Is It Really About Parental Choices?

Posted on by

Naomi Horton, the executive director of Hear Indiana, in interviews with the media about the Indiana School of the Deaf protests said, “The discussion right now is about parent choices.”

Supporters of Ms. Horton and the Hear Indiana organization has rallied around this position. Given how central the rights of parental choices are in education, it’s to be expected. However, there has been some who have drawn upon this position to argue that all publicly funded schools, such as the Indiana School of the Deaf, has to serve all communication modalities, in order to ensure choices for parents remain available.

Hmm. Really?

Now, I didn’t particularly explore this issue in my ‘Death to Deafness’ series, because first and foremost, I am not an attorney, nor an expert on Special Education law. However, given the fact that ignorance is the the root of audism, something that is far too prevalent in the field of Deaf Education, I decided to consult someone who is an expert. Armed with facts and relevant opinions from experts, the foundation of ignorance can only but crumble away, making it difficult to perpetuate such bigotry and discrimination.

This expert whom I consulted with, authored a document that is widely considered as the bible on how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], applies to deaf and hard of hearing children.

Full disclosure: The expert that I am quoting here, also happens to be my mother.

And so, this is her opinion on this matter.

—–

-begin-

IDEA’s implementing regulations require at 34 CFR § 300.115: “Continuum of alternative placements:

(a) Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.

(b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this section must—

(1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions);” [Emphasis added.]

“Institutions” includes residential Schools for the Deaf, as does “special schools.”  Most often, D/HH students are placed at schools for the deaf because they require placement in an environment that provides immersion in the language that is fully accessible to them. [Emphasis added.]

Congregation at such a special school provides the critical mass of ASL language users needed by their students.  Oral children are immersed in English in their own homes and communities as well as the media, being that English, unlike ASL, is the language of American and Canadian communities.

Thus, unlike ASL using D/HH children, oral D/HH children do not need to congregate within a specially created community of users. Not all ASL using D/HH students need to be placed in a school for the deaf, particularly if they have sufficient access to other ASL users.

Language learning abilities and needs vary among children. What suffices for language learning for one child may be insufficient for another child. The schools for the deaf meet these language needs as well as the cultural needs of ASL using D/HH students.

The Policy Guidance for Deaf Students Education Services from the US Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights informs us:

“. . . deafness often results in significant and unique educational needs for the individual child. The major barriers to learning associated with deafness relate to language and communication, which, in turn, profoundly affect most aspects of the educational process. . . .”

Compounding the manifest educational considerations, the communication nature of deafness is inherently isolating, with considerable effect on the interaction with peers and teachers that make up the educational process. This interaction, for the purpose of transmitting knowledge and developing the child’s self-esteem and identity, is dependent upon direct communication.

Yet, communication is the area most hampered between a deaf child and his or her hearing peers and teachers. Even the availability of interpreter services in the educational setting may not address deaf children’s needs for direct and meaningful communication with peers and teachers.

“. . . it is important that State and local education agencies, in developing an IEP for a child who is deaf, take into consideration such factors as:

  1. Communication needs and the child’s and family’s preferred mode of communication;
  2. Linguistic needs;
  3. Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing;
  4. Academic level; and
  5. Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interactions and communication. [Emphasis added.]

. . . The Secretary is concerned that the least restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA and Section 504 are interpreted, incorrectly require the placement of some children who are deaf in programs that may not meet the individual student’s educational needs. [Emphasis added.]

Meeting the unique communication and related needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. Any setting, including a regular classroom, that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving an appropriate education that meets his or her needs including communication needs is not the LRE for that individual child.”

The communication and cultural needs of D/HH students who use ASL are substantially different than the communication and cultural needs of oral deaf students.  Their needs for direct communication in their own language are at cross-purposes when provided in the same place. [Emphasis added.] 

The schools for the Deaf were established to meet the unique needs of ASL using D/HH students who, unlike their hearing and oral deaf peers, cannot have their linguistic, cultural, social and direct communication needs met in the mainstream and in the general community.

