Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977
Comprehensive Study
of Deaf Education in Utah
Comprehensive Study
of Deaf Education in Utah
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Published in 2012
Updated in 2024
Published in 2012
Updated in 2024
Author's Note
As a parent of two Deaf children, my passion for deaf education comes from my personal journey. My father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, also sparked my interest and shared with me the history of deaf education in Utah, including its oral and mainstreaming impact. This inspired me to meticulously document the controversial events of that era. My studies at the Gallaudet School Social Work Program further deepened my understanding of the complexities of education, legislation, and policy. Moreover, my role on the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind has empowered me to advocate for my children and others in Utah who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled.
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind is a state school that promotes inclusivity by serving a diverse student population of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, Low Vision, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled individuals. When we discuss deaf education, we will primarily refer to the 'Utah School for the Deaf.' On the other hand, when we talk about the entire state school, we will use the term "Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind."
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Utah School for the Deaf underwent significant changes. The dual-track program and the two-track program, divided into an oral department and a sign language department, significantly impacted the lives of Deaf students and their families. To avoid confusion, we refer to the "dual-track program" from the 1960s and the "two-track program" from the 1970s on our education webpages. These programs will help us understand how these changes have affected students, teachers, administrators, and the Utah Association for the Deaf.
The "Deaf Education in Utah" webpages contain repetitive and overlapping sections similar to those on other education webpages. Also, the introductions to each similar section are concise, and we will get to the point regarding the webpage topic.
When writing about individuals for our history website, I choose to use their first name to acknowledge all individuals who contribute to and advocate for our community's causes. Our patriarchal culture often expects to recognize women's advocacy, contributions, and achievements using their husbands' last names instead of their own. However, in the spirit of inclusivity, equality, and recognizing each individual's unique identity, I have decided to use their first names throughout the website. This decision reaffirms our commitment to these values and highlights the significant role of women's advocacy in our community.
Our organization, previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, changed its name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. The association was known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962. The association changed its name to the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963. Finally, in 2012, the association reverted to its previous name, the Utah Association of the Deaf. When writing the history website, I use both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of the association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and their history in Utah.
Enjoy!
Jodi Becker Kinner
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind is a state school that promotes inclusivity by serving a diverse student population of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, Low Vision, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled individuals. When we discuss deaf education, we will primarily refer to the 'Utah School for the Deaf.' On the other hand, when we talk about the entire state school, we will use the term "Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind."
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Utah School for the Deaf underwent significant changes. The dual-track program and the two-track program, divided into an oral department and a sign language department, significantly impacted the lives of Deaf students and their families. To avoid confusion, we refer to the "dual-track program" from the 1960s and the "two-track program" from the 1970s on our education webpages. These programs will help us understand how these changes have affected students, teachers, administrators, and the Utah Association for the Deaf.
The "Deaf Education in Utah" webpages contain repetitive and overlapping sections similar to those on other education webpages. Also, the introductions to each similar section are concise, and we will get to the point regarding the webpage topic.
When writing about individuals for our history website, I choose to use their first name to acknowledge all individuals who contribute to and advocate for our community's causes. Our patriarchal culture often expects to recognize women's advocacy, contributions, and achievements using their husbands' last names instead of their own. However, in the spirit of inclusivity, equality, and recognizing each individual's unique identity, I have decided to use their first names throughout the website. This decision reaffirms our commitment to these values and highlights the significant role of women's advocacy in our community.
Our organization, previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, changed its name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. The association was known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962. The association changed its name to the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963. Finally, in 2012, the association reverted to its previous name, the Utah Association of the Deaf. When writing the history website, I use both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of the association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and their history in Utah.
Enjoy!
Jodi Becker Kinner
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's
Comprehensive Study
Comes to Light
Comprehensive Study
Comes to Light
Thirty years after its first publication in 1977, Dr. Jay J. Campbell's comprehensive study on deaf education in Utah came to light in 2007. I was particularly interested in learning about "Deaf Education History in Utah" and the controversy surrounding oral and total communication. My father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954 and was the father of two Deaf children, recounted the story of what happened to Dr. Campbell's study at the Utah State Board of Education meeting. At the meeting, Dr. Bitter blocked Dr. Campbell's study with the support of 300 parents, and Dr. Campbell lost his job as a result. Intrigued by the story, I requested a copy of the book from Kenneth, who had kept it safe for many years. After reading it and writing about it on this website, I donated the book to the George Sutherland Archives of Utah Valley University. I am so grateful to Kenneth for preserving the book for so many years.
As a parent of two Deaf children and a Deaf Education Advocate, I was intrigued by Dr. Campbell's research and wanted to meet him to learn more about it. Luckily, my colleague, Julie Hesterman Smith, who is an interpreter, knew Dr. Campbell through a family friend. On July 1, 2007, I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Campbell about his research and the new perspectives it offered, which was a fantastic experience. It was an honor to meet Dr. Campbell and his wife, Beth Ann, who is a Child of Deaf Adults (CODA) and interpreter. Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who was a crucial ally and champion of the Utah Deaf community, passed away on January 3, 2020, at the age of 96.
