data that are available for deaf education teachers suggests that they are a less diverse group (Cawthon & pn2 RES team, 2012; Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013). Cannon and Luckner (2016) noted this discrepancy between the demographics of DHH students being educated and those of the teachers educating them and called for an increase in the diversity of teachers and teacher candidates working in deaf education. However, racial diversity is not the only type of diversity that should be considered. Audiological level is significant in this field. After the Milan conference of 1880, which called for an oral-only approach to deaf education, many deaf teachers—particularly those who did not use spoken language to communicate—lost their jobs (Hill, 2012). Interestingly, in their demographic overview of deaf education teachers, Jensema and Corbett Jr. (1980) did not even mention the audiological level of the teachers they surveyed although they did note that 83% were female and 94% were white. Several years later, however, Luckner and Dorn (2017) did include this demographic information in their study of nearly 500 teachers in this field; just 6% self-identified as DHH.

It is important to consider teacher demographics because of the impact they may have on the educational experiences of learners. For instance, research suggests that Black teachers hold higher expectations of their Black students (Fox, 2016). Teachers who do not have a common cultural experience with their students, including racially-based experiences, may have fundamentally different frames of reference than their students (Gay, 1993) which can impact their ability to connect with students where they are and scaffold them as they learn. However, the number of minoritized individuals entering the teaching profession appears to be on the decline in general (Yuan, 2018). Although there is limited research in deaf education on this topic, some DHH students have expressed via focus group interviews the desire to have a mentor who is both DHH and who aligns with their racial identity (Renken et al., 2021). Researchers in the past have made the case for why schools should hire deaf education teachers who are themselves DHH, specifically exploring issues of language fluency and identity alignment (Andrews & Franklin, 1997; Shantie & Hoffmeister, 2001). Given this, it seems likely that increasing the diversity of the pool of deaf education teachers would be a net benefit for the field.

With changing societal norms and expectations for individuals with disabilities, there are some areas of teacher diversity that to our knowledge have never been addressed. For instance, while there is research on the percentage of female versus male deaf education teachers (Jensema & Corbett Jr., 1980), there have been no studies that have included responses outside of a gender binary. We are also unaware of research conducted in the last 40 years that has asked for the race/ethnicities of both TPP faculty and TPP students (Jensema & Corbett Jr., 1980). One goal of the present study was to update our knowledge regarding who is teaching and who is enrolling in these programs. The current study fills a gap in the literature related to the current status of TPP in deaf education. Specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions:

1. How many deaf education TPP are currently operating in the US?

   • How has this number changed since the last survey of deaf education TPP (Dolman, 2010)?

2. What are the demographic characteristics (e.g., gender identity, race, audiological status) and professional responsibilities (e.g., professional title, course load, areas of expertise) of faculty in current deaf education TPP in the US?

3. What are the demographic characteristics (e.g., mean number of students, gender identity, race, audiological status) of students in current deaf education TPP in the US?

4. What are the characteristics and requirements (e.g., degree level, educational philosophy, delivery format, graduation and licensure necessities) of current deaf education TPP in the US?

Methods

This project employed an online survey to explore the research questions stated above. The survey was developed by the research team as an update to and expansion of the original survey used in the Dolman (2010) study. Program coordinators (PCs) were asked to complete the survey which focused on enrollment and graduation numbers, specifically with concern for meeting demand in the number of teachers needed in the field. In addition, we were interested in broadening the data collected by Dolman (2010) to include demographics of faculty and graduates as well as program characteristics. Four of the five authors collectively drafted and revised the survey instrument prior to dissemination.

The survey included three major sections. Part One contained nine questions and asked respondents to describe their program faculty, including number of FT professors, number of PT professors, and how many of these faculty are deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing. Part 1 also explored areas of faculty expertise (e.g., teacher education, bilingual deaf education) represented across both FT and PT faculty. Part Two contained seven questions and asked respondents to describe the students in their programs, including the number of undergraduate and graduate students, as well as their racial/ethnic, gender, and audiological identities. Finally, Part Three contained 14 questions and asked respondents to describe program information such as entrance and exit requirements, state licensure assessments, and educational philosophy/approach (bilingual/bimodal, comprehensive, listening and spoken language (LSL)/oral (see Supplemental section for the complete survey). Response options were provided for survey respondents via a drop-down menu, and in some cases, were non-exclusive, i.e., respondents could select more than one response.

Dissemination of survey

The research team used two primary resources to disseminate the survey. First, we gathered program contact information from the American Annals of the Deaf (2023) annual program report. We then compared this list with TPP information available on deafed.net (2024), removing duplicates. From this combined list of programs, graduate research assistants working for the first author conducted a state-by-state online search for deaf education TPPs to ensure none were missed. No additional programs were added after this online search. A total of 51 deaf education TPP within the US made up our final list. Upon receiving IRB approval from our respective universities, we emailed the individual listed as the PC for each TPP identified to request their participation. A Qualtrics link to the survey was subsequently sent via email to those PCs who agreed to participate. The survey was opened on March 9, 2024 and closed on April 15, 2024. PCs received one follow up email halfway through the data collection period reminding them to complete the survey if they wished to participate.