Their right to continue to have their unique communication, linguistic, social and cultural needs met in the very institutions that were designed for them, must remain undisturbed.

-end-

—–

Indeed… it is about parental choices – the lack of it. I think there is enough evidence now, to demonstrate that Hear Indiana and like-minded organizations does not truly care about parental choices, nor about what’s the best interest for deaf children on an individualized level.

If this information presented here isn’t enough, then consider this. The National Association of the Deaf recently discovered a substantial piece of information, which was then announced on their website:

… HEAR Indiana in a recent e-newsletter about the Indiana School for the Deaf Board appointments explains that the ISD budget has more than $18 million then asks its members, “Do you feel like local school districts should have a piece of the pie?”

Still think this is really about ensuring the availability of all parental choices?

Death to Deafness: Part 1

Posted on by

Today, if one asked the average hearing person how they would picture a deaf person, odds are they would either think of the elderly, Marlee Matlin, or a baby with cochlear implants. It is very likely that they would not picture a regular, everyday person who speaks American Sign Language [ASL]. And it is The author aged 5, wearing massive earphonesalso probable, prior to Marlee Matlin and cochlear implants, that they would have pictured one much like the photo shown here.

It is an incontrovertible truth that for the majority, the concept of deafness centers upon the ear and one’s ability to articulate speech well. It is also a given for the majority, that being deaf is unacceptable. It is this very concept that has sparked a 130+ year long ideological and pedagogical war, (infamously kicked off at the 1880 Milan Conference), that continues to this day.

However, there are some who claim that this war does not truly exist today. They deny that there is an active opposition of ASL, nor a concerted effort to eliminate it and other signed languages from the field of Deaf Education and elsewhere. A few even claim that while favoring the majority’s concept of deafness, they accept & support ASL for others. They also make heavy insinuations and sometimes, outright claims, that there is merely a one-sided war, coming from the signing Deaf Community. They accuse us of being in denial about the “miracle” of technological advancements, and today’s and the future realities of educating deaf and hard of hearing children.

All of these claims have been used in response in the wake of outcries over recent events in Deaf Education, and particularly to the protests over the recent Indiana School of the Deaf board appointments.

The AG Bell Association and the LSL Doctrine

Now, before we even begin to address these claims, it is important to understand precisely what the controversial 3 ISD board members stand for. They are members of Hear Indiana, a state chapter of the AG Bell Association. The national organization is the namesake of Alexander Graham Bell, a man who advocated for the sterilization of the deaf, and for a ban on deaf inter-marriages. And, last but not least, he is the one who spearheaded the elimination of ASL from the field of deaf education in the United States, in the aftermath of the 1880 Milan Conference.

Clearly, today the AG Bell Assoc. and its chapters no longer advocates for these two former ideals, since they are held to be in violation of human rights. However, it should be noted that to this day, the AG Bell Association and its chapters have not denounced nor disavowed these ideals held by this man.

And still to this day, these organizations uphold the doctrine that speech is superior to signed languages, in educating the deaf. This doctrine is best known today as the  Listening and Spoken Language [LSL] philosophy. [Note: this was formerly known as the Audio-Verbal Therapy (AVT)]. AG Bell Assoc. and its chapters clearly and openly support and promote the LSL doctrine, as evidenced here on their ‘For Parents’ section. On that page, AG Bell offers a link for parents to find a local Listening and Spoken Language Specialist. The AG Bell Assoc. is also hosting a LSL symposium July 21-23, 2011 in Washington, D.C.

So what exactly is the Listening and Spoken Language doctrine? A synopsis of this doctrine is provided here:

“It is truly integrating hearing into the child’s personality so that the child becomes assimilated into our community. It is both embracing and fostering a lifestyle that enables children, in spite of their deafness, to achieve their rightful places in our society. It is a means by which children with significant hearing loss are taught how to hear, how to listen, how to understand the language of their normally hearing parents, and how to effectively speak that same language.”

