Possible Changes to MSSD

On September 27, 2011, President Hurwitz released a memo to the Gallaudet community, regarding possible changes to the Gallaudet campus, including the including the Model Secondary School for the Deaf [MSSD], and today, it hit the Deaf Community at large. (Note: The memo has now been removed from the Gallaudet website).

Regarding the possible changes for MSSD, the memo states:

Forge new partnerships to advance the university by working with the District to create a “MSSD/Bilingual High School” composed of deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students in the current location of the Hamilton School of the D.C. Public Schools district. The Model Secondary School for the Deaf (MSSD) would relocate to this space and its current structure would be replaced by a large park on the northern end of the campus with sports fields and other recreation areas. These areas would primarily serve the proposed MSSD/Bilingual High School, but would also be open to the surrounding community, thus creating an enduring tie to a community currently without open spaces of any kind. Such a park would give the community what it has never had-an open space for park land for the Ivy City and Trinidad communities.

(NOTE: As with all of these ideas, there is considerable discussion needed before we move to initiate these changes. For example, there are mandates in the Education of the Deaf Act that control MSSD, and the program operates under the constant oversight of the U.S. Department of Education. We would, of course, not take any action without involving all needed parties-including our campus communities-regarding each recommendation.)

While I appreciate their caveat in the memo, I wish more details were given regarding this specific proposal. I would like to know what exactly they have in mind when they mean a MSSD/Bilingual High School composed of deaf, hard of hearing and hearing students. At the very least, what would be the proposed ratio of deaf and hearing students?

I fully support the bi-bi philosophy, and to a degree, mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is appropriate for some deaf students, but not for the majority. And this proposal, as brief as it is, gives the impression that this will really be more of a mainstreaming program. If there was a critical mass of deaf and hard of hearing students in a mainstream program – at least 100 deaf students – I do see the potential for success. The pool of students would be large enough for full immersion in American Sign Language and the ability to navigate both hearing and deaf cultures would be easier than it would be in most mainstream programs.

However, given the fact that more and more state schools of the deaf are shuttering their doors due to financial problems and declining enrollment, would it not be worth looking at the possibility that at least some of the former students of closing state schools of the deaf, would then transfer to MSSD? There will always be a need for a residential program, regardless of the fact that the majority of deaf children today are implanted with cochlear implants. No matter how much the CI proponents argue, it is a fact that the success of cochlear implants are not absolute.

Since there will always be a need for residential programs, this memo raises numerous questions for me – and the first and foremost question is: should not MSSD continue to be the model of what residential schools for the deaf, per its tradition?

It’s also important to note that In general education, we have a wide variety of educational approaches to instruct hearing students – such as public magnet schools and charter schools. But the variety isn’t replicated in deaf education. It’s generally 3 choices: AVT/LSL programs, Sim-Com programs (which often are also mainstream programs), and residential schools. But people seem to be determined to eliminate residential schools for the deaf, and narrow down the range of choices for parents and their deaf children. Which brings me to my next question…

Why is that? One size does not fit all, and this is recognized in general education, but not in deaf education. And I again have to ask, why is that?

This was originally posted on The Deaf Edge.