Analytic plan

The research team primarily employed summary statistics to analyze the data. Because we wanted to create a snapshot of the current state of deaf education TPPs in the US and were not looking for correlations between variables, exploration of summary statistics was appropriate to answer our research questions. After downloading survey responses (n = 48) from Qualtrics, we removed recorded responses that did not include answers to at least 30% of the survey questions, leaving 38 responses to be analyzed. Once the data were prepared, we used basic demographic statistical analysis in SPSS to answer our research questions. Data were downloaded from Qualtrics to SPSS to create dichotomous variables that originated from drop-down menu option questions. The following section provides the results of our analysis.

Results

Forty-eight of the 51 PCs who were sent the Qualtrics link responded to the survey for a 94% response rate. We used a cluster method to group surveys in terms of level of completion. Using this approach, 10 responses with fewer than 30% of the questions answered were eliminated. This approach was undertaken following Day’s (2024) recommendations regarding survey respondents answering only a minimal number of survey questions potentially skewing the results. Responses from 38 PCs remained; therefore, we have included responses from 75% of the total number of PCs contacted. The majority of the surveys eliminated had between 0 and 10% of the survey questions answered. Of the 38 programs who completed more than 30% of the questions, 29 (57%) completed 100% of the questions. An additional five programs (10%) completed 55% of the questions, and four program coordinators (8%) completed between 32% and 37% of the questions. This demonstrates that the majority (57%) of participants completed the survey in full. This rate exceeds the mean online survey response rate of 44.1% (Wu et al., 2022).

How many deaf education teacher preparation programs are currently operating in the U.S.? How has this number changed since the last survey of deaf education teacher preparation programs (Dolman, 2010)?

Our aggregate list of deaf education TPP, gathered from three sources including the American Annals of the Deaf, deafed.net, and an online, state-by-state search, revealed a current total of 51 programs operating in the US. In 2010, Dolman identified 65 TPP in deaf education. Thus, in the years since the Dolman survey, there has been a loss of 14 programs, a mean loss of approximately one program per year and a decrease of approximately 20% of the total number of programs. While this is a significant reduction, the rate of program closings appears to have remained stable from 2006, a slower rate than during the period between 2003 and 2006 when approximately two programs per year closed (Dolman, 2010).

Regarding information provided in the “American Annals of the Deaf” report, we compared reported programs in their annual program report for 2022 and 2023. We then cross-referenced the programs that appeared in 2022 but not 2023 by examining each university’s website to evaluate whether the issue with program closure is limited to particular regions. We found that over a single year, programs closed in the southeast, midwest, southwest, and northeast—the issue appears to be nationwide. According to deafed.net (2024), 20 of 50 US states, nearly half have no known deaf education TPP (Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) despite DHH children receiving educational services in each and every one of these states.

What are the demographic characteristics (e.g., gender identity, race, audiological status) and professional responsibilities (e.g., professional title, course load, areas of expertise) of faculty in current deaf education teacher preparation programs in the U.S.?

The PCs were asked about faculty in their programs, including information regarding professional titles, course loads, and areas of expertise, as well as demographic information related to identity. Based on the answers from the 38 PCs who responded to this question, programs do not employ a large number of tenured or tenure track (TT) faculty. In fact, on average, programs had 1.26 TT faculty (range 0–7; Mode = 0) with a total of 48 TT faculty across all 38 programs reporting. Sixteen programs (42%) were reported to have no TT faculty, and sixteen programs (42%) were reported to have either one or two TT faculty members. Only six programs (16%) employed more than two TT faculty members, with a range of three to seven.

Numbers of non-tenure track (NTT; e.g., clinical, lecturer, professor of practice) faculty were similar with a mean of 1.26 across programs (sum = 48, mode = 0, range = 0–6). Programs reported employing a greater number of adjunct or PT (n = 135) faculty (mean = 3.55; mode = 3; range 0–10). One program that had the highest number of PT faculty (n = 10) reported having no TT or NTT faculty. Two programs reported no faculty in any category (TT, NTT, or PT). See Table 1 for details on faculty distribution across programs.

Teaching responsibilities (i.e., course loads) initially appeared to be similar across TT and NTT faculty. On average TT faculty taught a mean of 3.34 classes per semester (range = 0–18) while NTT faculty taught a mean of 3.47 classes per semester (range = 0–10). However, a closer look at the data reveals that some outliers have impacted these means. One PC reported that their TT faculty taught 18 courses; it is possible that they meant per year instead of per semester, or that they were reporting credit hours versus courses. With this outlier removed, average course load for TT faculty reduced to 2.95 per semester. Multiple programs reported having both TT (n = 4) and NTT faculty (n = 8) teaching upwards of 8–10 courses per semester. PT faculty appeared to be responsible for fewer courses with an average of 1.39 per semester (mode = 1; range = 0–4).

