Category Archives: Michigan

Trust Our Government?

Posted on by
1

Should we trust our government?

The State of Michigan is telling the MI Deaf Community to trust them and to wait and see what is in the Deaf Persons’ Interpreter Act’s Amended proposed rules and regulations. And we are being asked to support these rules and regulations, without knowing what exactly is in it.

Concerns

Diana McKittrick, the co-chair of the Rules and Regulations Committee (and former MI Deaf Assoc. president) wrote this in the MI Deaf Association group page, regarding concerns about the rules and regulations:

“Sounds like it. We don’t have a clue as to what the submitted rules look like. They are keeping DODHH on short leash while the upper management is changing the documents ( I am guessing) without our knowledge. We might be supporting a set of rules that have been changed and not what we want. Time for everyone to start calling JCAR , your elected reps as well as Mich dept of civil rights. Mike Zelly is chair of mDCR”

Diana McKittrick is not the only one who’s been making these kinds of claims.  The MI Deaf Association made similar allegations. (See their vlog on their concerns and allegations: https://www.facebook.com/groups/173219933284/permalink/10151473433633285/ )

And now a MDA member (with assistance from someone else other than me) is raising concerns about the VRI portion in the rules and regulations, which could very possibly conflict with the ADA, which supersedes state laws. We don’t know for sure if this is truly the case, since we don’t know what’s been altered in the latest version of the rules and regulations. But we’re being told by the government, ‘Wait and see.’ This is the same government who was alerted by the National Association of the Deaf, in its public comment last March, for the very same concerns regarding potential conflicts with federal law.

The NAD wrote under the sub-heading ‘Federal Law Supremacy’:

“The regulations cite the supremacy of federal law in a couple of places, but the NAD recommends clarifying this important point. Rule 393.5051(3) states that “[i]f there is a conflict between these rules and a local, state, or federal law, the interpreter shall comply with the law.” This is important but is almost undermined by Rule 393.5055(11) which states that “VRI interpreters must comply with all federal regulations established by the [United States] [D]epartment of [J]ustice under Title III of the Americans With Disability [sic] Act, as amended, and published on September 15, 2010, section 36.303 (f).”

The implication is that only VRI interpreters must comply with this provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It would strengthen the regulations if it stated that all interpreters in Michigan must comply with all federal regulations established by the Department of Justice under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and specifically cite section 36.104 which defines the phrase “qualified interpreter.”

Throughout the regulations, there is the common refrain of “if effective communication is achieved.” However, such caveats are not consistent in the regulations, and therefore it becomes necessary to state unequivocally that “effective communication” as it is defined by the ADA is paramount and overrides any assumption that an interpreter is qualified for a specific assignment if the deaf or hard of hearing individual does not have such effective communication. The NAD strongly recommends that a statement be made in the regulations that any interpreter who has the appropriate certificate or level must nevertheless remove himself or herself if it becomes clear that effective communication is not being achieved, or calls in a CDI if necessary to achieve effective communication.

Moreover, the ADA emphasizes “impartiality in the definition of “qualified interpreter” and this needs to be reflected throughout the regulations. For example, Rule 393.5051(4) states as follows: “A qualified interpreter may interpret for a proceeding for a co-worker or peer during organizational meetings, workshops, seminars, union discussions, when not a participant in the meeting, but shall not be compelled to interpret for a co-worker or peer during a disciplinary meeting, conflict resolution, or employment dispute. A neutral qualified interpreter shall be used at the discretion of the D/DB/HH person.” The problematic phrase in this particular rule is that the qualified interpreter “shall not be compelled” to interpret, when it should be prohibited outright rather than be subject to whether the interpreter wants to do it. It is recognized in the rule that the interpreter must be neutral or impartial, yet there is no outright prohibition as there should be.”

Have these issues raised by the NAD, been resolved in the latest version of the rules and regulations? We do not know. We’re being told, ‘Wait and see.’ We’re basically being told to trust our government.

Trust our government? Trust our government, after allegations from credible individuals that the MI Deaf Community’s concerns are not being heard? After concerns from numerous individuals about possible conflicts with federal law?

