I Dean Ames announced the closure of the ASL program and the deaf education teacher training program at MSU as part of a larger, university wide

Transcription

1 I Dean Ames announced the closure of the ASL program and the deaf education teacher training program at MSU as part of a larger, university wide initiative to cut costs. A. Dean Ames never provided any financial data on these programs, expecting us to take it on faith that they are losing gobs of $$ on the progs. B. Dean Ames originally stated that the ASL program is closing because it has no majors and because there are plenty of other places that can train interpreters, and that most of the people who completed the sequence took it for their foreign language requirements. 1. This appears to be misdirection. MSU doesn't offer a major in ASL, so no one could major in it, even if they wanted to do so. 2. ASL is a highly popular course with hundreds of students taking it, tho we have no actual numbers on how many complete all the courses. 3. ASL courses make money for the University. (See numbers on enrollment. That many ASL students has to be profitable.) Closing them are at odds with the stated purpose of the cuts. 4. Foreign language classes with fewer than 25 students enrolled in them have not been canceled. (See numbers on enrollment, Interesting tidbit. ) 5. Interpreter training is not and has never been an issue. Why the misdirection? 6. ASL courses are a core component of the Bilingual track of the deaf ed teacher training program. Without it, the bilingual track cannot be sustained. 7. Dean Ames wrote to John Austin, SBE member, Lansing Community College offers the equivalent of our 5 course ASL sequence. This is not true. LCC only offers 100- and 200 level courses. They do not offer anything like ASL in the Classroom. 8. MSU students are not likely to take ASL courses at other institutions that require a commute, have parking problems, and do not offer the full array of courses that MSU currently offers. It is just more convenient to take a different foreign language on campus. 9. Dean Ames wrote to John Austin,... there are 13 community colleges and 5 universities in the state of Michigan that offer signing courses that have already been approved for direct transfer in lieu of our courses. Transfer to MSU? a. Most ASL courses are offered at community colleges, which only offer 100 level and 200 level courses; MSU's ASL courses go up to 300 level and 400 level. b. MSU has no MACRAO agreements for ASL courses with LCC or any other institution. (See (NOTE: MACRAO stands for the Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. This organization is in charge of setting the rules in Michigan for agreements between colleges for the acceptance of courses taken at other MI institutions. Without a MACRAO agreement, the registrar will not count courses taken somewhere else. It is a HUGE problem to get a MACRAO agreement.) c. Could we please see the articulation agreements between MSU and the 18 other post-secondary institutions, being that we could find no MACRAO agreements? 10. Dean Ames wrote to John Ausin, None of the [MSU] ASL courses are taught by T/S faculty in the College of Education as the deaf education faculty members are only sufficiently proficient to teach the first course in the sequence, an introductory two-credit course. While we cannot address Dr. Johnson s and Dr. Pagliaro s proficiency in ASL, Dean Ames statement is clearly in error. Marta Belsky, M.A., who is Deaf, herself, is full-time College of Education faculty who teaches ASL full time and is qualified to teach every ASL course offered at MSU. See 1

2 II Dean Ames strongly implied in her letter to John Austin that technology (Cochlear Implants) is making the use of ASL in deaf education unnecessary. A. We already know this is Dean Ames position as the highest ranking official of the MSU College of Education. We believe the voters and taxpayers have a right to know exactly what the University s position on this is. 1. Is it the University position that all deaf babies and children should be implanted? 2. Is it also the University position that all implanted children should not or do not use sign language? 3. Dean Ames also stated, These [technological] changes enable these children to be mainstreamed in regular classes upon entering school. Is it the University s position that ONLY implanted deaf students can be mainstreamed upon entering school, and that ALL implanted deaf students actually are mainstreamed upon entering school? B. Even if every or most every D/deaf student is implanted, not all get sufficient benefit from technology to be able to give up sign language. Has any MSU administrator visited signing programs, including schools for the Deaf, in MI and other states as proof; and the number of Deaf with CIs who still need interpreters in the community and in post-secondary programs. C. Multiply disabled Deaf students almost always need ASL for instruction, in their families and in the community, even if they do have CIs. III Dean Ames initially stated that the need for deaf ed teachers can be met through the EMU program, and implied there will not be a need for bilingual deaf ed teachers. A. No one at MSU has ever acknowledged that by closing its deaf ed teacher training program, MSU is leaving an unmet need for Deaf students in Bilingual and other sign-based programs, without having first ensured that there is actually a viable program in place to meet this need. B. EMU had to send a letter to MSU correcting Dean Ames' statement, making clear that they cannot meet the needs of DHH students in Bilingual and other sign-based programs, and that there are students who need such teachers and are entitled to excellent teachers. C. MSU's bilingual track deaf ed program is the ONLY program in Michigan that trains teachers of the deaf to use ASL and to provide instruction based on ASL as the student's first language and language of instruction. If MSU eliminates the bilingual track of its deaf ed program, there will be NO teachers of the Deaf trained in this state who can teach in bilingual and other sign-based deaf education programs. It is not acceptable to say that MDE will take care of it, when we do not know if that is actually possible. D. Entities in and outside of MI are watching what is happening with the bilingual deaf ed program, which has been identified as one of the few bilingual deaf ed teacher training programs in the US. CAEBER (Center for ASL/English Bilingual Education and Research, Bilingual_Education_and_Research.html), CAID (Council of American Instructors of the Deaf) and other national organizations for and of DHH persons are watching this closely, urging that MSU retain the bilingual deaf ed teacher training program. D. The SBE sent letters to the BoT indicating that if MSU eliminates the bilingual track of its deaf ed program, that it will have a disproportionate negative impact on signing Deaf 2