Across TT, NTT, and adjunct faculty, PCs reported 231 total faculty teaching in deaf education TPPs. However, not all demographic information was reported for all faculty; therefore, averages shown here reflect calculations of those reported on by PCs, rather than out of the total number of faculty overall. Of the 96 FT TT and NTT faculty reported on by PCs, most were identified as hearing with approximately 33% (n = 32) identified as DHH (mean = .42; mode = 0; range = 0–5). Similarly, out of 135 reported PT faculty, 34% (n = 46) were identified as DHH (mode = 0; range = 0–5). See Table 2 for information related to faculty course loads and DHHs status.

PCs responded to questions on faculty gender and race as well. Of the 191 FT and PT faculty whose PC reported their gender, most (n = 162; 85%) were identified as female (with a program mean = 4.26, mode = 4, and range = 0–11). Fewer (n = 27; 14%) were identified as male (program mean = .71, mode = 0, and range = 0–5), and even fewer (n = 2; 1%) were identified as nonbinary or gender nonconforming (program mean = .05, mode = 0, and range = 0–2). There was also little racial diversity noted among faculty as reported on by PCs. Of the 185 FT and PT faculty members whose race was reported on by PCs, 85% (n = 158) were identified as white (not Hispanic/Latinx; program mean = 4.15, mode = 3, and range = 0–11). The next most common racial identity among faculty was Black/African American with 6% of faculty members identified as Black/African American (n = 11; program mean = .28, mode = 0, and range = 0–1). PCs identified a total of 3% (n = 6) of faculty members across programs as Hispanic/Latinx and/or Asian (program mean = .15, mode = 0, and range = 0–2 [Hispanic/Latinx] and 0–1 [Asian]). In addition, a total of 2% (n = 3) of faculty members were identified as bi/multiracial (program mean = .08, mode = 0, and range = 0–1). A single faculty (>1%) member was identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (program mean = .03, mode = 0, and range = 0–1), and there were no faculty members who were identified as Alaska Native/American Indian. PCs reported 10 faculty members as unknown racial identities (program mean = .26, mode = 0, and range = 0–10). It should be noted that nine of these 10 were employed within a single program. See Table 3 for demographic information on faculty.

PCs were asked to report on the areas of expertise held by their FT (TT and NTT) faculty, non-exclusive (i.e., PCs could select multiple areas of expertise). Thirty-eight programs (representing 96 faculty) responded and reported a range of areas of expertise among their program’s FT faculty. The most common area was language development with 82% of programs having faculty expertise in this area (n = 31). The next most common area of expertise was teacher education (n = 29; 76%), then literacy (n = 25; 66%), bilingual deaf education (n = 23; 61%), ASL instruction (n = 19; 50%), early childhood education (n = 18; 47%), and parent/infant and family education (n = 16; 42%). Other areas were less represented but still somewhat robust. PCs reported fifteen (39%) programs with expertise in teaching deaf students with disabilities/DeafDisabled students, 14 (37%) in English education, 12 (32%) in multilingual/ELL DHH students, and 10 (26%) in LSL. Fewer than 10 PCs reported that faculty in their programs had expertise in the remaining areas, including linguistics (n = 9; 24%), science (n = 4; 11%), mathematics (n = 4; 11%), social studies (n = 4; 11%) and gifted education (n = 1; 3%). Six PCs (16%) reported their faculty having expertise in “Other” areas.

PCs also reported on the areas of expertise among their adjunct/PT faculty (n = 135 faculty; n = 38 programs). Most PCs reported having a PT faculty member within their program with expertise in language development (n = 22 programs; 57.9%). Expertise in ASL and in bilingual deaf education among their PT/Adjunct faculty were each reported by 20 (52.6%) PCs, followed by early childhood education (n = 17; 44.7%), literacy, LSL, and parent/infant and family education (n = 15 for each, 39.5% for each), and teacher education (n = 14, 36.8%). Eleven (28.9%) PCs reported expertise among their PT/Adjunct faculty in linguistics, as well as in teaching DeafDisabled students/DHH students with a disability. Other areas of expertise were represented by fewer programs. Only six (15.8%) PCs reported expertise among their PT faculty in multilingual/ELL DHH students, five (13.2%) each in English, math, and science, four (10.5%) in social studies, and one (2.6%) in gifted education. One (2.6%) PC indicated expertise among their PT faculty in “other”. See Table 4 for information on FT and PT faculty expertise across programs.

What are the demographic characteristics (e.g., mean number of students, gender identity, race, audiological status, etc.) of students in current deaf education teacher preparation programs in the U.S.?

