‘They can’t write; they don’t know sign’: Memphis parents say district is leaving deaf students behind – Chalkbeat

Report on Educational Disparities for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in Memphis-Shelby County Schools

Introduction: Aligning Local Education with Global Goals

An investigation into the educational provisions for deaf and hard of hearing students within Memphis-Shelby County Schools (MSCS) reveals significant challenges that impede the district’s alignment with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Concerns raised by parents and community members highlight systemic gaps that directly impact SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The failure to provide adequate resources, particularly full-time American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and fluent educators, creates barriers to inclusive and equitable education for a vulnerable student population.

Key Findings and Challenges to SDG 4: Quality Education

Approximately 100 students are enrolled in specialized deaf and hard of hearing programs across four designated MSCS institutions: Sea Isle Elementary, White Station Elementary, White Station Middle, and White Station High. However, parental testimony indicates that the resources provided are insufficient to guarantee an effective and inclusive learning environment as stipulated by SDG Target 4.5, which calls for equal access to education for persons with disabilities.

• Personnel Deficiencies: A primary concern is the absence of full-time ASL interpreters and teachers fluent in ASL at key schools like Sea Isle Elementary. This directly contravenes the principles of providing a quality education, as ASL fluency is a demonstrated predictor of academic and social-emotional success for deaf students.
• Inadequate Facilities and Materials: Parents report a lack of facilities equipped with necessary visual cues and closed captions, and insufficient district oversight on academic materials. This fails to meet the standards of SDG Target 4.a, which advocates for disability-sensitive educational facilities and learning environments.
• Funding and Oversight: While MSCS reports a stable annual investment of approximately $1.6 million in deaf education services, the district does not track spending at the individual school level. This lack of granular data hinders accountability and the effective allocation of resources needed to achieve equitable educational outcomes.

Implications for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The reported shortcomings in the MSCS deaf education program perpetuate and exacerbate existing inequalities. National data shows that deaf and hard of hearing students graduate high school at lower rates than their hearing peers, a clear indicator of systemic inequality that SDG 10 aims to eliminate.

1. Barriers to Communication and Learning: Without consistent access to fluent ASL, students are unable to fully participate in classroom instruction, leading to deficits in literacy and communication skills. This creates a significant disparity in educational opportunity and outcomes.
2. Erosion of Cultural Inclusion: The lack of deaf and ASL-fluent educators denies students crucial exposure to deaf culture, further isolating them and undermining the goal of social inclusion promoted under SDG 10.
3. Systemic Hiring Challenges: MSCS cites a nationwide shortage of certified ASL interpreters, attributing it to barriers in certification, low pay, and burnout. While a national issue, this points to a systemic failure to build and support the professional infrastructure required to ensure equal opportunities for all students.

Conclusion and Path Forward: Strengthening Institutional Commitment to the SDGs

The district’s failure to provide comprehensive data on the number of deaf and hard of hearing teachers or the deployment of its five ASL interpreters raises questions of institutional transparency and accountability, a core tenet of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). An upcoming community meeting at White Station High School presents a critical opportunity for MSCS to address these concerns and develop a strategic plan that aligns with its commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. To move forward, the district must seek growth opportunities that prioritize the rights and educational success of its deaf and hard of hearing students, thereby ensuring that no child is left behind in the pursuit of quality, equitable, and inclusive education.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 4: Quality Education: The central theme of the article is the lack of adequate educational resources for deaf and hard of hearing students in Memphis-Shelby County Schools. It discusses issues like the shortage of qualified interpreters and teachers, insufficient funding, and the direct impact on student learning outcomes, which are all core components of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights the disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes between deaf or hard of hearing students and their hearing peers. By focusing on a vulnerable group (persons with disabilities) that is being underserved by the educational system, the article directly addresses the goal of reducing inequalities within and among countries. The text explicitly states that nationwide, these students “graduate from high school at a lower rate than their hearing peers,” which is a clear inequality of outcome.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, several specific targets under SDG 4 and SDG 10 can be identified:

   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
     • Connection: The article points to a failure in achieving “effective learning outcomes” for deaf students, with a parent stating, “They can’t write; they don’t know sign.” It also mentions that deaf students nationwide have lower high school graduation rates, which relates directly to the completion of secondary education.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities…
     • Connection: This target is directly relevant as the entire article focuses on the struggle to provide “equal access” to quality education for students with disabilities (deaf and hard of hearing). The parents’ complaints are centered on the lack of resources that prevents their children from having the same educational opportunities as others.
   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
     • Connection: A parent is quoted saying the schools “don’t have functional, equally equipped facilities for visual queues and closed captions.” This statement directly addresses the need for disability-sensitive education facilities.
   • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers…
     • Connection: The article highlights a critical shortage of qualified personnel, stating there are “no full-time interpreters or teachers fluent in American Sign Language on staff” at Sea Isle Elementary. It also mentions a “nationwide shortage of ASL interpreters,” which directly relates to the goal of increasing the supply of qualified teachers and educational support staff.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…
     • Connection: The article discusses the “inequalities of outcome” by citing national data showing that deaf students “graduate from high school at a lower rate than their hearing peers.” The parents’ advocacy for better resources is a push to ensure their children have an “equal opportunity” to succeed academically.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • Indicator for Target 4.1 (Learning Outcomes): The parent’s comment that students “can’t write; they don’t know sign” implies that proficiency levels in literacy and American Sign Language (ASL) are key indicators of learning outcomes for this student population.
   • Indicator for Target 4.1 (Completion Rate): The article explicitly mentions that “students who are deaf or hard of hearing graduate from high school at a lower rate than their hearing peers.” This graduation rate is a direct indicator for measuring the completion of secondary education.
   • Indicator for Target 4.a (Adapted Facilities): The complaint about schools not having “functionally, equally equipped facilities for visual queues and closed captions” implies that the proportion of schools with adapted infrastructure for students with disabilities is a measurable indicator.
   • Indicator for Target 4.c (Qualified Teachers/Interpreters): The article provides specific numbers, stating the district has only “five ASL interpreters” and that a specific school has “no full-time interpreters or teachers fluent in American Sign Language.” The number and proportion of qualified, certified ASL interpreters and ASL-fluent teachers per student would be a direct indicator of progress.
   • Indicator for Target 10.3 (Inequality of Outcome): The disparity in high school graduation rates between deaf and hearing students serves as a powerful indicator for measuring inequalities of outcome in the education system.

Summary of Findings

Source: chalkbeat.org