But we’re being told that we still should support rules and regulations that we do not know exactly says because, well, having a law is better than having no law, and we should trust our government.

I would like for everyone to recall that similar remarks were made about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.  And we all know the consequences of that were, and what happened to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the end.

I do have to say that one thing that the MI Deaf Association said, amidst all of this confusion and lack of information, is absolutely right. The eyes of the national Deaf Community is on the State of Michigan.

MI Interpreter Proposed Rules and Regs

Posted on by

The Michigan Division on Deaf and Hard of Hearing last month finally released their proposed rules and regulations for the PA 204 Act, or known as the Deaf Persons’ Interpreters Act.

Unfortunately, many K-12 interpreters are opposing the proposed rules and regulations because they will be required to obtain a 4.0 (Advanced Intermediate) on the EIPA test, which I fully support. We need interpreters who sign and voice well, and I’m very disappointed with these interpreters who oppose the EIPA standard. The EIPA standard of 4.0 should stay! The Michigan Deaf Community should inform DODHH and the interpreters that the EIPA 4.0 needs to remain.

With that in mind, I have copied and pasted my public comment that I submitted to DODHH on March 8, 2013, listing my concerns with these proposed rules and regulations. There is far more to this than just the EIPA matter, and these issues deserve just as much attention as the EIPA. And these concerns are shared by many, hence the fierce backlash from many interpreters, unfortunately. (Here’s my DODHH Public Comment_redacted in PDF format, if you don’t want to read the copy and paste below).

—

Dear Director Emery:

My name is Jeannette K. Johnson and I am a Deaf Michigan citizen who’s proficient in American Sign Language. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Administration from Grand Valley State University and this document is my public comment on the PA 204 2007 amendments’ proposed rules and regulations, pursuant to the PA 206 Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. As a consumer of interpreters for the deaf, while I overall support the PA 204 amendments, I have numerous concerns with the rules and regulations. They are the following:

Issue One:

Under the definitions section (R 393.5003 Definitions) it states the following:

  • (x) “Quality assurance certification” or “QA” means an interpreter certificate granted under the division’s quality assurance certification interpreter testing system, which will phase out.
  • (s) “Michigan BEI” or “MI-BEI” means the Michigan board for evaluation of interpreters test which this state leases from the state of Texas to evaluate interpreters in this state.

The definition of the Quality assurance certification, especially the portion about being phased out, seems to conflict with the PA 204 law, since it does not give any provisions for the QA certification to be phased out or even be replaced. A direct quote from the PA 204 regarding this matter:

393.508d Possession of Michigan quality assurance certification; expiration; renewal.

Sec. 8d. Any person possessing a Michigan quality assurance certification at the level of I, II, or III, on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, shall be considered a qualified interpreter for purposes of this act until that certification status expires.

Thus, resolution is needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Division has already phased out the QA prior to the promulgation of these rules, without any input from the public and stakeholders. A comprehensive investigation should be held and corrective action should be taken against these individuals whom (whether they’re still employed by the State or not) are responsible for this egregious conduct, and the QA reinstated with input from stakeholders. 

Issue Two:

The definition of the MI-BEI makes it explicit that it is leased from the State of Texas. However, in the PA 204 law, it does not make provisions for the State to use or recognize another State’s interpreting certification as its own. The PA 204 law appears to give the Division authority to recognize Michigan and national certifications only – not other states. Therefore, all mentions of the MI-BEI should be stricken, and all mentions of the QA being phased out should be stricken as well.

Issue Three:

Under the R 393.5021, it states the following:

  • (b) A certification from another state which has a reciprocal agreement with this state.

Again, the PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to have a reciprocal agreement with another state. Furthermore, in my opinion, this is akin to Michigan having a reciprocal agreement with Texas for attorneys’ bar exams and licensure, which does not happen for a good reason. Each state is different, thus their certification and its procedures must reflect such reality. Therefore, I believe the Division is evading its duty in this matter, and R 393.5021 (b) should be stricken.