Undergraduate Students

A total of 314 undergraduate students were reported as enrolled across all programs during the academic year of the survey (AY 2023/2024). Undergraduate programs reported a wide range of enrolled students, from a low of 0 to a high of 79, with a mean of 12.56 students per program (mode = 0). Interestingly, 11 programs reported having zero students enrolled, the most common response. Removing these programs, the number enrolled changed to a range between 6 and 79, with a mean of 22.48 students per program (mode = 10). Additionally, the program with 79 students was an outlier, reporting 37 students greater than the next highest enrolled program. We removed this outlier program and were left with a range of 6 to 42 students, a mean of 18 students per program, and a mode of 10. A mean of 2.24 students across undergraduate programs were reported as DHH (n = 56 total students across programs; 18%), and roughly half (13 of 25) of the PCs reported having no DHH students. Most PCs reported a modest number of DHH students (0, 1, or 2; n = 22 programs) though a small number had a more robust number of DHH students (9, 12, and 20; n = 3 programs).

PCs were asked to report on the gender and race of their students. They reported gender on 289 undergraduate students. The vast majority were reported as female (n = 260, 90%), with 14 (5%) reported as male and 15 (5%) as non-binary¹. PCs reported race for 244 undergraduate students. Most undergraduate students were identified as white (n = 167; 68%); undergraduate student numbers of other racial/ethnic groups were identified as follows: Hispanic/Latinx (n = 37; 15%), Black or African American (n = 11; 4.5%), bi- or multi-racial (n = 10; 4%), American Indian/Native Alaskan (n = 4; 2%), Asian (n = 2; 1%), or Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian (n = 0; 0%). Thirteen (5%) undergraduate students were identified as a racial/ethnic category not listed.

Graduate students

A total of 479 graduate students were reported as enrolled across all programs. Graduate programs reported a wide range of students enrolled, from a low of 0 to a high of 83, with a mean of 16.52 students (mode = 7). Unlike the undergraduate programs, only a single program reported an enrollment of 0. Two programs reported exceptionally high enrollment (52 and 83). Removing these two programs brought the enrollment maximum to 35 and the mean to 12.74 (the mode remained steady at 7). A mean of 4.56 graduate students across programs were reported as DHH (mode = 0). Nearly half (11 of 24) of the programs reported having zero DHH graduate students. Many graduate programs reported between 0 and 4 DHH students (n = 27 programs), while five more reported larger numbers of DHH students (7–14; n = 5 programs). We also note that the large program with 83 students reported that 57 of them were DHH, but this was an outlier.

PCs reported on gender and race among their graduate students. Of 440 graduate students for whom gender was reported, a greater number were female (n = 364; 83%) than male (n = 61; 14%) or non-binary/gender non-conforming (n = 15; 3%). PCs reported on race for 432 graduate students. Most graduate students were white (n = 291; 67%) with other racial/ethnic groups as follows: Latinx/Hispanic (n = 60; 14%), Black or African American (n = 33; 8%), Asian (n = 15; 3%), bi- or multiracial (n = 10; 2%) American Indian/Native Alaskan (n = 10; 2%), or Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian (n = 10; 2%). Three individuals (less than 1%) were reported as a racial/ethnic category not listed. This order mirrors that of the undergraduate students with two exceptions. There were more Asian students reported at the graduate-level than at the undergraduate level (3% versus 1%, respectively). In addition, although it did not affect the order, there were 3% more reported Black/African American graduate students than undergraduate students (8% versus 5%). See Table 5 for demographics of both undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in deaf education programs.

What are the characteristics and requirements (e.g., degree level, educational philosophy, delivery format, graduation and licensure necessities) of current deaf education teacher preparation programs in the U.S.?

Program modes of delivery and program entry/exit requirements

In order to get an overall sense of the kind and level of deaf education TPP available in the US, we asked PCs to report on where their programs were “housed” within the larger institution (college or university) and to provide information not only about their program’s degree level options (i.e., undergraduate, graduate), but also their program’s educational philosophy (i.e., bilingual/multilingual, total communication, LSL), mode of delivery (i.e., face to face, hybrid, online), and program entry/exit requirements. In presenting our results here, we follow the survey questions, presenting undergraduate and graduate program responses separately for entry requirements, and together for exit requirements.

Of the 23 PCs that responded to the question regarding where, within their institution, their deaf education program (both undergraduate and graduate) was housed or situated, 11 (48%) reported their deaf education TPP as an independent major, six (26%) reported being a concentration within special education, two (9%) reported being a concentration within general education, two (9%) reported being a concentration within deaf studies, and two (9%) reported being a concentration within a medical/health field. Fifteen PCs did not respond to this question.

Deaf education undergraduate programs

Twenty-five of the surveyed PCs reported having an undergraduate-level degree program. Of these, 13 reported their instructional delivery mode with seven programs (53.84%) reported as face-to-face only, five programs (38.46%) reported as hybrid (e.g., some online elements and some face-to-face elements), and one program (7.69%) reported as fully online. Twelve programs (48%) did not respond to this question.