It is clear from this description that LSL proponents reject signed languages and a positive identity of a Deaf person. After all, signed languages do not conform to the concept of assimilating into the hearing community. Nor does signed languages help with the “integrating hearing into the child’s personality.” But that’s not all what their doctrine encompasses. On the very same website, it proclaims the following:

“Today, there is no need for our children to be deaf. Today, with all the hearing technology available to us, implementing the Auditory Verbal Approach should be the first option for our children.”

It cannot be overstated how integral technological advancements i.e., hearing aids and cochlear implants, are to the LSL doctrine. And so, this is what the 3 recent ISD board appointees stand for. This doesn’t appear to be very accepting of ASL and a positive identity of a Deaf person, does it?

Next – Today & the Future’s Realities on Educating the Deaf

Death to Deafness: Part 2

Posted on by

(Continuation from Part 1)

Today’s and the Future’s Realities on Educating the Deaf

This now leads us into the matter of the accusations made against us Deaf Community members of being in denial about today’s and the future realities of Deaf Education.

So, let’s look at some statistics regarding today’s reality in Deaf Education. It’s reported that as of April 2009, approximately 25,500 children in the country have cochlear implants.

Now, there is a specific claim regarding cochlear implants, where it is said that “profoundly deaf kids can hear and discriminate all the sounds of spoken language.” It is true for some – it is undeniable that for some profoundly deaf children, the cochlear implant does succeed in this regard.

However, if this claim was universally true, then the CI surgeons wouldn’t have a problem guaranteeing this for all who receive it. But that does not happen. Why? Because just like any other surgery, there are going to be variables in the results. This Medical Today News article indirectly acknowledges that reality. And if the CI was universally successful in this regard, then the majority of the implanted children would not be receiving special education services under IDEA. But the majority still are today.

Onwards to deaf education itself, it is reported that 52% of the deaf and hard of hearing children are taught via the speech only method. This conversely means that 46% of the deaf and hard of hearing children use signed languages and/or sign systems.

Interestingly enough, the educational environment statistic conflicts with LSL proponents’ claim that 89% of the deaf and hard of hearing children do not use signed languages or sign systems. This claim has been one method, out of several methods, in convincing naïve parents that it isn’t worth using signed languages with their deaf children.

Another method in convincing the naïve parents to favor the LSL doctrine is the argument that the State Schools of the Deaf do not perform very well on testing scores, therefore ASL must not be very good in educating deaf and hard of hearing children.

They ignore experts in the Deaf Education field, such as the superintendent of ISD’s letter to the Indy Star, citing the reason for the drag on testing scores as the result of “parents who chose only a spoken-English approach and then waited until their child failed to show progress before introducing a visual language forces a school like ISD to play catch-up.”

That is today’s reality in Deaf Education and has been for the last several decades. Same song, different verse. Why would it change anytime soon? And still, even in the face of these facts, they want us to believe their claims that technological feats will conquer all, that they accept ASL and do not actively oppose the language?

An Ideological & Pedagogical War Today – Yes or No?

Given all of this, it stands to reason that yes, indeed, the ideological & pedagogical war is still raging on today in Deaf Education. Just because the war is fought differently today, does not mean it no longer exists.

However, I must confess that I did not fully appreciate just how differently, until all of this happened. As I read up on the recent events in Deaf Education, more and more disturbing questions arose.

Such as why did the Hear Indiana executive director make this statement to the media, “… Hear Indiana does not want to eliminate sign language, she said. But ISD receives an inordinate amount of state support, Horton said, noting that it receives $18 million from the state to teach sign language to almost 350 students.”? (Source: TribTown.com IBJ.com).

This statement at first puzzled me. If I were in the shoes of the Hear Indiana executive director, my response to the media would have been: “We have had no hand in the new appointments to the ISD board. Our focus is on informing and advocating for our educational philosophy. We only involve ourselves very superficially with other entities that do not share our views.”