Issue Four:

Under the R 393.5032, it discusses the matter of reciprocity and states the following:

An applicant for certification by reciprocity shall do all of the following: …

(c) Hold a current, valid license or certificate in good standing to practice interpreting in a state with which this state has a reciprocal agreement.

(d) Have no report of disciplinary action pending in another state, …

The same issue arises as in Issue Three. The PA 204 law does not appear to give the Division authority to recognize other states’ certifications – only its own and national certifications. Thus the R 393.5032 in its entirety needs significant editing, (c) needs to be stricken and (d) needs to be edited.

Issue Five:

Under R 393.5022, it states the following:

  • (c) Endorsements are required to interpret for a proceeding involving a deaf-blind person, medical, and legal situations. Endorsement requirements shall be required 2 years from the effective date of these rules.

Endorsements are not defined in the Definitions section. Who provides the endorsements, and how will it be provided? This needs to be defined and clarified then R 393.5022 and R 393.5028 edited to accurately reflect the endorsements definition.

Issue Six:

The matter of R 393.5054, covers the matter of the interpreter practicum experience.

I do not believe that the student interpreter practicum should be regulated by the Division. Rather, I believe that student practicums should be regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5054 should be stricken. If not stricken, then have the supervising interpreter hold either a state or national certification, and a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree along with a year of professional interpreting experience.

Issue Seven:

Under the R 393.5026, it states the following:

  • (3) Interpreters meeting the certification requirements of subrule (1) of this rule may interpret for a proceeding for children and youth only in the following settings, if effective communication is achieved: ….

I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority and should be instead regulated and monitored by the Michigan Department of Education. Thus, R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections should be stricken.

Issue Eight:

Under the R 393.5058, it states the following:

  • (4) A written waiver shall be initiated only by a D/DB/HH person and retained by the appointing authority with a copy sent to the division. ….
  • (5) All waivers must be completed on a division created waiver form.

This rule makes it clear that only a Deaf, Deaf-Blind or a Hard of Hearing person can fill out the waiver (which I’m fine with). However, is there a reason for the (5) regulation? Why cannot a D/DB/HH adult create their own waiver? These rules and regulations should only regulate interpreters, not us D/DB/HH. I believe this exceeds the Division’s authority, thus R 393.5058 (5) should be stricken.

Issue Nine:

I believe that the R 393.5094 conflicts with the PA 204 law, since the PA 204 law already outlines fees and does not give provisions for the Division to impose additional fees. Therefore, I believe that R 393.5094 should be entirely stricken.

Issue Ten:

Under the R 393.5052, it states the following:

  • (1) … NAD-RID “Code of Professional Conduct,” effective July 1, 2005 is adopted by reference. …

I recommend changing that line to: “Interpreters shall follow the most recent official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct.”

Issue Eleven:

The R 393.5023, R 393.5024 and R 393.5025 discuss the minimum for each level. I have many, many concerns with these rules. I do not see how it is possible for anyone, deaf or hearing, to remember these extraordinarily nuanced restrictions for each level. This reeks of micromanagement. Furthermore, interpreters must be allowed to exercise their own independent judgment, so there should be a provision somewhere in this section regarding that. (It also should be noted that even in Texas these restrictions are only recommended, not codified). Instead, I would have the following in the respective section of the rules and regulations (phased in within 6 years of these rules and regulations taking effect):

  • A Level I interpreter must hold a minimum of an Associate’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret at the most, in non-complex, low risk environments. They may interpret in moderate and high risk environments only if partnering with a Level II, III or national certified interpreter, respectively.
  • A Level II interpreter must hold a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution and interpret, at the most, in moderately complex environments such as government; employment; or finance. They may interpret in a high risk environment if partnering with a Level III or national certified interpreter or if they have obtained legal/medical interpreting endorsements from the State or NAD-RID.
  • A Level III interpreter must hold a minimum of a Master’s degree from an accredited institution, may interpret in all environments, including high risk environments such as medical or legal situations.
  • Nationally certified interpreters, with prudent judgment and compliance with the most recent, official version of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, may interpret in any environment.

I would also add definitions of low, moderate and high risk environments in the Definitions section (R 393.5003).