The undergraduate programs had varied requirements for entry. Fifteen PCs responded to this question by choosing one or more of the provided requirement options. The most common requirement for program entry at the undergraduate level, as reported by 15 PCs, was a grade point average (GPA) threshold (67%). The mean required GPA for undergraduate program entry was 2.8, with a range of 2.5 to 3.0 (mode = 3.0). Twenty-seven percent (n = 4) of programs require an ASL assessment before declaring a major in deaf education, 20% (n = 10) require an English assessment, and 33% (n = 5) require a basic skills assessment.

Deaf education graduate programs

Twenty-four of the surveyed PCs reported having a graduate-level degree program. (Note that some overlap exists between the presence of undergraduate and graduate-level programs. Thus, the numbers will not add up to 38). Five (21%) of the programs self-described their instructional delivery mode as face-to-face only, 11 (46%) as hybrid, and eight (33%) as online only. Like their undergraduate counterparts, these graduate programs showed a range of program entry requirements. The majority (75%) required a minimum GPA for admissions, with a mean GPA requirement of 3.01, range 2.5 to 3.5 (mode = 3.0), slightly higher than the undergraduate programs. Nine (38%) graduate programs have an ASL assessment requirement for program entry, one (4%) has an English language assessment, and six (25%) have a basic skills assessment.

The most commonly listed exit requirement across programs (undergraduate and graduate) was the passing of a pedagogical/teaching competency assessment (e.g., Praxis II or edTPA; n = 22 out of 24; 92%). This was followed by an ASL or sign language proficiency assessment (n = 15; 63%). Few programs required a specific English language proficiency assessment (n = 3; 13%). A small number of programs require students to complete a program-specific portfolio (n = 4; 17%).

Program philosophies and field experience opportunities

We asked PCs about their program’s educational philosophy or approach, as well as opportunities for field experience, including practical and student teaching. Numbers reflect both undergraduate and graduate programs. Twenty-eight of 38 PCs reported their program’s education philosophy/approach. Results show that 13 programs (46.4%) followed a comprehensive education philosophy, 11 (39.3%) followed a bilingual/bimodal education philosophy, and four (14.3%) followed a LSL education philosophy. These were cross referenced against self-reported data for the 51 programs that are listed on deafed.net. We undertook this step to prevent under-reporting or over-reporting of program philosophies currently held across the field. As with our data, deafed.net indicates that the largest group of programs self-describe as being comprehensive programs (n = 30; 59%), followed by bilingual/bimodal (n = 13; 25%), and finally LSL (n = 6; 12%). Two programs did not list their philosophies on deafed.net. These ratios are largely aligned to our findings reported here.

We also asked PCs to report on the types of settings in which their students completed a practicum, student teaching, and/or internship (i.e., clinical or field-based experience). Of the 28 PCs responding, almost all (24; 85.7%) reported offering the opportunity for students to complete at least one clinical experience at a school for the deaf. Almost as many PCs (22; 78.6%) have placed students in itinerant settings and/or in a site-based public school program (19; 67.9%). Thirteen (46.4%) PCs reported placing teacher candidates in field experiences (e.g., practicum or student teaching) within fully integrated environments (e.g., a general education classroom that has one or two DHH students), and 11 (39.3%) PCs reported placing students in resource rooms (i.e., providing pull-out support for students who spend the majority of their time in the mainstream program).

Licensure/certifications

Lastly, we asked PCs about licensure and certifications for which their graduates would be eligible and their state’s requirements for certification in deaf education. It is important to note that state licensure eligibility is set by the respective states within which programs operate, not necessarily by programs. PCs from 28 programs reported information related to the type of certification/licensure graduates can receive. The majority (n = 22; 79%) reported that their graduates could obtain a general certificate in deaf education. Three (11%) programs indicated that their graduates can receive ASL/Sign specific certification, and two (7%) stated that their graduates were eligible for LSL certification. A small number of PCs also have graduates who are able to receive licensure in a second area, such as reading (n = 3; 11%), a content area (n = 2; 7%), TESOL (n = 2; 7%), elementary education (n = 1; 4%) or an Educational Specialist license (n = 1; 4%). The Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) is a national non-profit organization that endorses pre-service and in-service in deaf education. Only one PC reported that their graduates receive CED certification, though because CED reports 18 accredited institutions, this low number is likely not reflective of the field. Ten PCs did not respond to this question.

Twenty-eight PCs completed the portion of the survey having to do with their state’s certification requirements. The most common requirement was a state specific test, such as the Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL) or the Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE; n = 16; 57%). A sizable number of PCs reported that their states required passing of a Praxis Exam for licensure (https://praxis.ets.org/;  n = 12; 43%). Far fewer states required a portfolio assessment such as the EdTPA (Pearson Education, 2024; n = 5; 18%) or a state-level ASL proficiency test (n = 3; 11%). Ten PCs did not respond to this question.

