Talk about AUDIST!

[shel90]

http://thedeafedge.org/2012/01/deaf-not-allowed-to-teach/

I recently received an email from a woman named Kelly Laatsch. A friend had referred her to me, asking that I support her in her civil rights issue. Her story is quite astounding, and so I am going to share her story here, in her own words.

—-

Hello,

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 two of sixteen weeks of student teaching. In preparation for this, I requested an interpreter months ago; however, Karen Edwards, Director of Student Teaching 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 is a statement that Dr. Edwards pointed out in the Technical Standards that states that I must “understand and speak in English.” Dr. Edwards 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 can only use an interpreter half time, then for the rest of the semester I need to show that I can teach 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

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); however, so far it does not look good. It appears to me they feel the Michigan Department of Education Technical Standards (policies) trumps the laws that entitle me an interpreter without consequences.

Obviously, this is a time-sensitive matter because I am now student teaching. For the next two weeks I am “encouraged” to only have an interpreter with me half of the time. Then in two weeks I am “encouraged” to not have an interpreter or I may not pass because of my use of an interpreter.

—-

Ms. Laatsch, in the close of her email to me, asked for letters of support for her, to the CMU administrators and enclosed their information. So, please feel free to contact these individuals and let them know how you feel about this. Remember, please do try to keep it civil in your emails!

Even with CIs, deaf people are still being discriminated.

 

[Grummer]

shitty

 

[Grummer]

i, myself got another case pending soon...

 

[Nanelle]

I don't really know much about this stuff when it comes to the law or school policy, but when push comes to shove, is this not a case of being denied a necessary resource? Teachers will require all kinds of things to be able to do their job, and it will be different for each person. To say that she could be failed because she requires an interpreter is ridiculous- they wouldn't fail another student teacher because they ask for, say, a wheelchair ramp into the classroom or something like that. Would they expect that person to "wean" themselves off of using their required resource? I hope this works out for Kelly, this is absolutely wrong in my opinion

 

[Audiofuzzy]

There is a statement that Dr. Edwards pointed out in the Technical Standards that states that I must “understand and speak in English.”

whoaaa.. what the hell does that mean?!
like, a deaf person who uses ASL does not speak and understand English???????

you are right, this is major shitpile.

I think it should go as deep as freedom of expression, apart from discrimination against disabled.

Fuzzy

 

[Speedy Hawk]

That just wrong!

 

[Frisky Feline]

oh god. don't the mich univ have disability office where they can help?

 

[dogmom]

that really sucks!

 

[Journey]

I have hesitated to comment on this - the last thing I want to do is be called the "a" word. However, I am here to share and learn and I do have questions about this particular situation so I am going to dive in hoping someone is willing to discuss this with me.

What I am reading here is that the Edwards and Roods state that in order for Laatsch to obtain her teaching certification she must prove that she can fulfill her student teaching practicum requirement without the use of an interpreter. This is being seen as discriminatory. Laatsch herself states that "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." So, if she cannot effectively communicate during her student teaching practicum without an interpreter, how will she be able to communicate in a future teaching position without an interpreter? This is what Edwards and Rood are trying to establish - can she be an effective teacher in a classroom without the use of an interpreter (as interpreters cannot be provided for her by school boards if or when she becomes a teacher).

This is where it gets frustrating for Laatsch. From what I have read, she has planned to receive her elementary teaching certification and then pursue a career in deaf education. If this stage of the process was about teaching within the parameters of deaf education, she would have no problem. However, if this certification will entitle her to teach in a hearing classroom, the problem of using an interpreter during her practicum is an issue.

So, is this situation audist? If I, as a teacher, wanted to teach in a school for the deaf but could not communicate effectively with my ASL and needed an interpreter to fulfill my student teaching requirements, would I be eligible to receive my teaching certification?

I know I am stepping out on a limb here by expressing my own thoughts on this "audism" situation but I only do so to try and obtain some understanding about why the "no interpeter" requirement in this particular situation is considered unfair or discriminatory.

 

[purplewowies]

My Deaf teacher in HS had a classroom assistant who was also an interpreter.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

What I am reading here is that the Edwards and Roods state that in order for Laatsch to obtain her teaching certification she must prove that she can fulfill her student teaching practicum requirement without the use of an interpreter.

You know, I understand your logic - and no, I don't think that by asking that you are audist. You are just trying to explain their pov.

I however have my question first as I don't know.

Is it mandatory for a teacher to teach without an interpreter in the first place?