Issue Twelve: 

I question whether R 393.5026 (3) and its subsections fall under the authority and scope of the Division. I believe that rather, these detailed regulations on what educational interpreters may and may not interpret, falls under the domain of the Michigan Department of Education.

Issue Thirteen:

In the Part 4. Procedures for Testing section, I strongly feel that there should be a regulation stating that the Division shall establish a permanent QA committee that will be composed of, at the minimum, interpreter trainers and Deaf individuals who are fluent in both ASL and English, to monitor and review the QA certification process. This will ensure that the stakeholders are included in the process on an equitable basis. In the best case scenario, a NCCA* expert should be on the QA committee as well, or at the least, be a consultant with the DODHH and its QA committee.

*National Commission for Certifying Agencies.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette K. Johnson

cc: Mary McLellan, Michigan Civil Rights Department
Michigan Representative MacGregor
Michigan Senator Jansen

Update On Deaf Teaching Ban

Posted on by

In a previous blog post, ‘Deaf Not Allowed To Teach?’, I shared an email from Ms. Kelly Laatsch, where she shared her experience of being refused interpreters during her teaching practicum at Central Michigan University.

Since that time, the university’s student newspaper has covered this story in a 2 part article series: Article 1 and Article 2.  There is now also an update from Ms. Laatsch, which I have posted below, including another CMU administrator email address, for those who want to send in letters of support for Ms. Laatsch.

I personally am outraged at this situation. There is absolutely no justification for this denial of interpreters for Ms. Laatsch, on the part of the CMU administrators. Section 504 and ADA guarantees her the right to an interpreter if her cochlear implants are not enough for effective communication. Michigan State, prior to closing its Deaf Education program, had several deaf students graduate from its program, and went on to teach, without any issues.

Shame on you, Central Michigan University!

~ A Deaf Pundit

—–

I am a Deaf student at Central Michigan University, currently student teaching and in place to graduate with a Bachelors of Science in Elementary Education in May 2012. I was provided sign language interpreters for my courses including education courses at Central Michigan University for the last four years.

Currently I am in week eight of sixteen weeks of student teaching. In preparation for this, I requested an interpreter months ago; however, Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching, Renee Papelian, Director of Professional Education & Assistant to the Dean, and Susie Rood, Director of Student Disability Services stated that I do have the right to an interpreter, but if I use an interpreter I may not pass my student teaching requirements based on Michigan Department of Education Teaching Technical Standards. There are statements that Dr. Edwards pointed out in the Technical Standards including that I “understand and speak in English.” Dr. Edwards, Dr. Papelian, and Ms. Rood created an Action Plan to “wean” me off from using an interpreter to “help” me become “more independent” (first two weeks I was able to use an interpreter full time, following two weeks I was encouraged to use an interpreter half time, then for the rest of the semester I am encouraged to show that I can teach “independently” without an interpreter). I have cochlear implants and can speak for myself and hear fairly well; however, I still need an interpreter for things I miss. I believe that as a Deaf student, being unable to use an interpreter in a required course (student teaching) is in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, PA 220, Article 1, Sec. 102 (PA 220 of 1976), and others.

Dr. Edwards and Ms. Rood let me know that I can use a FM System and that this would not strongly affect whether or not I pass student teaching. They may be thinking that using an FM System still allows me to use my own “body and mind” to show how effective I am as a teacher (and that using an interpreter makes me less effective as a teacher). Even with my cochlear implants and with an FM System, I am still not going to be able to effectively communicate with the students, parents, and other teachers as well as I could with an interpreter.

I have filed a complaint (in October 2011) against Central Michigan University through Office of Civil Rights. They are still processing my case (may take up to 180 days). It appears to me these staff members at Central Michigan University feel the Michigan Department of Education Technical Standards (policies) trumps the laws that entitle me an interpreter without consequences.

Last week, Dr. Edwards and Dr. Papelian told me that I have to go four to five weeks without an interpreter before the end of the semester to demonstrate my “independence” as a teacher or I may not pass student teaching. What I find odd is that right on top of the Technical Standards, it states that I must meet the standards “with or without reasonable accommodations.” Dr. Edwards and Dr. Papelian still believe I must go for some time without an interpreter.