Discussion

In this survey, we replicated and expanded upon prior research (e.g., Dolman, 2010; Lenihan, 2010) that summarized the state of deaf education TPP in the US. We broadened the demographic topic inquiries related to faculty and students in these programs and added questions regarding program requirements. Our results show that the number of deaf education TPPs has continued to decline, from 65 in 2010 (Dolman, 2010; Lenihan, 2010) to just 51 today, spread across 30 states (20 states appear to have no deaf education TPP). These programs included both undergraduate and graduate levels, with the majority of undergraduate programs in a traditional face-to-face format and the majority of graduate programs in a hybrid format. These programs typically were independent majors in deaf education (not under the umbrella of special education, for example) leading to deaf education PK-12 licensures. While there were various entry level requirements, the most common requirement for entry to programs was a specific GPA minimum.

Approximately half of the programs followed a “comprehensive” deaf education philosophy/approach. Field placements included both integrated (general education/inclusion/mainstream classrooms) and non-integrated (self-contained, resource, or deaf school classrooms) settings. Undergraduate programs were reported to have an average of approximately 12–13 matriculating students, with most programs reporting 10 students at the undergraduate level, while most graduate programs were reported to have approximately seven students enrolled. While there were more DHH students reported to be in graduate programs than in undergraduate programs (4–5 versus 2–3 per program across all programs, respectively), half of both the undergraduate and graduate programs reported having zero DHH students. Thus, the mean of 4–5 and 2–3 students was obviously skewed by larger, more “deaf-friendly” programs. Across degree levels and programs, however, these students tended to be white individuals who identify as women.

Further summarizing, faculty in these deaf education TPPs consisted of 1–2 FT faculty and approximately 3 PT faculty, the majority of which are hearing, female, and white. FT faculty (both TT and NTT) tended to teach between 3–4 courses per semester, while PT faculty tended to teach between 1–2 courses per semester. “Language” was the area of expertise most often cited for all faculty.

Limitations

We offer the following limitations so that readers can contextualize the results.

First, these data were collected via survey; thus, as is the case with all survey data, there are inherent limitations. For example, our results relied on self-reporting. PCs, although anonymous, were asked to report on their own programs, faculty, and students. PCs may have understood questions and/or terminology differently, over- or under-reported numbers, and/or inaccurately characterized their program requirements or faculty and student information and/or identities. In addition, survey research results represent a snapshot of a single moment in time. Deaf education TPP numbers can substantially fluctuate from year to year in total number of students or in students from particular demographics, and we asked PCs to report only on the year in which they completed the survey (AY 2023–2024). For small programs, a change in one or two students could have a significant impact on the percentages reported.

Second, within our data, we noted that there were certain sections with limited responses. Several potential reasons could explain these omissions. It is possible that the PCs became fatigued with the survey; it could be that they did not have this information readily available when they completed the survey; or it could be that they did not feel comfortable reporting what might be potentially sensitive demographics on behalf of their students or colleagues, to name a few examples. As a result, while many of the survey questions received a robust response rate, the data in areas that received fewer responses should be examined, used, and interpreted with discretion, understanding that these numbers may not fully represent the reality of deaf education TPPs holistically. Future research should endeavor to collect these data again, and in a way that may be more sensitive and complete, to increase reliability.

Implications and recommendations

Despite these limitations, our results have important implications for researchers, PCs, and college/university administrators involved in and related to the program recruitment of both students and faculty and the overall health/robustness of programs, as well as for the education of DHH children and youth. DHH children and youth rely on educators for their very success in life; therefore, they need teachers who are well-prepared, with experience and knowledge in teaching various subject areas to a diverse group of students. We present some of the more pressing implications below.

Program recruitment of students

First, there is a great need to increase enrollment of deaf education teacher candidates across all demographic groups. A total of 793 deaf education students were reported across all programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in our study with just over 12 candidates on average graduating in 2023 (a slight increase from Dolman’s, 2010 11.34 number). This is the nationwide pool for deaf education teachers, who will serve students in residential schools, in day schools, in self-contained public school programs, as resource room teachers, and as itinerant teachers. Given that there are approximately 75,000 DHH PK-12 children PK-12 with IEPs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024) that presumably mandate a teacher of the deaf, with more than 77% of these in public school settings, and given the documented higher rate of burnout among deaf education teachers than teachers in other areas (Johnson, 2021–2022), this rate of graduation is simply not a number that will allow for schools to provide appropriately prepared teachers to all DHH students. In fact, given these numbers, we calculate a ratio of 1 graduate for every 94 DHH students, a proportion substantially higher than Dolman’s (2010) calculation of one graduate per 56 DHH students. While Dolman (2010) noted that the ratio of program graduates to deaf children had stayed relatively balanced 1986–2006, the current calculation indicates a significant disparity 2006–2024. This finding indicates that there may be an increase in the number of teacher vacancies left unfilled in the field in the coming years. Fewer than 800 teacher candidates will be graduating in the next four years to serve all 50 states across all settings; this is the reason that deaf education is an increasingly critical shortage area (Rutledge, 2022).