Thank you for your interest in the "Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah" webpage. On the following webpage, I have written a summary of Dr. Campbell's significant comprehensive study, with the assistance of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader in the Utah Deaf community, a work without its challenges. Unfortunately, during a board meeting, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a staunch oralist, and his oral parent advocates blocked Dr. Campbell's recommendations for improving the Utah School for the Deaf, sparking controversy. This situation led to his book becoming forgotten and out of sight for years despite its importance. Your interest in this topic is greatly appreciated.
Enjoy reading this webpage!
Jodi Becker Kinner
Thank you for your interest in the "Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah" webpage. On the following webpage, I have written a summary of Dr. Campbell's significant comprehensive study, with the assistance of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader in the Utah Deaf community, a work without its challenges. Unfortunately, during a board meeting, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a staunch oralist, and his oral parent advocates blocked Dr. Campbell's recommendations for improving the Utah School for the Deaf, sparking controversy. This situation led to his book becoming forgotten and out of sight for years despite its importance. Your interest in this topic is greatly appreciated.
Enjoy reading this webpage!
Jodi Becker Kinner
Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming
the Father of Mainstreaming
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a renowned oral and mainstream education advocate, Utah's movement to mainstream all Deaf children in the 1960s played a significant role, earning him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' Dr. Bitter championed mainstreaming for all Deaf children, leading to its widespread acceptance in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. His daughter, Colleen, was born deaf in 1954, which inspired his dedication to the advancement of both oral and mainstream education. Dr. Bitter supported the idea of mainstreaming for all Deaf and hard of hearing children for two main reasons: his own Deaf daughter and his internship experience at the Lexington School for the Deaf. During his master's degree studies, he interned at Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school, and was shocked to see young children having to leave their parents for a week, often crying and screaming. His role as a father of a Deaf child, as well as his experience, inspired him to advocate for mainstreaming, allowing Deaf children to attend local public schools at home (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, who was deaf, worked as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s. He spoke about his experiences with Dr. Bitter, who was a firm advocate of oral and mainstream philosophy. He stated that Dr. Bitter, a hard-core oralist, was one of the top figures in oral education, and no one was more persistent than him in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin also remembered how Dr. Bitter criticized the use of sign language in schools and residential schools and the popularity of sign language usage in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the oral and mainstreaming movements sparked a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, a group comprised mainly of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf community leader in Utah who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch supporter of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giants was due to the ongoing dispute over oral and sign language in Utah's deaf educational system. Their struggle was akin to a chess game, with each maneuvering politically to gain the upper hand in the deaf educational system. This included disputes during oral demonstrations, protests, education committee meetings, and board meetings. Dr. Bitter has also formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, two esteemed advocates for sign language, due to what he perceives as their interference with his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's television interpretation of news in sign language, as he felt it did not align with his educational goals. Finally, he has asked Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee, to resign due to her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, which he perceived as a drift from the committee's focus. The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience when faced with Dr. Bitter's challenges, marking a significant turning point in our history.
Dr. Bitter has had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. His journey began at the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator. His passion for education led him to become a director and professor in the Teacher Preparation Program, where he focused primarily on oral education under the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. Dr. Bitter also served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
Dr. Bitter believed strongly in oralism, which is the belief that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. He was so committed to this idea that he included it in his teaching methods for the Teacher Preparation Program at the University of Utah. To support this cause, he founded the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970 and the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters in 1981 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
Dr. Bitter believed strongly in oralism, which is the belief that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. He was so committed to this idea that he included it in his teaching methods for the Teacher Preparation Program at the University of Utah. To support this cause, he founded the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970 and the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters in 1981 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
The Implementation of the Dual-Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Commonly Known as "Y" System
In 1962, the Utah Council for the Deaf, which favored an oral method of instruction, successfully advocated for implementing the dual-track program, commonly known as the "Y" system, at the Utah School for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). It is believed that Dr. Bitter was a member of this council. This program offered an oral program in one department and a simultaneous communication program, which was replaced by a combined system in another (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Gannon, 1981). The newly hired superintendent, Robert W. Tegeder, accepted the parents' proposals and initiated changes to the school system (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962; Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The Utah State Board of Education approved this policy reform on June 14, 1962, with support from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). This new program had a significant impact on the lives of Deaf students and their families.
In Ogden's residential school system, families had limited options with the 'Y' system, which prioritized the oral mechanism over the sign language approach. Consequently, they recruited more oral educators and established speech as the primary mode of communication. The dual-track program required all students in elementary school to start in the oral department and only transfer to the simultaneous communication department if they had "failed" the oral program by the age of 10–12 or 6th grade. However, parents and Deaf students did not have the option to choose the instructional language until the child turned 10–12 years old or entered 6th grade (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976). Once they reach this age or grade, they could either stay in the oral department, which teaches speech and listening or move to the simultaneous communication department, which teaches both sign language and speech.