They also told me that if I don’t pass student teaching I could still get a Bachelors of Science (non-teaching) degree from Central Michigan University. I told them I want to earn my Bachelors of Science in Elementary Education, the degree I have been pursing for the last four years. In addition to this, they suggested that I could also sign a waiver stating that I will never receive teaching certification in the state of Michigan. This baffled me. I wondered why anyone would even do this. I told them I would not do this.

Another issue I have been struggling with deals with interpreters. For the first four weeks of student teaching, I had the same main interpreter every day. Some days another interpreter will be present as a team. After the first four weeks when I decided that this Action Plan was not going to be successful, I told Ms. Rood that I needed an interpreter for the reminder of the semester. I also requested for that same interpreter to continue interpreting since she stated to me she is willing to and is available to be there. Ms. Rood denied this request and instead hired an interpreter agency. I cannot tell you who will be my interpreter every day because it is random. Usually there is one same interpreter who is there but sometimes she has to go to another job and a different interpreter would be there. Some days there are two interpreters all day. Some days there are two interpreters in which one or both would come and go throughout the day. Some days there is just one interpreter. Sometimes I would go without an interpreter from between thirty minutes to a few hours. I feel this is very inconsistent and it frustrates me. It is not good for my students especially since most of these students are at-risk and they very much need consistency. Also to make my student teaching experience successful I feel it is best to have one interpreter or a team of interpreters be there every day. I feel that this would also be “reasonable accommodation.”

As you can probably see, there has been a lot of discrimination, oppression, and violation against laws. Obviously, this is a time-sensitive matter because I am in the middle of my student teaching experience. If you need more information, please contact me. Anything you can do quickly would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kelly Laatsch

The CMU contacts:

Susie Pletcher-Rood, Director of Student Disability Services
rood1se@cmich.edu
(989) 774-3018

Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching
edwar2kl@cmich.edu
(989) 774-4411

Renee Papelian, Director of Professional Education & Assistant to the Dean
papel1rj@cmich.edu
(989) 774-1410

Tony Voisin, Dean of Students
deanofstu@cmich.edu
(989) 774-3346

Kathryn Koch, Interim Dean of College of Education and Human Services
koch1ke@cmich.edu
(989) 774-6995

The MSU Situation

Posted on by

A lot of people have been asking me about the MSU Deaf Education situation in the past several months, and it hasn’t been until now that I’ve been able to blog about it. The reason for that is because from May to July, I was busy interning at the National Association of the Deaf. The internship was a very enriching experience, and I appreciated the opportunity to work there.

Now, regarding the MSU Deaf Education situation (see here for previous posts to get the background if you’re not familiar with it), there’s not very much to share. MSU has closed enrollment for incoming freshmen. That means last year’s freshmen were the last one to enter the Deaf Education program and when they graduate, the program will cease to exist. However, it is still questionable whether last year’s freshmen will be able to graduate with a degree in Deaf Education, since Marta Belsky, the sole full-time ASL instructor, is no longer working at the university.  It’s worthwhile to note that Marta is Deaf and has had professional training in ASL, in addition to having a Deaf father, Martin Belsky who is a former principal and teacher of the Michigan School of the Deaf. MSU, and ultimately, the Deaf children of Michigan lost an ASL expert.

It is also clear to everyone involved that the MSU Provost has already made up his mind, and things will remain as it is. It’s rare for a board to act in opposition of their Provost at all universities, so it’s not expected that the MSU Board of Trustees will overrule the Provost’s decision. So ultimately, the MSU Deaf Education program is closed.

However, there is still one thing that the Deaf Community can do, which is to contact an organization with civil/disability rights attorneys, such as NAD, to help with filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights under the Department of Justice. There are grounds for the civil rights complaint, which I’m not going to go into details publicly, for obvious reasons. Things also have grown complicated here in Michigan, and I’ve decided to take myself out of the equation to devote my time and attention to my studies and career goals. The Michigan Deaf Association is aware of my suggestion to file a civil rights complaint with the assistance of NAD or other like-minded organizations, so it is now in their and the community’s hands to take further action if desired.

