Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DHH Enrollment Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, teachers and a student urge MMSD to exempt deaf student from open‑enrollment limits
Summary
Multiple teachers, interpreters, parents and the student Lily urged the board to allow an exception so she can remain in MMSD’s DHH center‑based program after a nearby move placed her in another district; speakers cited 9 years of continuity, academic gains and lack of equivalent services in Middleton.
At Tuesday’s Madison Metropolitan School District board meeting, parents, teachers and the student at the center of the dispute urged the board to make an exception to a recently adopted open‑enrollment allocation that prevents center‑based DHH programs from accepting out‑of‑district enrollments.
Multiple witnesses described the student—Lily—as a long‑standing member of MMSD’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) cohort who has made measurable academic progress and relies on the district’s language‑rich peer environment. Naomi Dubin, a teacher of the deaf at Senate and La Follette, said Lily’s Lehi score rose 155 points and she exceeded expected I‑Ready growth, and that intensive bilingual ASL/English instruction and daily incidental language contacts are central to Lily’s progress.
Lily, speaking for herself, told the board there are no interpreters or teachers of the deaf in the Middleton Cross Plains School District and pleaded, "Madison, please let me stay."
Parents described a move forced by mold and short‑term housing issues that left them 0.3 miles away but technically in another district, and they said reassigning Lily to Middleton would remove her from a unique peer group and immersive ASL environment. Parents and interpreters argued that Middleton may offer interpreters but cannot replicate the dense language environment Lily currently has with multiple peers and staff who know ASL.
Board members did not immediately vote on an exception during the meeting; speakers asked the administration for compassion and a process to consider individual cases within the constraints of the district's open‑enrollment policy. District staff previously adopted a protective policy in January to safeguard program staff and resources; commenters said an exemption for this child would not change the district's staffing allocations.
The board heard repeated requests to review Lily’s case as an exception that preserves her current program placement while maintaining protections the January policy sought to create for DHH staff stability.