The dual-track program changed its approach to potential teachers from sign language to oral communication. It prioritized speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track program, which led to the division of the Ogden campus into two parts during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). The dual-track program divided the campus into an oral department and a simultaneous communication department, each with its own classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). However, the athletic program was an exception. Due to insufficient student enrollment in each division, the athletics program had to merge (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This unique situation highlights the challenges and complexities of implementing the dual-track program.
In Ogden's residential school system, families had limited options with the 'Y' system, which prioritized the oral mechanism over the sign language approach. Consequently, they recruited more oral educators and established speech as the primary mode of communication. The dual-track program required all students in elementary school to start in the oral department and only transfer to the simultaneous communication department if they had "failed" the oral program by the age of 10–12 or 6th grade. However, parents and Deaf students did not have the option to choose the instructional language until the child turned 10–12 years old or entered 6th grade (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976). Once they reach this age or grade, they could either stay in the oral department, which teaches speech and listening or move to the simultaneous communication department, which teaches both sign language and speech.
The dual-track program changed its approach to potential teachers from sign language to oral communication. It prioritized speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track program, which led to the division of the Ogden campus into two parts during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). The dual-track program divided the campus into an oral department and a simultaneous communication department, each with its own classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). However, the athletic program was an exception. Due to insufficient student enrollment in each division, the athletics program had to merge (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This unique situation highlights the challenges and complexities of implementing the dual-track program.
During the 1962–63 school year, some changes were made at the Utah School for the Deaf without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were surprised to find out about the changes. These changes caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).
The Implementation
of the The Two-Track Program
of the The Two-Track Program
The 1962 and 1969 strikes were triggered by the separation of oral and sign language situations, dissatisfaction with the Dual-Track Program's segregation system, and the school administration's lack of attention to their outcry.
Following the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education investigated the matter but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). It turned out that the simultaneous communication students had protested independently, with no outside help.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who served as the president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). The dual-track program's implementation marked a dark chapter in the history of deaf education in Utah.
Another round of the students' 1969 walkout protest against the segregation system in the dual-track program, a turning point in the history of the Utah School for the Deaf, failed to achieve the hoped-for results. Despite setbacks, they found new ways to express their dissatisfaction. Some sign language students bravely crossed the oral department hallway, while others took the simultaneous communication department route. This act of resistance broke the 'Y' system rule, which designated these spaces as "off-limits" in order to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even approached their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). The Utah Association for the Deaf and parents, who were steadfast in their support for sign language, fought a decade-long battle against the 'Y' system. Despite years of lack of attention, they continued to pursue educational equality.
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, when faced with a challenging situation, sought assistance from his boss, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community. Motivated by his concern for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new instrument system that replaces the 'Y' system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). His dedication and commitment to the cause are truly inspiring.
Ned C. Wheeler, a 1933 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, also proposed the revolutionary "two-track program" in response to various events. These included Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association to the "Y" system policy. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy, paving the way for the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program. This groundbreaking program, a beacon of hope, allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf child aged between 2 1/2 and 21 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Following the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education investigated the matter but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). It turned out that the simultaneous communication students had protested independently, with no outside help.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who served as the president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). The dual-track program's implementation marked a dark chapter in the history of deaf education in Utah.
Another round of the students' 1969 walkout protest against the segregation system in the dual-track program, a turning point in the history of the Utah School for the Deaf, failed to achieve the hoped-for results. Despite setbacks, they found new ways to express their dissatisfaction. Some sign language students bravely crossed the oral department hallway, while others took the simultaneous communication department route. This act of resistance broke the 'Y' system rule, which designated these spaces as "off-limits" in order to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even approached their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). The Utah Association for the Deaf and parents, who were steadfast in their support for sign language, fought a decade-long battle against the 'Y' system. Despite years of lack of attention, they continued to pursue educational equality.
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, when faced with a challenging situation, sought assistance from his boss, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community. Motivated by his concern for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new instrument system that replaces the 'Y' system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). His dedication and commitment to the cause are truly inspiring.
Ned C. Wheeler, a 1933 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, also proposed the revolutionary "two-track program" in response to various events. These included Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association to the "Y" system policy. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy, paving the way for the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program. This groundbreaking program, a beacon of hope, allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf child aged between 2 1/2 and 21 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
However, while supervising the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell noticed that parents were often unaware of their children's educational and communication options (Campbell, 1977). Despite the Utah State Board of Education releasing policies in 1970, 1977, and 1998, the Utah School for the Deaf's Communication Guidelines did not provide parents with a wide range of choices. This lack of clarity resulted in ineffective placement tactics due to the prevalent oral bias.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Shares his
Comprehensive Study
on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
Comprehensive Study
on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
In 1966, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a respected individual and advocate for the Utah Deaf community, to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf. During his tenure from 1966 to 1977, he witnessed the ongoing controversy between Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who supported sign language. Furthermore, Dr. Campbell observed a conflict between the Oral Program and the Total Communication Program on communication methods, both within and outside the Utah School for the Deaf. In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's investigation project on deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Campbell's study, a significant contribution to the field of deaf education, focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard of hearing children and develop a comprehensive and inclusive education system for these students. The study's major areas of focus were:
Dr. Campbell's study, a significant contribution to the field of deaf education, focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard of hearing children and develop a comprehensive and inclusive education system for these students. The study's major areas of focus were:
- An analysis of research on communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- A study of deaf children in Utah school districts,
- A sample of opinions of parents of older students at the Utah School for the Deaf,
- Comments from professional staff,
- Letters/materials received from national leaders and educators of the deaf,
- Perceptions and recommendations from former USD students,
- Professional interpreters for the deaf, and
- Professional counselors for the deaf.