One might ask what good will filing a complaint do, if the program is closed? I’m not sure what exactly it will immediately accomplish, but I do know having an official record of people’s grievances with MSU’s closure of the Deaf Education program, is a very good policy.  After all, you never know when such a document will become very useful, and odds are it’ll become just that someday.

MSU’s Deaf Education Update!

Posted on by

Approximately 25 to 30 Deaf Community members and allies made a strong showing at the MSU board of trustees’ meeting yesterday.  Numerous individuals brought signs and held them during the meeting, and the board of trustees definitely saw the signs.  Four spoke during the public comments, expressing their concerns about MSU’s plans to eliminate the Deaf Education program. They were: Katie Hosmer, MSU Deaf Education student; Scot Pott, the MDA president; Natalie Grupido, a MSD teacher; and Melissa Rich, a MDA board member but present as a private citizen.The 4 speakers at MSU BoT meeting

Their public comments were powerful – especially Melissa and Natalie’s. Melissa expressed concerns about how it appeared that the College of Education was unfairly targeting the deaf-related courses, and it appeared to be discrimination against the Deaf. One main point she drove home was the fact that the ASL courses were a money-maker for the University, and in fact, has a long waiting list, yet the university claims it needs to be cut due to budget concerns, which was quite contradictory.

Natalie spoke eloquently about the fact that American Sign Language has been here for over 200 years, and despite attempts to extinguish our language and to cure our deafness, it has always remained here, and will always remain. It was a powerful testimonial to the board of trustees to pay attention to history, and to pay respect to a genuine language that’s afforded to all other languages.

Aside from the public comments, the Deaf Education program was not discussed. The budget was discussed, and mind-bogglingly, the importance of hyenas for the ecology, and the logo along with the shade of green were heavily discussed.  Priorities, anyone?

One bright spot that did come out of this meeting was that due to Natalie being an alum, she was able to wrangle a meeting with Provost Wilcox with several of us to discuss our concerns about the Deaf Education program’s closure. I do not expect very much from the meeting with the Provost, but it is a start, and indicates that MSU is ready to sit down and discuss our concerns seriously.

The pressure is definitely on MSU, since the State Board of Education has stated their opposition to the closure, and Eastern Michigan University has stated their opposition as well. We need to keep the pressure up on MSU – we got 5 thousand letters sent in.

Let’s send in another 5 thousand to the Provost and Board of Trustees! The Deaf Education program needs to stay open, and NO Deaf child left behind!

SBE’s *Amended* Resolution About MSU

Posted on by

The Michigan State Board of Education just released their AMENDED resolution about the MSU Deaf Education program. The new addition is at the bottom of the text.  Thank you, to the State Board of Education, especially John Austin, for doing this!

—–

State of Michigan
State Board of Education

Resolution

Michigan State University Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program

WHEREAS, The Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program at Michigan State University’s College of Education is one of only two in the State of Michigan, and the only teacher preparation program in the State that prepares teachers for bi-lingual (American Sign Language/ASL and English) programs and services; and

WHEREAS, the proposal by the College of Education to terminate this program as well as the ASL program has significant negative consequences for the State of Michigan, its public schools, and students who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing as well as the supply of teachers; and

WHEREAS, Michigan students who enroll in Deaf Education programs in other states are less likely to return to Michigan after completion of such programs, thus increasing the exodus of Michigan citizens; and

WHEREAS, the loss of nationally prominent faculty at Michigan State University who created this federally recognized Deaf Education Program will negatively impact the training of higher education faculty in Deaf Education as well as teachers of students who are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing in Michigan; and

WHEREAS, Michigan identifies over 3,000 students as Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing and eligible for special education services annually, all of whom are entitled to special education programs and services; and

WHEREAS, the consequences of the termination of this program and the ASL program will disproportionately impact signing Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and multiply impaired students in Michigan; and

WHEREAS, not only Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing persons, but also Hearing persons without verbal language learn through the use of sign language; and

WHEREAS, the State Board of Education and the Department are dedicated to ensuring that teachers and other personnel serving children with disabilities are adequately prepared and trained; and

WHEREAS, the State Board of Education, serving as the Board for the Michigan School for the Deaf, has a Constitutional responsibility to provide leadership and general supervision over all public education, including special education services; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the State Board of Education and Michigan Department of Education request Michigan State University’s College of Education reconsider the decision to terminate the Deaf Education Teacher Preparation and ASL Programs, and be it finally

RESOLVED, that if MSU terminates its program, that Michigan State University work with the Michigan Department of Education to determine how Michigan can best continue to provide high quality diverse teacher preparation programs to train teachers to serve Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students in Michigan.