For example, does the lawyer for the hearing must communicate without interpreter? if no, then why would we expect the same from a teacher?

Fuzzy

 

[Journey]

You know, I understand your logic - and no, I don't think that by asking that you are audist. You are just trying to explain their pov.

I however have my question first as I don't know.

Is it mandatory for a teacher to teach without an interpreter in the first place?

For example, does the lawyer for the hearing must communicate without interpreter? if no, then why would we expect the same from a teacher?

Fuzzy

I can't answer your question definitively - not sure if it is mandated or not or if that would vary from state to state or country to country. However, I am gathering that Edwards and Rood are following their school's mandates/guidelines - via the statement that, in order to be certified as teacher, one must “understand and speak in English.” Also, my perspective at this point is including future budgetary constraints. Who would pay for a full-time interpreter for a teacher (unlike a lawyer in a hearing, a teacher would require an interpreter every day for the duration of the school day) if it was necessary for her to do her job effectively?

 

[Journey]

My Deaf teacher in HS had a classroom assistant who was also an interpreter.

Thanks for sharing that information purplewowies . What subjects did this teacher teach? Was the assistant there strictly as an intepreter for the teacher or did he/she do other duties as well?

 

[shel90]

I have hesitated to comment on this - the last thing I want to do is be called the "a" word. However, I am here to share and learn and I do have questions about this particular situation so I am going to dive in hoping someone is willing to discuss this with me.

What I am reading here is that the Edwards and Roods state that in order for Laatsch to obtain her teaching certification she must prove that she can fulfill her student teaching practicum requirement without the use of an interpreter. This is being seen as discriminatory. Laatsch herself states that "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." So, if she cannot effectively communicate during her student teaching practicum without an interpreter, how will she be able to communicate in a future teaching position without an interpreter? This is what Edwards and Rood are trying to establish - can she be an effective teacher in a classroom without the use of an interpreter (as interpreters cannot be provided for her by school boards if or when she becomes a teacher).

This is where it gets frustrating for Laatsch. From what I have read, she has planned to receive her elementary teaching certification and then pursue a career in deaf education. If this stage of the process was about teaching within the parameters of deaf education, she would have no problem. However, if this certification will entitle her to teach in a hearing classroom, the problem of using an interpreter during her practicum is an issue.

So, is this situation audist? If I, as a teacher, wanted to teach in a school for the deaf but could not communicate effectively with my ASL and needed an interpreter to fulfill my student teaching requirements, would I be eligible to receive my teaching certification?

I know I am stepping out on a limb here by expressing my own thoughts on this "audism" situation but I only do so to try and obtain some understanding about why the "no interpeter" requirement in this particular situation is considered unfair or discriminatory.

I did my teaching practicums in hearing classes and was able to receive my BA degree. Undergrad education majors at Gallaudet University do their student teaching internships at hearing schools. They did fine with interpreters.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

via the statement that, in order to be certified as teacher, one must “understand and speak in English.”

And does that person fulfill this criteria also?

Also, my perspective at this point is including future budgetary constraints.

But if the school/workplace is accepting disabled student or employee,
isn't the school by law required to provide assistance? and who's paying for assistance in such case- the state or the school?
is that Edwards and Roods problem, though?

Who would pay for a full-time interpreter for a teacher (unlike a lawyer in a hearing, a teacher would require an interpreter every day for the duration of the school day) if it was necessary for her to do her job effectively?

again, is that Edwards and Roods problem?

Fuzzy

 

[Journey]

I did my teaching practicums in hearing classes and was able to receive my BA degree. Undergrad education majors at Gallaudet University do their student teaching internships at hearing schools. They did fine with interpreters.

Thanks Shel. I am trying to learn here so please bear with me . Here teachers are only certified if they receive a B.Ed degree, not a BA or B.Sc. B.Ed certifies you to teach all subjects at the elementary level, does a BA or B.Sc do the same? Also do some of the education majors who used interpreters during their practicums go on to teach in hearing schools?

 

[Journey]

And does that person fulfill this criteria also?
If by "that person" you are referring to is Laascht, then I think this is what they are trying to ascertain - can Laascht communicate with her students, parents and other teachers without the use of an interpreter.