After an extensive two-year study period, Dr. Campbell, in collaboration with external researchers, presented his comprehensive report on February 15, 1977. This study, spanning from 1960 to 1977, included students from both mainstream school districts and the Utah School for the Deaf. The report aimed to settle the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, address the internal conflicts at the Utah School for the Deaf, and provide policy proposals for the Utah State Board of Education to consider (Campbell, 1977).
The report showed that students' poor academic performance was due to conflicts between two educational ideologies. Unfortunately, this debate overlooked the education and language needs of Deaf children. Other issues included a shortage of teacher aides and tutors at the Utah School for the Deaf, and teachers felt overwhelmed by educating children of varying ages, language skills, and cognitive abilities in one classroom. One teacher pointed out that there was a significant difference in ability levels between students in most classes, and sometimes, a teacher had to teach at different levels at the same time. However, a capable assistant could help the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher instructs the rest. Utilizing assistants can increase the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize instructional time for teaching students (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. Interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited in the mainstream setting. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. Interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited in the mainstream setting. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
Observation of a Two-Track System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Dr. Campbell's study, featuring a letter from a respondent, provides a comprehensive understanding of the conflict within the Two-Track Program and its impact on the Utah School for the Deaf. This letter, containing crucial observations and suggestions, led Dr. Campbell to propose and strongly recommend the continuation of a 'two-track system' in separate schools. Dr. Campbell's recommendations revolve around this proposed solution, which aims to address internal and external conflicts, eliminate competition, and alleviate tensions between the two programs. Additionally, he suggested that each program should have its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students.
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
As part of a study, the Utah State Office of Education assigned Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to conduct a survey of the alums of the Utah School for the Deaf to confirm their experience regarding the education they received there. The survey compared the opinions of graduates who completed their studies at the school before 1948, those who graduated between 1948 and 1959, and those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results revealed a significant difference in the alums' views. Graduates who completed their studies before 1949 had a more positive experience at the school; they understood their teachers better and enjoyed the administrators more than those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results for the students who graduated between 1949 and 1959 fell between the two categories (Sanderson, 1977).
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
- Restructure and strengthen the programs to reduce the competition and tension and meet the children’s educational needs through a fair placement process,
- Improve the evaluation of each student in relation to communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- Provide periodic evaluations of all students and, if needed, recommendations for transfer,
- Provide aid and education to parents as they make decisions regarding placement,
- Set up an early intervention program for deaf toddlers and preschoolers,
- Improve curriculum and offer vocational courses for skill-building targeted to obtain employment,
- Encourage teachers and parents to become involved with the deaf community and have the right attitude towards the deaf,
- Include the state evaluative process for deaf children in school districts under the direction of USD and make recommendation along the spectrum of placements,
- Keep up with the research on services and education trends,
- Coordinate the educational research of USD with research from other states, and
- Reconsider and rewrite USD policies to clarify their intent and ensure that they reflect a coherent and consistent policy (Campbell, 1977).
Education of Deaf Stirs Debate:
No Educational Action Taken
No Educational Action Taken
In the past three months, from February to April 1977, the Utah State Board of Education has been listening to heated debate on appropriate methods for deaf education. Speakers have been passionately arguing over proposals to separate the two programs at the Utah School for the Deaf (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Caught between oral and total communication conflicts, the Utah State Board of Education wanted to focus on strengthening both programs rather than their disputes (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Gene Stewart, sign language advocates, presented at the board meetings in February and March. Additional information is provided further down below.
On April 14, 1977, Dr. Campbell presented his 202-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He shared his findings and recommendations for improving education at the Utah School for the Deaf with more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977). His report was a significant contribution to solving the ongoing debate over deaf education. However, Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, vehemently opposed Dr. Campbell's research and addressed the Utah State Board of Education while more than 300 parents of orally Deaf children were present to support him. Dr. Bitter scolded both oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over the most effective approach and challenged them to work together to enhance the quality of deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter underscored that parents possess the right to select their children's education, and therefore, they must be well-informed about the educational options available for their Deaf children (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). He also spoke against Dr. Campbell's research, stating that it contained falsehoods and unfounded conclusions about the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs across the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978).
Dr. Bitter heavily criticized his rival, Dr. Sanderson's survey of the Utah School for the Deaf alums that was presented to the Utah State Board of Education. He raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's population and sample procedures, which caused a lot of confusion. Some people alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that the previous reports showed that the Ogden campus's orientation program for parents of new students was biased in favor of the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). In this regard, Dr. Bitter requested the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
During his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution (Grant Bitter, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught up in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson, and he also had to exercise caution to avoid jeopardizing his job as the school administrators supported Bitter.