3 students, who are some of the most vulnerable and under-served students in Michigan. E. We perceive this to be an issue of discrimination. F. What is MSU's position on turning its back on its history of serving signing DHH students and its moral obligation to continue to provide teachers to these students even if it is more costly than other programs? G. To save money, why isn't MSU closing other education programs that are duplicated in multiple institutions all over the state, such as elementary ed, English and Social Studies teaching programs? H. How costly is it to operate the deaf ed teacher training program, or at least the bilingual track, particularly in light of the grant funding that will be lost with the elimination of the program? (Reference grant info IV Dean Ames states that the need for bilingually trained deaf ed teachers can be met through the efforts of the Michigan Dept. of Education [MDE] to establish an on-line, graduate-level endorsement program for already certified teachers. (NOTE: In MI, teachers are first CERTIFIED in general ed as either elementary or secondary. (Exceptions are somehow made for teacher who are, themselves, DHH.) Secondary teachers can teach only in areas of major and minor and those in which they meet the No Child Left Behind Act requirements.) Elementary teachers can teach all subjects. Special ed teachers get an *endorsement* to teach in a specific disability category recognized by IDEA, such as Hearing Impaired [HI - which is MI's name for teachers of the DHH], Learning Disabled [LD], Visually Impaired [VI], etc. So someone who is a general ed teacher, or a special ed teacher endorsed to teach a category other than HI, can go back to school to get an endorsement in another category.) A. While the SBE directed MDE to investigate an alternative way to train bilingual track teachers for signing DHH students, MDE has NOT committed to an MA level on-line endorsement program for already certified teachers, or any other program. Why does Dean Ames speak for other institutions? EMU had to correct her. It is likely MDE will have to correct her, also. B. This does not meet the needs of students newly graduated from high school, who want to become teachers of signing DHH students. C. Getting an HI endorsement with the intention of teaching in a signing program cannot be one only on-line because of the need to have face-to-face, in-person interaction in ASL classes. How does MSU handle the ASL component of its current endorsement only program? D. Logically, it is unlikely that teachers who want to add an endorsement to their credentials will choose HI, when there are so many others to choose and NONE of the others require learning an foreign language, like a bilingual track HI program must require. E. It would be virtually impossible for MDE or any other entity to establish an on-line bilingual, track HI endorsement only program for already certified teachers, even if the ASL requirement is not on-line, because of the problem of getting MACRAO agreements. F. NOTHING that Dean Ames has proposed or pointed to is truly a viable answer to providing a viable alternative to MSU's bilingual track Deaf ed teacher training program. G. Logically, it is highly unlikely at best, that any other college will establish an ASL based, deaf ed teacher training program, given the current fiscal situation of this state. H. Even though the SBE directed MDE to develop alternatives if MSU will not keep the 3

4 program open, there is no guarantee that an alternative will be found, and given the facts, it is highly unlikely that there will be an alternative bilingual deaf ed teacher training program in MI. IV MSU appears to be fully committed to eliminating the bilingual track of its deaf ed teacher training program, in such a way that it could not easily be re-established even if the problem of funding is eliminated, and even if doing so has a disproportionate negative impact on signing DHH students, and is discriminatory. A. MSU is eliminating the undergraduate programs in audiology and SLP. Undergraduate coursework in these fields is required by the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education [MARSE] for HI endorsement. The Graduate programs are being retained. B. MSU is eliminating the highly popular and profitable ASL program, which is the underpinning of the bilingual track of the deaf ed program. C. The College of Education is not eliminating any general ed programs, even those that duplicate programs offered at other institutions. D. MSU's plan targets for elimination only those education and support programs that serve DHH students in general and signing Deaf students in particular. E. MSU's plan targets for elimination *every* component of the bilingual track deaf ed teacher training program, ensuring that it will not able to quickly or easily re-established. V. The reasons given for closing MSU's deaf ed teacher training program are either budgetary without any numbers provided, or based on support for CI and the auditory/oral philosophy of deaf education. We find this unethical and evincing deliberate indifference to the needs of signing Deaf, Deafblind, hard of hearing and multiply disabled deaf children. VI. MSU's position that teachers for ASL based deaf ed programs can be provided by other means in Michigan is false or so highly unlikely it can be considered false. Even if it were to be true, we believe that MSU has moral and ethical obligation to continue the bilingual concentration track of its deaf education teacher training program until a viable alternative is actually in place. VII. MSU's decision to close the ASL program, undergraduate audiology and SLP programs and the Deaf ed teacher training program evinces a design to ensure that the deaf ed program cannot be easily re-established. A. The Michigan Administrative Rules for special education require that teachers of the HI take audiology classes. B. The Michigan Administrative Rules for special education require that teachers of the HI take speech-language classes. C. Students cannot take graduate courses without first having satisfied undergrad requirements. D. We believe that MSU s pattern and practice of eliminating programs that serve DHH students is discriminatory as well as morally repugnant. Conclusion: In her letter to John Austin, Dean Ames stated, We eliminate endorsement areas based in large part because of declining enrollments related to the broader environment (e.g. incidence rates, 4

5 shortages). This confirms our observation that MSU has been engaging in a pattern and a practice to eliminate programs that serve students with low incidence disabilities. Prior to the current decision to eliminate the deaf ed teacher training program, CSD* undergrad program and ASL program, MSU already eliminated its Visually Impaired teacher training program, Orientation & Mobility Specialist program, and its Deafblind teacher endorsement program. Without ensuring that these programs are available elsewhere in Michigan, we find this abandonment of children who have low incidence disabilities to be morally repugnant and we are willing to make our position public. 5