It is highly probable that this response would’ve been well received in the media, and it has the additional bonus of not really giving the Deaf Community anything to pounce upon. It was only when I went back and looked at a PDF by Hear USA that was written several years ago, that the pieces clicked together for me.

Hear Indiana did have a hand in the selection of the new ISD board appointees. The organization knows, from witnessing the recent entanglements of the Deaf Community with like-minded organizations, to only deny when they can get away with it.

And when Hear Indiana says they do not want to eliminate sign language, they mean they aren’t going to enter the schools and outright throw out signed languages.

After all, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf formally rejected the resolutions of the 1880 Milan Conference. And then, there’s the sticky matter of the high probability of successful lawsuits being brought against them. Parental choices reign in the matter of education, and they have the legal right to use signed language in the instruction of their deaf children.

No, they aren’t going to outright eliminate ASL. You see, in the Hear USA PDF that was passed onto me, the last page had a list of questions that they wanted to explore. “What would it mean to conquer deafness?”

“What would businesses and institutions have to do?”

“What would be the costs?”

“Who will pay for it?”

“How would the market for implants, hearing aids, and audiology and otology services grow?”

“What and how rapid would be the impact on Gallaudet University and schools and centers for the deaf?”

“What would happen to American Sign Language and Deaf Culture?” …

And in a side box, they hypothesize that in 2010 this would happen:

Gallaudet University receives Congressional approval to expand enrollment of non-US students to 80 percent, in stages, between 2010 and 2020, so that Gallaudet can serve students from countries where hearing aids and cochlear implants are not available to the bulk of the population. This shift compensates for the declining enrollment of US students due to newborn screenings and intervention via hearing aids or implants. The legislation expands the Washington campus and deploys faculty and graduates to create campuses in Africa, Latin America, China, India and Eastern Europe; and funds Gallaudet through the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development.

Obviously, this hasn’t happened yet. But it does hint extremely well at their plans for the State Schools of the Deaf and elsewhere. We only need to look at the Utah School of the Deaf for what they will attempt nationally. In the name of budget woes, they will attempt, and already successfully did at USDB, to put ALL deaf children in one school, even with differing educational doctrines.

One administrator leading a school where you have a set of parents who want their children to be immersed in a bilingual environment, and another set of parents who want their children to only use English. Only in Deaf Education would this be acceptable.

This is a war of attrition, in where the majority surrounds the minority, and leads to fighting over resources and money, until the minority is ultimately defeated through sheer numbers.

Indeed… the Hear USA PDF names their plan very aptly. And that plan is called

Death of Deafness

How To Fight Back

Posted on by

It goes without saying that there’s been an incredible upsurge in the AVT folks’ attempts to eliminate ASL from Deaf Education. The Indiana School of the Deaf recently had 3 HearIndiana members appointed to its board, which for obvious reasons, were met with dismay.

One thing I have been noticing, and I am not alone in this observation, is that many Deaf advocates for some unknown reason, do not take the time to anticipate and prepare for various questions and scenarios such as this. That is a recipe for failure. If we are going to successfully fight off the AVT’s suppression of our language, we MUST take the time to do this. Here is an example of how other advocates and I in Michigan prepped for the meeting with the MSU Provost about the closure of the Deaf Education program.

We first created a talking points outline – admittedly it’s long since it’s just over 4 pages. Most of the time, it’s between 1 to 2 pages long (and a caveat here, I did not entirely create this outline. We were fortunate to have a professional advocate help us with this preparation). But this situation was exceedingly serious, so we took the time to prepare. We listed all of the facts, not opinions, of the situation. It required a lot of time and effort to do this research in order to prepare. But it was well worth it.

