TTMW Issue #68
Re: The Final Chapter While I do not know the full story behind Ryan's decision to trash the Michigan School for the Deaf, I would like to pitch in with a personal of Cece. I had the honor a few years ago to give a presentation to faculty and staff at the school per invitation from Cece. I was struck by the historic significance of the school as embodied by the beautiful buildings even though they were obviously in desperate need of some good samaritan to help renovate them. I also recall that some buildings were being loaned to outside interests. The city in which the school is situated was being overtaken by blight thanks to political decisions that had a painful impact on economic progress. However, despite all of this, Cece was just one unbelievable optimist. I pride myself as being an incorrigible optimist but when I spent a day walking around the school with this energetic, caring, unpretentious and dedicated administrator, I was left in awe. I have worked in schools for the deaf before and I know there are hearing administrators who have blown my mind by demonstrating a love, caring and devotion to the people they lead ( staff and students) that is way above the norm. Cece did not try to hide the fact that there were challenges she faced both in regards to the attitudes and dedication of some of her staff as well as the financial obstacles she faced thanks to the economic realities the state of Michigan had to deal with. Well, Cece persisted and I am in awe that the enrollment is now up to 120 when folks were giving her a cut off number of 70 at which the guillotine would descend on one of America's great academic institutions. The alumni of this school read like a Who's Who in deaf american legend and lore. I salute you Cece for ensuring that this school persists despite the incredible challenges. I salute you for defending your school with honor and pride. I believe in your leadership and your aspirations for the school. Don't you ever give up. Don't give up on the Tactile Mind either. While John Clark is committed to journalistic freedom and a need to engage our communities in dialogue, John Clark is one of the most fair, reasonable and passionate gentlemen I have had the honor of knowing. I believe we all should support this great journal even if we might disagree with what some contributors might say in their contributions to this publication. Do not let any one individual deny you and the Michigan School for the Deaf community the opportunity to engage in intellectual dialogue on a smorgasbord of issues, whether trivial, opinionated or simply garbage. American democracy basically suggests that it is all relative beccause every reader will interpret statements to suit our individual selves. For instance, I am a black deaf professional who just happens to think this hearing white lady is a fantastic human being fully qualified to lead MSD to its rightful place as one of the most respected schools for the deaf in this great nation. Someone probably disagrees just as Christopher Jon Heuer stated in his wonderful article. Ryan does not necessarily represent everything that John Clark intended for the Tactile Mind. He is simply an opinionated contributor and I personally believe that we deaf folks are intelligent enough to determine what is vicious diatribe and what is thought provoking journalism. Lindsay Moeletsi Dunn Mitchellville, MD * Re: The Final Chapter I question some of the views presented by Mrs. Winkler in her Final Chapter: Plucking MSD off the "vine" and breathing life into it? Her right hand person, a Parent-School Liaison, has been repeatedly credited for bringing the numbers up. What do the numbers tell us? How much of an increase has been brought about in the last 5-7 years? What are the actual statistics of students' literacy skills at MSD? And what about the SCPI scores of 95% of her staffing, mainly, the teachers? How many of them scored Superior or better? Along with the statistics, she can enlighten us with the information of who is certified to provide SCPI testing? "I began to review the ASL instructors and curriculum and follow up on those who did not attend classes as mandated by the SCPI policy." I was hired as an ASL instructor and I do not have ASLTA certification nor a degree in ASL studies. At the time when I worked at MSD, ASL was not even part of the curriculum so I do not know where this came from. She might have followed up on those who did not attend classes as mandated by the SCPI policy- this is like a parole officer looking around the town for delinquents but did she discipline them or even fire them because they have not met the mandates of the so-called SCPI policy? Can she even tell us what the SCPI policy entails? MSD does not need a Communication Specialist. They need an ASL Specialist. There was also mention of the hiring of "a person with a degree in social work heading [their] dorm." This person is hearing without any knowledge of Deaf Culture or ASL. They had a Deaf candidate, fluent in ASL, someone with a Masters degree and very knowledgeable of the Deaf Culture. I don't know what happened with that. The majority of stuff outlined are plans and theories. Putting them into action is a whole another story. But for once, you are right about one thing. I left MSD and disappointed many students. What you failed to do is to explain why I left. I taught Deaf Culture and worked as an ASL "therapist" (this