On April 14, 1977, Dr. Campbell presented his 202-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He shared his findings and recommendations for improving education at the Utah School for the Deaf with more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977). His report was a significant contribution to solving the ongoing debate over deaf education. However, Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, vehemently opposed Dr. Campbell's research and addressed the Utah State Board of Education while more than 300 parents of orally Deaf children were present to support him. Dr. Bitter scolded both oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over the most effective approach and challenged them to work together to enhance the quality of deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter underscored that parents possess the right to select their children's education, and therefore, they must be well-informed about the educational options available for their Deaf children (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). He also spoke against Dr. Campbell's research, stating that it contained falsehoods and unfounded conclusions about the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs across the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978).
Dr. Bitter heavily criticized his rival, Dr. Sanderson's survey of the Utah School for the Deaf alums that was presented to the Utah State Board of Education. He raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's population and sample procedures, which caused a lot of confusion. Some people alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that the previous reports showed that the Ogden campus's orientation program for parents of new students was biased in favor of the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). In this regard, Dr. Bitter requested the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
During his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution (Grant Bitter, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught up in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson, and he also had to exercise caution to avoid jeopardizing his job as the school administrators supported Bitter.
During a board meeting, Peter Vlahos, an Ogden-based lawyer and a parent of a Deaf daughter, presented a compelling argument. He stated that Utah is fortunate to have both methods of education available to Deaf children, but it was unfortunate that they were almost always in conflict. He added that he was proud of his daughter's accomplishments and questioned why proving one approach was better than the other should take precedence over educating children. Peter also mentioned that two-thirds of Deaf schoolchildren's parents requested the removal of Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles over oral students. The presentation was heated, with over 300 parents supporting the oral method and applauding Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, as they presented their arguments (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
A group of parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education. They sought to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, citing its inconclusive nature. Also, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Those attendees were Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd Perkins, Dennis Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal sparked a firestorm of tension. The Deaf group fiercely opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and chaotic, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating situation, Dr. Talbot asked the Deaf community members to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Disagreements still exist about what the Deaf people did during the meeting, as different versions of what happened differ.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, despite the controversy surrounding his analysis, which included data from independent researchers, they disregarded all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). This decision had consequences, as Dr. Campbell's plan crumbled down, including a two-year study to improve education through fair assessment and placement procedures. His plan was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
A group of parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education. They sought to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, citing its inconclusive nature. Also, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Those attendees were Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd Perkins, Dennis Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
- Removing Dr. Campbell from his position;
- Assigning him to another position; or
- Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were intimidated by some of the state's programs (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal sparked a firestorm of tension. The Deaf group fiercely opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and chaotic, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating situation, Dr. Talbot asked the Deaf community members to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Disagreements still exist about what the Deaf people did during the meeting, as different versions of what happened differ.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, despite the controversy surrounding his analysis, which included data from independent researchers, they disregarded all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). This decision had consequences, as Dr. Campbell's plan crumbled down, including a two-year study to improve education through fair assessment and placement procedures. His plan was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
A New Parent Infant Program
Orientation is Formed
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Orientation is Formed
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The prevalent oral bias prevented parents from receiving clear information about their children's educational and communication options. Prior to 2010, the Parent Infant Program of the Utah School for the Deaf had a strong bias toward oral. It did not provide balanced information to parents of Deaf children about their educational and communication options. Deaf parents and Deaf Education Advocates formed the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in 2010, challenging this biased approach and advocating for unbiased and equal information. Although Dr. J. Jay Campbell attempted to make changes to the Parent Infant Program orientation by providing fair information in the 1970s, Dr. Bitter opposed his efforts. It wasn't until 2010 that Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, an oral advocate and former university student of Dr. Bitter, as well as a long-time teacher and director of the school, created the Parent Infant Program Orientation to provide parents with fair and balanced information. Despite this, parents had to choose an "either/or" selection between ASL/English bilingual or listening and spoken language options for their children's education and communication, which resulted in the expansion of the listening and spoken program because the majority of Deaf children are born to hearing parents.
Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, requested on February 10, 2011, that the Utah School for the Deaf implement the guidelines titled "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" to address philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. One of the members of the Advisory Council wondered if the Deaf National Agenda was solely based on ASL. He clarified that the Deaf National Agenda does not exclusively rely on ASL but instead emphasizes the holistic development of each child, supporting both ASL and spoken language, unlike the current system's "either/or" approach. Jeff then addressed Superintendent Noyce in the eyes and stated that the USD has reverted to the inefficient "Y" system of the last 30–40 years, with an oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who want both options. Superintendent Noyce remained silent about the subject. After three years, the Utah School for the Deaf appointed Michelle Tanner as Associate Superintendent, where she oversaw this issue in 2014 and created the Hybrid Program with the support of Superintendent Joel Colemanin of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blinds in 2016, which removed the requirement for parents to choose between the two programs "either/or," a significant step toward unbiased and equal information.