The Provost was absolutely stunned and became enraged at us because we were challenging him on every point he raised, and we were able to successfully document that there was something seriously amiss with what MSU was doing with the Deaf Education program. At one point during the meeting, he even said that we were not hearing him. I am not kidding – he actually said that to us. Provost Wilcox also kept lamenting the fact that he could not explain Dean Ames’ statements to the media. The meeting was an utter disaster for him.

However, we were not finished with him. After the meeting, we sent him a confirmation letter*, documenting everything that was said during the meeting. He responded that he wasn’t going to dignify this with a response. Which was pretty stupid, because that meant he indirectly admitted our accuracy of what happened during the meeting. Now, if the Michigan Deaf Association took this forward as it should have, the media and judicial system would probably have had a field day with Provost Wilcox’s statements during the meeting. I cannot stress enough how powerful this confirmation letter would have been in striking back against the wrong doings committed against us.

This is how you prepare and fight back successfully.

*The only thing that has been changed in the linked letter is the redaction of the email address.

More Crises With The Deaf Community

Posted on by

Note: This blog is more than just a transcript for the vlog above.

Last week, it was announced here in Michigan that the top Interpreter Training Program [ITP], located at the Lansing Community College [LCC], was being considered for suspension and reduced to an one year program. Not only is LCC the top ranked ITP in the state, it is ranked number 5 in the United States. LCC’s rationale for this suspension is due to almost no ITP graduates passing the Board for Evaluation of Interpreters [BEI].

The fact is, almost none of any ITP graduates in the entire state are passing the BEI. It is exceedingly difficult to pass the BEI due to several reasons:

  • The BEI was only very recently implemented, in the last year and half. The BEI replaced the Michigan Quality Assurance [QA] test.
  • The BEI itself is notoriously exceedingly difficult to pass. It was developed in Texas, and even the interpreters in Texas have difficulty passing it. As of 2009, according to the BEI’s website, only 39% passed the basic level, and it was even worse in the previous years before 2009.
  • There is a lack of 4 year ITPs here in Michigan. 2 years is simply just not enough to produce well-educated, fully-rounded and competent interpreters upon graduation.
  • The Division on Deafness and Hard of Hearing [DODHH] has one of the most strict rules in the country about how and where the ITP students can practice their skills in the community. At this time of writing, their ability to do so, is functionally non-existent. This is part of the reason why there is currently a bitter, profound divide between the DODHH and interpreters, ITPs and the deaf service providers.

This is on top of the Michigan State University closing its Deaf Education program, leaving no future Deaf Education teachers in the state that will be able to use American Sign Language with deaf students here in Michigan. Not only that, but also recently the Michigan School of the Deaf’s property was sold to private developers for $1.3 million. No appraisal or assessment was done on the property or buildings to see the true value or how much it would cost to renovate the buildings. The property was labeled as a brownfield, meaning it is considered to be vacant or polluted. That obviously is not the case.

Furthermore, the lease the private developers now have, requires the State of Michigan to pay rent to them for $2 million per year, for 7 years. After 7 years, the private developers can either sell back the land to the State, or sell it to someone else.  For these reasons, the Deaf Community considers the sale to be very suspicious and disturbing. And needless to say, the odds of MSD existing after 7 years aren’t very good. The future of deaf children’s education here in Michigan is very, very bleak.

As people can imagine, the announcement of the LCC ITP potential’s closure (because let’s face reality – once you suspend a program, it’s exceedingly difficult to get it back up and running again), has caused a deep upheaval with the state Deaf Community. The LCC ITP provides 51% of the interpreters in the state, and many of them work in the public schools interpreting for deaf children. If the LCC ITP goes, what’s left for us and our future?

Mind you, the LCC ITP graduates are passing the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment [EIPA] just fine. And that is a national certification test with a solid research basis to it. It is my understanding that the EIPA has not met with heavy criticism as the BEI has.

I find this whole thing disturbing on many levels, because I have noticed a trend of things beginning here in Michigan, then spreading to the rest of the country. So I would be watchful for problems in other states with their ITPs. The national Deaf Community should be concerned about this issue. I understand the State Schools of the Deaf crises is taking precedent, but I think this is also very important.