is how the ASL sessions are scheduled, much like those of Speech therapy)... The reason why I left is because the students' current environment neutralizes everything we have discussed in the classroom in regards to Deaf Culture and ASL. The reason why I left is because you, Ceceila Winkler, failed to support the teachings that you hired me to do in the first place. Finally, the primary reason why I left is because I am human. A human being can only take so much negativity and hostility towards one's culture and language within one's "mini-world." The ongoing injustice at MSD towards Deaf staff and students got to the core of my heart so I felt that I could do more for the future of MSD by stepping out and make it a public awareness. For I, a filmmaker, understand and respect the power of media. Ryan Commerson * Re: MSD I am the parent of a child at the Michigan School for the Deaf. I've been watching this attack on the reputation of specific individuals and the school go on far too long now. To be honest, I'm shocked at the untrue and distorted images that are being portrayed of people who I know and have a great deal of respect for. I have fought far too many legitimate battles on my child's behalf and I am well aware of the problems facing deaf students. I did not make the decision to send my child to MSD lightly, and it was a fight to get him there. For this reason, when I see people who truly care and are committed to improving the quality of my child's education, I acknowledge it. There are many people, Deaf and Hearing, who tirelessly work to improve the education of deaf children in this state. Some make little or no money for their services. Some have dedicated their entire adult life for this cause. You won't see them spouting off on a forum such as this, as they're too busy doing the real work that has to be done to make effective and permanent changes for our children. Real advocates never forget the reason why they're doing what they're doing. They look at the outcome they desire and they find the most effective way to meet it. Ryan has a cause, yes, but is it the students at the Michigan School for the Deaf? Is it my child? I dare say, not. My child deserves better than this. It is for this reason I am unsubscribing to this list. It is with regret, as there are awesome writers here; thoughtful, creative, philosophical, spiritual thinkers. The kind of writing I love to read. The kind of writing that invites me to understand the world of Deaf people. However, their additions have been cheapened by the continual bullying that has been allowed to continue on this list. It is destructive to our children and I won't support it. Michigan School for the Deaf Parent * Re: The Final Chapter Let me quote the statement from the website at http://www.geocities.com/deaf_michigan : "Beth called a meeting, first with the hearing staff. The principal (C. Winkler), and Assistant Principal (D. Jackson) both attended this meeting. The meeting went on for a considerable amount of time. Immediately following that meeting, Beth met with the Deaf staff. Both Winkler and Jackson opted out of this meeting. The Deaf Staff meeting was considerably shorter, and Beth opened the meeting in "lecture mode." A lot of her comments came from what she learned from the previous group. Shortly after, some of the Deaf staff started to express their concerns. Beth quieted down and finally allowed the Deaf staff to share, although she did make it clear that she felt pressed for time. The meeting was stopped and the hearing staff were invited back into the room." Why Cece fails to tell us why Deaf voices have to be suppressed just because of time rather than considering how important their voices are. And Cece also fails to explain why bi-bi education, which is the center of the discussion, is not relevant to MSD. All she does is to be defensive by showing her accomplishments and criticizing Ryan's concerns. Just because she has done so much for MSD does not mean that she retains a right to decry any comments about MSD. She forgets an important point is that MSD is not her school, it's the community's school. Her position contradicts with MSD's motto which is clearly seen in their website, "The Heart of Michigan's Deaf Community." Ryan is a community member and Cece does not value but criticize his concerns. What kind of a principal is she? And what kind of a school is it when it deceives us into thinking that they care so much about the community? Cece departs the TTMW just because of one person is not a good sign for a principal. She does not consider the importance of exchanging information among Deaf people which is a good way for a principal to gain a better understanding of their issues concerning MSD. I think her motto is, "The Heart of Cece Winkler." I begin to be worried about all Deaf students who count on Cece for their future education. It will be a different story if Cece presents her rationale on her opposition to the Bi-Bi approach and reasons why she has not let Deaf people express their concerns in those meetings. Her honesty is what we need and she needs to be open to our concerns. But it has not happened, yet. I know Ryan Commerson well and he is not a person who likes to cause troubles, but a person whose passion is to advance the welfare of Deaf people. He sacrifices so much to remove as many obstacles as possible to allow Deaf people to be able to do what they want. We are