But if the school/workplace is accepting disabled student or employee,
isn't the school by law required to provide assistance? Yes, a student must have the proper provisions provided. However, a workplace is slightly different. They will hire only those they feel can either do the job in the environment already established or will hire based on their own ability (physical and financial) to adjust the environment to fit the employee and who's paying for assistance in such case- the state or the school? I don't know
is that Edwards and Roods problem, though?again, is that Edwards and Roods problem?Their problem is assuring that the teachers they certify are employable. This is where I have the majority of my lack of understanding. If a teacher is certified but cannot communicate fully without the use of an interpreter, are there opportunities for them to gain employment in hearing elementary schools (ie: can they continue on with their teaching with the use of a fulltime interpreter)? If so, is the interpreter funded by the teacher (improbable based on teachers wages), the school, the state, or ...?
Fuzzy

I am looking to gain some deeper understanding of the situation from both perspectives.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

I am looking to gain some deeper understanding of the situation from both perspectives.

I would very much appreciate if you share your findings with us.

Perhaps ADA will be of help.



Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

If by "that person" you are referring to is Laascht, then I think this is what they are trying to ascertain - can Laascht communicate with her students, parents and other teachers without the use of an interpreter.

Is it the responsibility of E and R though to ascertain that?
or should they concentrate on to do only what they are supposed to do - to train Laascht as a future teacher? what are they paid for to do?

In the end, what they are trying to ascertain -
1.that she speak and understand English,
or
2.that can communicate with her students, parents and other teachers without the use of an interpreter?

which one is it, and which they CAN require?
(if either at all)

Yes, a student must have the proper provisions provided. However, a workplace is slightly different. They will hire only those they feel can either do the job in the environment already established or will hire based on their own ability (physical and financial) to adjust the environment to fit the employee and who's paying for assistance in such case- the state or the school? I don't know

1. So, why don't you just provide what you need to provide?

2. You don't know, yet you are already deciding against that person.
How's the future workplace Edwards and Roods problem, again ?
Do you think a future employer is incapable of making a sane decision?

Their problem is assuring that the teachers they certify are employable.

Then they should make sure that their students have the best academic and moral qualifications possible.
Let their future employers worry if they want to hire a deaf teacher who require an interpreter, okay?.

This is where I have the majority of my lack of understanding. If a teacher is certified but cannot communicate fully without the use of an interpreter, are there opportunities for them to gain employment in hearing elementary schools (ie: can they continue on with their teaching with the use of a fulltime interpreter)?

Yes they do, because the disability laws help with assisting such individuals,
so the job of E and R is to train teachers not to pass judgements.

If so, is the interpreter funded by the teacher (improbable based on teachers wages),

that's not your business.

but, just for the heck of it - maybe she'll find a millionaire and open her own school.

If a deaf or HoH individual wants to become a teacher,
who are you to judge whether or not he/ she can afford the FUTURE interpreter services?

Don't you think what Edwards and Roods are doing infringe on the civil rights of deaf and HoH individuals granted in Constitution?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

You are preventing this lady from becoming a valuable and fully functional member of society the way she wants to be
by denying her an interpreter which she is perfectly allowed and granted by law.

Also
See here:
Dr. Angela Earhart
Association of Medical Professional with Hearing Losses (AMPHL)
Changing the Face of Medicine | Dr. Judith Ann Pachciarz

and learn.
It is E and R who make others like her DISabled.
If not for Edwards and Roods, she would have no problem becoming a teacher and have a salaried job.

btw
New federal legislation prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities (section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)


Let this woman have her interpreter and her teacher degree in peace.
It's her right.

Fuzzy

 

[Journey]

I found some info relating to my questions on the OCCinfo website (Alberta Occupational Profiles).

"In school settings, sign language interpreters may interpret:

• for hearing or deaf teachers and with hearing or deaf students in classrooms and labs
• during parent-teacher interviews
• at tutorial sessions
• in other situations (for example, when deaf students or deaf parents wish to use support services, participate in extra-curricular activities or attend school meetings)."

"Depending on their qualifications to practice, interpreters may be employed by interpreter referral services or agencies, or as independent contractors to interpret in medical, lega, conference, education, corporate or theatrical performance settings."

"Sign language interpreters may be employed by institutions or interpreter referral agencies or work as independent contractors. Interpreters in educational settings may work in public or private elementary or secondary schools, post-secondary institutions or schools for the deaf."

Granted this information is specifically geared towards interpreters and my province but I think it would be safe to assume that, given this, a teacher would be able to complete their practicum with an interpreter and receive full credit (then again, I well-know what happens when we assume :-/ ).

Ok so now I am back to being unclear as to why Laascht is being encouraged to 'wean' off an interpreter - other than the possibility that their state does not allow (or pay for) interpreters for deaf teachers in hearing schools?

Sidenote: things like this just seems to prove my belief about learning anything in life ... the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. :-/