Suffice it to say, Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a prominent figure in Utah's oralism and mainstreaming movement, which had a significant impact on deaf education in Utah since 1962, despite the new Two-Track Program and the school's option guidelines. As a result of his efforts, the number of students attending Ogden's residential school for Deaf students decreased, and the quality of education also declined. The mainstreaming approach gained popularity but left many alums heartbroken. Dr. Bitter also had significant power as a parental figure and used it to push for oralism, making it difficult for the Utah Association for the Deaf to challenge him. When the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a Specialization in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum does include American Sign Language classes, it still places a greater emphasis on Listening and Spoken Language. This reflects the impact that Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, continues to have on deaf education in Utah. To learn more about the evolving mainstreaming movement, visit the 'Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective' page.
Suffice it to say, Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a prominent figure in Utah's oralism and mainstreaming movement, which had a significant impact on deaf education in Utah since 1962, despite the new Two-Track Program and the school's option guidelines. As a result of his efforts, the number of students attending Ogden's residential school for Deaf students decreased, and the quality of education also declined. The mainstreaming approach gained popularity but left many alums heartbroken. Dr. Bitter also had significant power as a parental figure and used it to push for oralism, making it difficult for the Utah Association for the Deaf to challenge him. When the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a Specialization in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum does include American Sign Language classes, it still places a greater emphasis on Listening and Spoken Language. This reflects the impact that Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, continues to have on deaf education in Utah. To learn more about the evolving mainstreaming movement, visit the 'Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective' page.
The Parent-Teacher Association
of the Utah School for the Deaf is Divided Over Communication Philosophy
of the Utah School for the Deaf is Divided Over Communication Philosophy
Controversy at the
Parent-Teacher Association Functions
Parent-Teacher Association Functions
During the 1969–1970 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) faced tensions and divisions. Deaf parents gathered in Ogden, Utah, for regular PTA meetings, using sign language to communicate and participate. However, the parents who favored rigorous spoken communication felt uncomfortable watching them sign. This situation sparked conflict between PTA President Linda C. Harrop, a parent of a Deaf child named Troy, who favored oral instruction, and PTA Vice President Kenneth L. Kinner, a parent of two Deaf children named Deanne and Duane, who backed the simultaneous communication philosophy. There were also disagreements regarding the philosophy of communication and the structure of the meeting. The front row was off-limits to Deaf parents. Oral parents requested that Deaf parents sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to prevent others, especially young oral children, from seeing the sign language. As a precaution, parents covered their children with their coats to ensure that they did not see any signs. Deaf parents who advocated sign language were unable to express concerns about educational matters. They felt oppressed, which had an impact on the students who had to deal with battles between two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The Parent Teacher
Association Divides
Association Divides
During a Parent-Teacher Association meeting in the spring of 1970, a group of parents, Deaf representatives, and Utah School for the Deaf faculty discussed visiting Deaf schools in other states. They recommended visiting either Missouri or California. The majority of proponents of oral education chose to visit the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton and the Central School for the Deaf in St. Louis, while supporters of Simultaneous Communication preferred to go to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in Santa Ana, and the Buena Park Program for the Deaf in Orange County. When the group couldn't decide where to travel, they asked Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for advice. He would make the final decision. Dr. Talbot chose California after considering the budget because it was closer to Utah and less expensive.
W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner were among the Deaf individuals selected to participate. Two USD employees, Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator of the Utah School for the Deaf, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator, accompanied them. Parents were also there, but PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner were among the Deaf individuals selected to participate. Two USD employees, Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator of the Utah School for the Deaf, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator, accompanied them. Parents were also there, but PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
While visiting the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, a group of individuals toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association for the Deaf. The simultaneous communication group hoped that the oral group would have an open mind and recognize the value of sign language. When the oral parents inquired with Dr. Lawrence about the enrollment of any students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One of the students revealed that despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, California, he did not receive the education he needed. He further stated that at the California School for the Deaf, he found greater happiness and received a better education.
After the tour, the Utah Oral supporters returned home, while the Simultaneous Communication Advocates stayed an extra day to take an unofficial tour of the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in the Santa Ana Unified School District, California. This program initially used an oral method from 1948 until September 19, 1968, when it adopted the Total Communication approach during the Total Communication Movement (Educating Deaf Children by Total Communication, 1970). Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, known as the "Father of Total Communication," guided their visit. The curriculum impressed the group, and they wished the oral group had stayed with them to see what the total communication method could achieve academically.
When they returned to Utah, both groups gathered to share their impressions and insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, stated, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded him. From the view of sign language advocates, Boyd's remark made it sound like the oral backers weren't interested in what they saw going on at the California School for the Deaf. It was "ironclad" in their minds how to teach the Deaf children before they went on this trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
At the Utah School for the Deaf, the PTA attempted to discuss how parents could get more involved in school activities. However, parents could not work together due to an ongoing controversy surrounding the communication method approach. A group of parents who supported sign language met with Della L. Loveridge, State Representative for the 8th District, a close friend of W. David Mortensen's mother, to discuss their concerns about the challenges facing the PTA. Della, a trusted advisor and good friend of Lila Bjorklund, the state PTA president, advised them to start their own PTA (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). For instance, on May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the internal conflicts within the PTA, exposing deep divisions among the parents. According to the report, parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of being excluded from decision-making at PTA meetings, not only on the Ogden residential campus but also in Salt Lake City. One Deaf parent said, "We are not opposed to teaching [the children] to speak. We are opposed to the Salt Lake [extension] schools refusing to teach sign language." Another father described the resistance he encountered when attempting to transition his child from the Oral Program to the Simultaneous Communication Program towards the end of his elementary school years. On June 25, 1970, Representative Loveridge's advice led to the formation of a separate PTA group for parents and teachers who supported sign language.