fortunate to have him who will stand and fight for us. Putting an obstacle to his fight is disrespectful and oppressive. I challenge you to tell us why you oppose to the bi-bi approach and why you fail to counter the statement I quoted above. A community member from Massachusetts * Re: MSD I have been reading TTMW and thought that the readers might get lost in the midst of confusion so I developed a website that include everything that have been happening regarding Michigan School for the Deaf. Address: www.geocities.com/deaf_michigan Deaf Michiganders * Re: MSD I hope that Tiger Lily, and any others who believe her statements to be accurate, goes back and re-reads my original letter to TMW. Nowhere in the letter did I say Michigan was a very diseased state, nor would I ever say such a thing, as I do not believe this to be the case. Please, do not put words on my hands and/or in my mouth. Thank you very much. Regarding the controversy about MSD, I was asked how I know that statements were taken out of context. My answer: LOGIC! Having met Ms. Steenwyk, myself, I find it inconsistent with her character that she has been arrogant and repeatedly refused to have meetings with personnel. Logic also dictates that the statements which are attributed to her are able to be reported because she made statements in a meeting or meetings. Logic tells me that she did not make the alleged statements in a vacuum, to no one in particular, merely walking down the halls and for no reason whatsoever, suddenly announcing, "Bi-Bi will never happen here at MSD." I likewise cannot imagine Cece Winkler walking down the halls, talking to herself out loud and saying that she can't push for Bi-Bi to be adopted at MSD because she'll get fired if she does. If in fact, those two women were walking anywhere in public talking to themselves, believe me, I will be first in line to ask for their ouster. Logic clearly dictates that in order for some individuals to claim knowledge of the words, attitudes and actions of these women, and to be highly irate about them, some meetings must have taken place, where these ideas were discussed, producing the alleged statements. I can imagine a scenario where Beth Steenwyk, after several angry and unproductive meetings, finally said, "We are not getting anywhere. We are beating a dead horse. No more meetings." I cannot imagine Ms. Steenwyk, an experienced and high level administrator, refusing to ever meet to discuss issues of concern. That is just not logical. The bottom line is that we do not know what was said or done to prompt the reported statements, or what Ms. Steenwyk and Ms. Winkler said before and after their reported statements. That is why I conclude that the statements were taken out of context. We have some individual perspectives about what was said and how things were said, without knowing the context in which these things were said, without knowing what else was said, or what others said. The fact is that we will never know those things. For that matter, aside from what Ms. Steenwyk submitted here, herself, we do not really know if the statements that were attributed to them are actually and exactly what they, themselves, did say. The issue of adopting a Bi-Bi philosophy of education at MSD is clearly a thorny issue. However, we do not know what Beth Steenwyk's understanding of the Bi-Bi philosophy is. We do not know what ANYONE's understanding of Bi-Bi is. We talk about "Bi-Bi" as if we all know exactly what it is that we are discussing, when I'd bet that there is a great deal of difference in our individual understanding of this term. We also do not know how the Bi-Bi issue was raised at MSD, who raised it, why it was raised, or if literature about Bi-Bi was distributed and administration was asked to consider implementing this philosophy. We do not know of a blanket demand for Bi-Bi was presented, or if a request for a committee to study the matter was made. Perhaps most importantly, we do not know if there was any attempt to reach a common understanding about what the Bi-Bi philosophy involves, or if so, if Bi-Bi can accommodate students who have cochlear implants. Remember, Michigan is heavily steeped in Oralism. We here in Michigan cannot escape its legacy. Parents still want their children to use their residual hearing, use speech and lip-read. Cochlear implants are here to stay, even in states that do not have Michigan's history of oral domination or a leading cochlear implant center like the University of Michigan Hospital. Gallaudet has acknowledged this reality by establishing its Cochlear Implant Education Center ( http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/CIEC/index.html ). NAD has also acknowledged it in its Position Statement on Cochlear Implants ( http://www.nad.org/infocenter/newsroom/positions/ CochlearImplants.html ). Personally, I am not pro-CI, but I am realistic, and MSD must be, as well. Whatever philosophy of education is implemented at MSD, there must be a place for students who use CIs or who otherwise use speech and/or residual hearing. The philosophy of education and its implementation must support ALL the MSD students, and not reject those whose parents have chosen usage of speech and hearing for them, in addition to sign. We would be foolish to forget that parents have the right to choose their children's mode of communication, and have a great deal of influence over how their children are educated. That was a