In addition to this overall shortage, the survey results shared here clearly indicate a continued serious lack of future deaf education teachers from particular demographic groups. Although our study showed that there was greater racial diversity among the student body than has been found in previous publications (e.g., Dolman, 2010; Johnson, 2004), the majority of teacher candidates still are identified as being white—68% of undergraduates and 76% of graduate students for whom we have data. This is certainly a change in the right direction from the 94% white teacher preparation candidates noted by Jensema and Corbett Jr. (1980); yet, these numbers do not align with the diversity found among DHH PK-12 students. The most recent available estimates indicate that white students make up just over half of the PK-12 DHH population (GRI, 2012; Mitchell, 2004), and even these data are more than 10 or even 20 years old at this point. Thus, given research that shows the impact of teachers who reflect their students racially/culturally (Fox, 2016; Renken et al., 2021), there is a critical need for continued and greater recruitment and retention of BIPOC deaf education teacher candidates. Programs may consider targeted recruitment of future teachers from minoritized groups, seeking funding to support their training and reduce their financial burden, and providing other types of incentives (e.g., waiving application fees; removing biased standardized assessment requirements) to increase the number of deaf and hearing BIPOC teacher candidates.

In terms of gender, there again remains a reproving disparity. The vast majority of teacher candidates were identified as female. Among undergraduates, students identified as male were present at roughly the same rate as students identified as nonbinary (2.9% and 3%, respectively). Gender was reported for too few graduate students to be able to draw conclusions, but the limited data collected suggest that there may be more men who enroll in deaf education at the graduate rather than undergraduate level. There is debate on the importance of a diverse teaching force with regard to gender (most often related to the lack of male teachers), with some concluding that the gender disparity is indeed a problem (Farquhar, 1997) while others question the actual effect this disparity has (or does not have; Lahelma, 2006). Although there does not seem to be a definitive answer on this topic, it is clear the profession remains largely dominated by women. Unfortunately, we are unaware of any research related to nonbinary individuals and their potential to positively impact the experiences of nonbinary or LGBTQIA+ students’ educations; this seems a ripe area for future research.

We also examined how many students within these programs identified as DHH themselves. We found that very few at either the graduate or undergraduate levels were identified as DHH. Notably, half or nearly half of both undergraduate and graduate deaf education PCs reported having no students enrolled who were themselves DHH. Given the rationale for the importance of having deaf education teachers who are themselves DHH (e.g., Shantie and Hoffmeister, 2001), it is concerning that such a large proportion of programs do not appear to be preparing educators within this demographic group. Given that more than 90% of DHH children/youth have hearing parents (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004), not having a DHH teacher may mean that DHH students do not have a DHH adult role model or native language model in their lives, which can affect academic learning and social well-being and mental health (Hall et al., 2017).

Finally, we would like to note the ripple effects to the field of having an insufficient number of individuals completing deaf education TPPs. Deaf education teachers are a pool from which administrators and field-based university faculty and researchers stem. Thus, as administrative positions and faculty positions become available, there will be fewer and fewer professionals with both the training and years of experience to make them as knowledgeable in the field as is necessary for effectively running schools/programs for PK-12 DHH students and/or university/college TPPs. Less available administrators and faculty will further lead to closures of TPPs further reducing the number of graduates/teachers, and the cycle of shortage leading to shortage will continue to repeat. In addition, shortages in researchers who study how best to educate DHH learners will adversely affect the effort to better deaf education.

Program recruitment of faculty

There are important insights that emerge from the current study related to the faculty in TPPs. It is clear that the demographics of faculty across many programs is still reflective of an older trend in deaf education, with the majority being white and hearing (Cawthon & pn2 RES team, 2012; Jensema & Corbett Jr., 1980; Luckner & Ayantoye, 2013) despite significant demographic shifts among DHH youth in PK-12 settings (Cannon & Luckner, 2016) and less dramatic, but still present, shifts among the students PCs reported enrolled in their programs in this manuscript. This continued trend adds another layer of separation between faculty preparing teachers, teachers graduating from TPPs, and DHH students whom they serve.

A second alarming trend illustrated in our data is the ratio of PT to FT faculty members within the participating programs. PCs reported a total of 231 faculty teaching in their programs. Ninety-six (42%) were identified as FT (either TT or NTT). This means that over half of the faculty teaching in deaf education TPPs are PT or adjunct instructors. Reasons for this circumstance may be due fully or in part to shortages in deaf education teachers pursuing terminal degrees and seeking higher education positions (see paragraph above), an imbalance in number of FT faculty and number of required courses (therefore, a need for adjunct faculty to “cover” courses that FT faculty simply do not have the time to teach), university budget challenges, and/or seeking to include quality instructors, such as DHH persons who may not have had the opportunity to pursue the university-required degree level to be a FT faculty but who have the expertise in a particular subject (e.g., American Sign Language, Deaf culture, methods of instruction). Regardless of the reason(s), these PT colleagues play a big part in preparing future deaf education teachers. For years, researchers have wrung their hands over the experiences of PT or adjunct faculty in programs, describing them as not receiving appropriate support for their jobs (Halcrow & Olson, 2008), not being satisfied in their academic positions (Monroe & Denman, 1991), as potentially not being realistically capable of providing the same level of support to students as they balance multiple teaching jobs often across multiple universities or colleges (Stenerson et al., 2010). Given the complex requirements of certification and the breadth and depth of preparation curricula in TPPs, and the dire need for PT/adjunct faculty, it is imperative that higher education institutions support ALL existing faculty and dismantle systemic barriers to hiring. We also call on those who are TPP FT faculty to work with their universities/colleges to actively seek out qualified DHH and BIPOC faculty to fill open positions. Acquisition of funding for doctoral level training via public or private funding sources may allow institutions granting doctoral degrees to increase the diversity of their candidates, thus creating a larger and more diverse recruitment pool for faculty positions in TPPs.