Parents of Deaf Form
Separate PTA Organization
Separate PTA Organization
On June 25, 1970, over 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community formed their own PTA due to philosophical differences in education. This event was historic and took place in Ogden, Utah. This new PTA became the third in the Utah School for the Deaf (USD), following the Total Communication (replaced simultaneous communication) PTA in Ogden and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, both of which were formed in Extension classrooms through the Utah School for the Deaf. The first USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA when this third PTA was established.
Jack W. Hendrickson served as the first president of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA) in Salt Lake City, Utah, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was elected treasurer, Karen Williams as historian, and Harriet Hendrickson as secretary (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA comprised Deaf parents, USD teachers and students, and supportive friends. Its members were both Deaf and hearing individuals who were interested in addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA quickly made an impact by speaking out against the Dual-Track Program and advocating for educational reform. They supported the option for parents to choose between oral and total communication methods for their children's education from the outset. This stance opposed the "Y" system, which had also been opposed by the Utah Association for the Deaf and supportive parents for nearly ten years.
The newly formed PTSA successfully influenced school policies. Many parents were skeptical of USD's Dual-Track Program, as highlighted in a February 1968 article in The Utah Eagle titled "New Developments in Utah's Educational Programs for the Deaf." After a long battle, the Utah State Board of Education finally approved a new policy on December 28, 1970. This policy allowed the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, giving parents the choice of either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years. The previous section, "The Implementation of the Two-Track Program," outlined this achievement. The Parent-Teacher Student Association worked tirelessly to achieve this new "Two-Track Program," which was a victory.
Jack W. Hendrickson served as the first president of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA) in Salt Lake City, Utah, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was elected treasurer, Karen Williams as historian, and Harriet Hendrickson as secretary (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA comprised Deaf parents, USD teachers and students, and supportive friends. Its members were both Deaf and hearing individuals who were interested in addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA quickly made an impact by speaking out against the Dual-Track Program and advocating for educational reform. They supported the option for parents to choose between oral and total communication methods for their children's education from the outset. This stance opposed the "Y" system, which had also been opposed by the Utah Association for the Deaf and supportive parents for nearly ten years.
The newly formed PTSA successfully influenced school policies. Many parents were skeptical of USD's Dual-Track Program, as highlighted in a February 1968 article in The Utah Eagle titled "New Developments in Utah's Educational Programs for the Deaf." After a long battle, the Utah State Board of Education finally approved a new policy on December 28, 1970. This policy allowed the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, giving parents the choice of either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years. The previous section, "The Implementation of the Two-Track Program," outlined this achievement. The Parent-Teacher Student Association worked tirelessly to achieve this new "Two-Track Program," which was a victory.
Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Association
of the Deaf Undergoes Changes
of the Deaf Undergoes Changes
The decision of the USD Parent-Teacher-Student Association to join Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Associations of the Deaf in 1976 was a significant milestone in the history of deaf education. Operation TRIPOD, which was launched by Gallaudet College on May 17, 1970, aimed to involve Deaf parents in the rehabilitation process. This initiative was a collaborative effort that brought together vocational rehabilitation specialists, parents, and schools to enhance the quality of deaf education. The program welcomed participation from different states, and its first leaders were Kenneth L. Kinner, the president, and Carol White Mathis, the vice president. Their dedication was evident as they took turns driving to meetings in Salt Lake City or Ogden every three months (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In late 1976, due to long commutes, the TRIPOD members decided to split into two groups: the Salt Lake TRIPOD and the Ogden TRIPOD. These two organizations remained active throughout the 1980s. As mainstreaming became more common, some parents joined PTAs in public schools. The TRIPOD group eventually faded away as the Deaf children of the parent members graduated or transferred to an out-of-state residential school. A similar fate befell the Oral Program's Extension Department's PTA. The majority of oral Deaf students attended a local public school, which allowed their parents to participate in the PTA (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In late 1976, due to long commutes, the TRIPOD members decided to split into two groups: the Salt Lake TRIPOD and the Ogden TRIPOD. These two organizations remained active throughout the 1980s. As mainstreaming became more common, some parents joined PTAs in public schools. The TRIPOD group eventually faded away as the Deaf children of the parent members graduated or transferred to an out-of-state residential school. A similar fate befell the Oral Program's Extension Department's PTA. The majority of oral Deaf students attended a local public school, which allowed their parents to participate in the PTA (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Tomorrow's World
Utah Association for the Deaf
Appeals for Better Education
Appeals for Better Education
On February 18, 1977, more than 100 Deaf people from the Utah Association for the Deaf crowded into the Utah State Board of Education meeting room in Salt Lake City, Utah, led by President W. David Mortensen of the Utah Association of the Deaf. They gathered to advocate for the improvement of deaf education (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977). The organization's spokesman was Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Deaf Services Coordinator. "Tomorrow's world, with its great technology advances, will require even more education for deaf individuals to compete in marketplace jobs," he stated. When we look around the world and see the millions of people who can hear and talk normally, we realize that their education, not their speech, enables them to succeed" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah Association for the Deaf's concerns and offered the following three recommendations for the board to consider:
- Divide the Utah School for the Deaf at Ogden into two distinct schools: one for total communication and another for oral communication. The Total Communication Division should be located on the present Ogden campus, and the Oral Division should have another campus. This recommendation cited conflicts in philosophies and teaching approaches as its rationale.