hard-won right that should never be weakened. This may disturb those of us who are strongly culturally Deaf. We should not forget, then, that it cuts both ways. If we Deaf claim a right to tell hearing parents what's the best for their D/deaf children, that means they may claim a right to tell us, the Deaf, whats the best for our hearing children. Do we really want that? Do we want the hearing population to tell us how to raise our hearing children? So, If Bi-Bi is presented as a philosophy of education that reject students who have CIs, who speak, or who use their residual hearing, I can fully imagine that Bi-Bi will never happen at MSD or at most places. Perhaps a valuable starting point would be to explore our understanding of what Bi-Bi is and if it has the capacity to evolve to meet changing needs. As for the wholesale criticism of the top two MSD administrators, both of whom I have personally met, I will not castigate either of these women without hard and compelling evidence to justify it. So far, I have not seen any. Not wanting to close MSD is far from the only positive things these administrators have accomplished. They have accomplished a substantial increase of MSD's enrollment, reversing a long downward trend; they re-opened and filled the school psychologist position that had been empty for over a decade; they have put an end to the parents' annual battle to obtain ASL classes; they have created and filled a new position of mental health specialist. The newly hired psychologist is a CODA and a fluent ASL user; the new mental health specialist is Deaf. Students now no longer can leave their classrooms just because they feel like it; discipline and order has been restored. Beth Steenwyk undertook enormous curriculum changes and development that resulted in a top-notch curriculum that is actually used. She also succeeded in having MSD's operational policies re-vamped. Perhaps one of the reasons why I take the time and make such an effort to address this issue is because Beth Steenwyk also does not trample on peoples constitutional rights like her predecessors did. Her immediate predecessor, Michael Williamson, not only made it clear that MSD should be closed, he issued a policy directive that on campus, parents could only speak to their own child -- not to any other children. He declared that MSD was NOT a school - only a program. Among other things, this meant that MSD personnel could not conduct IEP meetings. He supported a policy that MSD would have to send a written report to local districts, with no copy to the parents, about any parents who came to tour MSD. He sent reports to the State Board of Education that spoke of children who are "afflicted" with deafness, and how technological advances would soon make sign language and MSD obsolete. He criticized MSD for not doing outreach, yet provided no budget for it to do any. Where was the Deaf Community's outrage when this was happening? And where was the Deaf Community's outrage when former Governor Engler removed MSD from the state budget? Where was the Deaf Community when Alex Davlantes, Cece Winkler's immediate predecessor, sat back and let MSD be hijacked by Williamson, Engler and the former state superintendent, Arthur Ellis? And where is the Deaf Community now, when the new governor and the legislature needs to be convinced to re-instate MSD in the state budget? My mother, who is an advocate for many D/deaf children, told me that Beth Steenwyk actually attends IEP meetings that may be problematic for MSD students and their parents. She is the second from the top administrator in special ed in Michigan, but she is not too arrogant to sit down with the regular people at an IEP meeting and defend the children who need it! Executive director of MSD is only half of Beth Steenwyk's job. To list all of her duties would be impossible. The idea that she merely keeps MSD open so she has a job, is laughable. She puts in hours of unpaid overtime. I dare you all to name any other state-level administrator who has done that for us. Now, I concur completely with the sentiment that when there are problems, we should take action to resolve them. I wholeheartedly encourage people to do that in a constructive manner. I do not suggest that we stand around and wait -- far from it. What I think needs to be done is for us to determine the facts, then establish a course of action in a methodical manner, based on the facts. First, I think we need to become more aware of how the system works at MSD, and work with the system to change the policies to ensure that only incompetent people are hired. That does not mean hiring only those who agree with your philosophies. That means hiring the most qualified, knowledgeable, and capable people possible. If you only hire people who agree with your philosophies, it will soon become clear to one and all that the good of the children is not on your agenda. Second, find out what has to be done to reinstate MSD in the state budget, and then do it! Third, to deal with any persons at MSD who have inadequate sign skills, lobby to establish policies that require all personnel to take a sign test, and if they do not meet a certain threshold, that require them to take sign language classes and attend workshops. Now, I believe this is a good time to end this discussion. Lets allow TMW to return to what its supposed to be. A e-zine about Deaf art... not politics. Jeannette Johnson
Home...
Next...