Finally, in regards to TPP faculty, we were excited to note the variation in areas of expertise (and pleased that language development, teacher education, and literacy were areas represented by more than two-thirds of programs). However, we also were despondent to see that just 4 programs included a faculty member with expertise in a content area (i.e., mathematics, science, or social studies education) and a mere one program that had faculty expertise in gifted education. This is concerning given (a) that the majority of the TPPs reporting were at the undergraduate level, and thus it is unlikely that students in these programs would have significant knowledge in a content area outside of coursework taken for their program of study, and (b) documented research on the historical insufficient preparation of deaf education teachers in the content areas (Pagliaro, 1998; Pagliaro, 2006), the uniqueness of the DHH learner in learning mathematics and science (Ansell & Pagliaro, 2006; Pagliaro & Ansell, 2012; Renken et al., 2021; Scott & Cohen, 2023), and more recent attention on mathematics instruction and learning with DHH students (Pagliaro & Thom, 2021), as well as strong encouragement and support for DHH young adults to go into STEM professions (e.g., DeafTEC, RIT, 2024).

Overall health/robustness of programs

In 2010, Dolman noted a general downward trend in the number of deaf education TPPs. Our data here indicate that not only has this trend continued with further program closures but also, in examining the program-level data regarding enrollment, that many more TPPs may be in danger of closure in the coming years. The mean number of students reported within programs was 12.56 overall, a number well below what is considered by most higher education institutions, particularly at the UG level, to be inadequate enrollment. It is worth noting as well that 11 PCs reported that their programs had no students enrolled at the time. A popular news outlet that reports on higher education has noted that programs that do not generate revenue are at risk of closure (Kristof-Brown, 2023). This includes low and no-enrollment programs, which describes most of the programs represented here. This risk exists regardless of the programs’ value to the community and the need they fill. Continued closures of programs means fewer qualified graduates to fill open positions in deaf education, leading to DHH learners being taught by unqualified or under-qualified persons who may not have experience in deaf education, or even education at all. Even as programs are eliminated, there will still be DHH students in PK-12 education in need of appropriately trained teachers, and the current scarcity in deaf education teachers may reach crisis levels.

Future research and conclusions

As is the case often, engaging in research leads to further questions. Our data reveal the need for future research that explores TPPs from a range of perspectives and using a variety of research methods. We feel that it would be a worthwhile contribution to our knowledge base to conduct a qualitative study exploring program requirements and curricula used within programs via interviews with PCs. This type of research would explore in more depth what various program requirements, such as portfolios or clinical experiences, entail and would allow PCs across the US to learn more about how other programs are assessing their teacher candidates. It may also prove to be fodder for PCs and faculty to look holistically at deaf education teacher preparation and work out collaborative solutions to some of the problems we highlighted here, such as recruitment and retention of DHH and BIPOC FT faculty, sustainability of low enrollment, high-need programs, and lack of faculty expertise in content area and gifted education.

It would also be beneficial to conduct a longitudinal study that collects data not only on current students in a single year snapshot, but also on students over time and into their first years as teachers, to better understand how students move through programs, changing demographics over time, preparedness upon graduation, and professional retention. This research could corroborate data from programs coordinators, faculty, and students/graduates.

In conclusion, our investigation showed that there are fewer programs now than there were in previous years (Dolman, 2010) and that these programs rely more on PT faculty than FT faculty. Program faculty do not reflect the diversity of their own students, nor do those students (to a lesser degree than faculty) reflect the DHH children/youth they will teach. TPPs have a wide range of language/communication philosophies, entrance requirements and exit requirements. Faculty across programs are diverse in their expertise, but some areas are lacking. Although there is more information needed to better understand the current state of deaf education TPPs, the data presented here provide an updated insight about programs, their faculty and students, their philosophies, and their entry/exit/graduation requirements. We submit these findings as a first step towards bettering the education provided to DHH children and youth.

Author contributions

Jessica Armtage Scott (Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—original draft), Claudia M. Pagliaro (Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, review & editing), Jennifer Renée Kilpatrick (Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing), Jon Henner (Conceptualization, Methodology), and Janice Smith-Warshaw (Writing—review & editing).

Funding

No funding to report.

Conflicts of interest: None.

Footnotes

References