Rethinking "Low Incidence": A Call for High-Intensity Awareness
January 15, 2026
During a recent conversation with Dennis Gilliam, Executive Director of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind, he mentioned something that stayed with me. He pointed out that the term low incidence, commonly used to describe students who are blind, deafblind, or deaf, might unintentionally signal low need or low priority. I asked him more about this, and we had a powerful discussion about how language, even when technically accurate, can shape how systems perceive urgency and value.
Blindness, deafblindness, and deafness are often labeled "low incidence disabilities" because they occur infrequently within the general population. But what if the term does more than describe frequency? What if it quietly signals something else, such as low need, low urgency, or low priority?
As educators, administrators, and parents, we know the reality is anything but low. Supporting blind and deafblind students requires deep expertise, individualized instruction, and sustained collaboration across disciplines. Our roles do not require occasional interventions, but ongoing commitments to access, equity, and learning across every environment a student enters. And with that comes a high and often misunderstood workload, one that reflects the true scope and intensity of these supports.
Beyond Numbers: What the System Misses
The term low incidence may serve a statistical function, but it may also be quietly shaping funding models, staffing decisions, and how educational systems perceive value. When districts and agencies focus on the number of students served, they are much more likely to overlook the depth of service required.
That is why it is time to consider reframing our choice of words. We need language that centers the intensity of educational investment, the specialized capacity required, and the workload taken on by teams who are committed to doing this work well.
Shared Language, Shared Responsibility
If we continue using the term low incidence as a casual shorthand, we risk reinforcing the idea that these learners are peripheral, an add-on to standard systems. But when we speak in terms of intensity, specialization, and team-based solutions, we shift the conversation. We open doors to better training, stronger partnerships, and a shared sense of educational responsibility among administrators, teachers, specialists, and families.
This is not about semantics. It is about strategy. Words frame funding. Words frame priority. Words frame how administrators decide whether to hire, whether to train, and whether to listen.
So let us consider together:
- What if we replaced low incidence with language that reflects the true workload and skill intensity this field demands?
- How can we advocate for systems that prioritize investment not based on enrollment numbers, but based on instructional complexity?
- Are we equipping families and teams with the tools they need, or are we relying on them to "figure it out" because the numbers seem small?
And at the Center: The Student
Most importantly, this reframing brings us back to what matters most, the student. Every student who is blind, deafblind, or deaf deserves a team of professionals and caregivers ready to meet their needs, not because of how often they appear in our systems, but because their learning depends on us getting it right.
When we use language that reflects intensity over rarity, we are saying clearly what every student deserves. They should be seen, supported, and taught with intention.
Not someday.
Not if it's convenient.
Now.
---
Adrian Amandi
Director of the California Education Resource Center and Statewide Outreach Services
California School for the Blind