Now, last Monday I attended the LCC Board of Trustees meeting, along with dozens of other Deaf Community members, interpreters, ITP faculty and students. Approximately 10-12 of us spoke to the Board, and we did make a positive impact on them. The media was extremely interested, and covered this event very well.  And during the break, the Provost approached someone who was there. The provost was very nervous, basically saying she didn’t expect this kind of pressure, and emphasized that she did not want to do this, but was only doing this because of the DODHH and BEI situation.That situations is a convoluted and heavily political situation. So I’m not going to go in-depth here in this blog post, and many of you in Michigan already know about this anyway.

So I think it is very important for the Michigan Deaf Community, and other stakeholders such as RID, NAD and state interpreters, etc., to continue sending emails to the LCC president and provost. They are listening to us, and I, along with others, are cautiously hopeful that the LCC ITP will not be closed. But only if we keep up the pressure on LCC and start a meaningful dialogue with DODHH regarding the BEI. Because it is clear that the BEI is not helping the interpreter crisis, and is the main rationale of why LCC is deciding on whether to suspend the ITP. I hope the Deaf Community and interpreters can come together to have a conversation about how to approach this with the DODHH.

Please email the LCC President and Provost to share why keeping the ITP open is so crucial to the future of the Deaf Community here in Michigan. Their emails are: knightb4@lcc.edu and shanbls@lcc.edu.

Thank you for your support, and let’s fight for our rights, so we all can have a better future!

CSI: A Step Forward For The Deaf Community

Posted on by

For those who haven’t viewed the CSI episode “The Two Mrs. Grissoms”, don’t read any further. There are a lot of spoilers in this blog post.

Now, onwards to the episode itself. Overall, I thought it was an excellent episode. Could it have been better? Yes, definitely and we’ll get to that part soon, but considering the history of how the community has been portrayed in television shows like CSI, this episode was just outstanding and phenomenal progress was made.  I was especially relieved that this episode didn’t involve cochlear implants, because that was so overplayed in the past.

The Things That Could Improve

There were some things that could have been improved, such as Marlee Matlin’s tendency to overact. Her ASL skills has definitely improved, but overacting is still a problem for her. I also had to smirk at the contrived plot device: the fire alarm bed shakers. I don’t use them, and nor do most Deaf persons I know. We just use the strobe lights for the fire alarm, so that part was not realistic to me. Nor was the part where they tested Sean’s brain ability to respond to sounds. I have never seen a test with such spectacular graphics of the brain’s responses. Not even a MRI of the brain has that kind of cool graphics!

And Sean being supposedly able to fool so many people for so long on his lack of deafness? Like other bloggers and commenters elsewhere have noted, it is exceedingly difficult to pull off something like this for so long and not raise suspicion. Hearing people react involuntarily to certain sounds, and there are just too many situations where he would have tipped himself off. All of this on top of the notion that we’re freely given money all the time? Puhleeze! I wish! If that was true, there would be at least several solid, healthy professional organizations that promotes and protects our linguistic rights, scholarship and so on. Sadly, as far as I can see, that’s still sorely lacking.

The Things That Were Awesome

Phyllis Frelich particularly shone in this episode  – she was perfectly cast. The character was a vibrant, brilliant and opinionated woman who knew exactly what she’s doing and made sure everyone else knew it too!  And I deeply appreciate the fact that she was given the opportunity to explain to mainstream America that ASL is a full language in its own right. A lot of hearing viewers who have no exposure to Deaf Culture and American Sign Language, most likely learned something from this episode. They saw us Deaf living normal lives, just like them. Deaf college students, amongst other things, play their music too loud just like hearing college students do. Most hearing people probably are astounded at the fact that we DO enjoy music.