My MSU Rally Speech

Posted on by

Approximately 50 to 70 people showed up to today’s rally at Michigan State University’s Rally for Deaf Education. The weather was terrible – 25 degrees with a fierce wind, so most stayed home, unfortunately. However, there was a long list of speakers, and it lasted for approximately a hour and half, which is excellent, considering how cold it was! We stood outside the administration building and interpreters voiced our speeches through a bullhorn directed at the building.  I would like to thank Katie Hosmer in particular, for organizing this rally to protest MSU’s decision to close the Deaf Education program.

Here is the speech that I gave at the rally.

~ A Deaf Pundit/Jeannette Johnson

 

No Harm Done, Right?

I’m Jeannette Johnson, an undergraduate student at Grand Valley State University studying Public and Nonprofit Administration. I’m also the blogger of The Deaf Edge. I am speaking here today as a private citizen.

It was 1880, at an international deaf education conference in Milan, Italy, where educators voted to ban sign language from deaf education, sparking a 129 year long war on deaf education methodology. MSU’s decision to close the Deaf Education program is just the latest front of this war.

Let me tell you about this war. Ever since 1880, hearing people have been in charge of educating the deaf. American Sign Language [ASL] has been shunned in favor of oralism. Then when it was declared to be a failure in the early 1970′s, the hearing invented their own gestures, Signed Exact English [SEE]. After all, ASL, the native, genuine language of the Deaf and today is the third most used language in the United States, just simply could not be considered equal to English.  And hey, no harm done, right?

Ever since 1880, the sad statistic has barely changed – the average 18 year old deaf person reads at 4th grade level. But hey, No harm done, right?

Now, let’s consider this one simple fact: MSU is the ONLY program in the state that offers the option of training teachers of the deaf to use ASL with deaf students. EMU offers ONE class in “manual” communication. One class, and it’s not even clear whether it’s ASL or not. But hey, no harm done, right?

As a public institution, MSU and other institutions have a legal obligation to serve ALL populations, whether they’re low or high incidence. However, Dean Ames has told the State Superintendent, and I quote from her email: “Eastern Michigan has a much larger special education program but also low enrollment in Deaf Education and they will accept more.  …   Because most children who are born deaf are born to hearing parents, because deafness is identified at birth, because cochlear implants are recommended–the oral/auditory programs have much more viability in terms of teacher preparation.

And she closes her email with this statement: We are not abandoning special education and in fact, we want to build those areas (especially autism) where the incidence is high and the demand is high.”

Ah, I see. Let’s ease our budget woes by shutting out the low incidence populations. No harm done, right?

Where are the statistics that shows that the cochlear implants will help deaf children acquire language, knowledge and understanding? That’s part of the goal in education, after all. Dean Ames, who has a Ph.D, cites no statistics or studies… but I, an undergraduate university student, can cite a study.

Candida C. Peterson at the University of Queensland did a study in 2004 that shows the deaf children with cochlear implants test results of self concept and understanding, which is a crucial component of language, was equal to those who wore hearing aids, those who used sign language and even with hearing children who have autism.

Why is this so? I’ll tell you why – because cochlear implants are a TOOL, which Dean Ames and MSU apparently fails to understand, and our language, American Sign Language deserves respect that is given to English and other languages. We also deserve to be served by public institutions on an equal and fair basis that is accorded to everyone else. And finally, I am here today to tell all of you, that it is time for the ‘no harm done, right?’ ‘tude to FINISH!

NO DEAF CHILD LEFT BEHIND!