The Deaf Community was portrayed in a very positive light. A variety of Deaf professionals were shown: a college professor, a college chair/businessman, and a college student studying to become an electrical engineer. They had full, enriching lives with all kinds of entanglements just like the hearing. We weren’t portrayed as crazed killers or objects of pity like we historically have been, but rather we were portrayed as normal human beings who just happen to be deaf and speak a different language. This kind of details may seem minor to many in the Deaf Community, but it’s little details like these that goes a long way in raising awareness with the hearing. These kind of details interwoven in the episode was truly unprecedented, and I applaud the CSI producers and writers for making it happen. I look forward to more episodes like this, but with further  improvements and even more richer and authentic details!

And oh, the ending? KISS-FIST! ;)

One of Deaf Education’s Dirty Secrets…

Posted on by

One early summer day, a couple of decades ago, my parents and a couple of other parents went door to door campaigning for one of the school board candidates. During their door-to-door campaign, they stopped by one of the deaf education teachers’ house. They rang the doorbell, and *Susan’s spouse answered the door.

In the background, somewhere in the house, distraught sobbing could be heard.  The spouse, familiar with these present, said, “I’m sorry, Susan’s not able to come down here right now.”  An uncomfortable pause ensued, punctuated by the sobbing. The spouse finally said,  “She’s always like this at the end of the school year. Susan’s upset, you know, about being unable to see her students during the summer.”

Interestingly enough, several years later when Susan was transferred to General Ed, by all accounts, she didn’t repeat this behavior with the General Ed students.

Different Rules – Different Game?

Some might shrug their shoulders and argue that the rules for Deaf Ed’s different than it is for General Ed, so it’s only natural that the Deaf Ed personnel will behave differently in each setting. Therefore, what Susan did isn’t cause for concern, much less alarm. And after all, the setting of Deaf Ed is structured in a way that it’s a natural consequence for the teachers and interpreters to have a closer relationship with the average Deaf student than General Ed students do with their faculty/staff.

However, if one looks at the actual rules for Deaf Ed, the rules for the most part, focus on ensuring the Deaf students obtain equal access to education, especially functional equivalency. So what’s this really about? If one examines a relationship that a Deaf Ed teacher or an educational interpreter has with the Deaf student, far too often, one will find that the personnel infantilizes the Deaf student. This is not to say all do this. There are many wonderful professionals out there who do have an appropriate relationship with their students and have ethical standards and boundaries.

But there are also many out there who do not, and it’s all too common for people to turn a blind eye to this behavior. The majority of the Deaf Community can share more than one personal story about several Deaf Ed teachers and/or interpreters over-sharing, becoming overly involved with their students’ lives (and even sometimes the student’s families), crossing emotional boundaries, and/or reacting terribly when the student dares to become more independent than they’re comfortable with.

One Deaf Ed advocate shared a story with me about how it’s not quite common but not too rare either, for the school personnel during IEPT meetings to call her clients “Mom”, instead of the clients’ actual name. If that isn’t infantilization, then I don’t know what is.

Sadly enough, the general public supports the infantilization of the Deaf. They, like many in the Deaf Ed field, consider us to be disabled, not as a cultural and linguistic minority. Therefore, we need to be taken care of, in their eyes, and it’s perfectly acceptable for Deaf Ed personnel to treat us differently than how they would with others. How many of us are familiar with this sentiment, “You work with these kids? How precious!” or “Oh, my! You’re Deaf and you were able to accomplish this? How wonderful!” Hence, the sweeping under the rug about this problem.

Some might pooh-pooh this and say this was probably common twenty years ago, but isn’t nowadays. I certainly hope it’s not as prevalent today, but I still get horror stories from Deaf Ed advocates and the Deaf Community about teachers and especially interpreters. And just the other day, I stumbled across a Facebook page of a Deaf Ed teacher who possibly seems to have a close emotional bond with one of her former students, to the point where it raised my and another Deaf adult’s eyebrows. However, apparently her hearing friends generally found it adorable.

It certainly says something about society and its perception of us, don’t you think?

* Name changed to protect privacy