- A professional team should evaluate each deaf child and recommend a specific program for them.
- The State Board should develop a long-range research program to determine the needs of and the best method of instruction for the Deaf children in the state (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977).
Dr. Sanderson also reported that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading levels ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade and emphasized the importance of focusing on reading, writing, and math in deaf classes. He believed that by teaching Deaf students the academic basics, they would be better equipped to understand the rest of the curriculum. He also stressed the significance of education in the life of a Deaf person, stating that it is more important for them to comprehend, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. Dr. Sanderson's advocacy led to the Utah State Board of Education recognizing the crucial role of academic skills in the advancement of deaf individuals. He boldly said that for a Deaf individual, this was 10,000 times more important than the capacity to speak (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977).
"The use of sign language does not hinder nor prevent the development of speech," Dr. Sanderson declared as a final shot to the defenders of the oral curriculum. It is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deception to mislead anxious parents that a Deaf person will lose his speech if he learns sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
"The use of sign language does not hinder nor prevent the development of speech," Dr. Sanderson declared as a final shot to the defenders of the oral curriculum. It is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deception to mislead anxious parents that a Deaf person will lose his speech if he learns sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Dark Ages
A Harsh Criticism
of the Utah School for the Deaf
of the Utah School for the Deaf
Gene Stewart, the CODA Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor and Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, spoke out against the oral advocacy group's dominance at the Utah School for the Deaf in a meeting before the Utah State Board of Education, in Moab, Utah, on March 25, 1977.
During his speech, he criticized the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden for not adequately providing access to deaf education in Utah. Gene stated that Utah already had systems to identify and diagnose the needs of Deaf adults, but the public school system failed to educate Deaf youth. He described a national model deaf [Two-Track] program and emphasized the low rate of Deaf children going on to college due to inadequate language training. Gene said, “Very few deaf children go on to college. In fact practically none, and by the time I get them at the postsecondary level, they won’t have anything to do with any more schooling…..We keep turning them out up there [at USD], and yet [the students] don’t even know the language of English.” To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students, highlighting their lack of language skills and asking how they could read lips or learn to write English without knowing the language. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977).
Accusation Stirs Debate
In response to Gene Stewart's claim on March 25, 1977, USD Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder stated that students on the Ogden residential campus switched from one teaching method to another due to constant conflict and incompatibility between the two educational systems. Furthermore, he stated, "The ultimate decision to teach Deaf children via the oral or total communication method belongs to the parents." Gene quickly countered, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah. Many schools throughout the nation are using the total communication concept alone." Superintendent Tegeder also refuted the charge that the school's oral philosophy lacks substantiation. When a child does not progress in the oral program, the school shifts them from oral to total communication, which is a natural transition. When a child's speech fails to develop satisfactorily, the emphasis shifts to a less speech-focused approach. He added that the total communication concept is "hard to define because there's never really been an agreement as to what total communication includes." (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
The State Board was gathering information to decide whether to create two separate campuses at the deaf school, one for each teaching method: oral and total communication. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart presented an endorsement of the total communication philosophy. The Board will hear from proponents of the oral philosophy at the meeting that took place on April 14, 1977, as detailed in the "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study" section above (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). Unfortunately, the oral advocates blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study to proceed with the improvement of the deaf educational system in Utah. Gene spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf in a meeting before the Utah State Board of Education on March 25, 1977, and his powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.
Despite facing numerous challenges, the Utah Deaf leaders united to provide better education and services that we now take for granted. In 2000, I graduated from college, got married without children, and moved to Utah, my spouse's native state. Then, I became aware of the harsh realities of deaf education in Utah, which was referred to as the 'Dark Ages.' This term was a stark reminder of the obstacles that the Deaf community in Utah had to face. After all, Gene's courage in standing up for the Utah Deaf community is truly admirable. The countless hours that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson have spent studying and aiming to make improvements in deaf education in Utah are also commendable.
Despite facing numerous challenges, the Utah Deaf leaders united to provide better education and services that we now take for granted. In 2000, I graduated from college, got married without children, and moved to Utah, my spouse's native state. Then, I became aware of the harsh realities of deaf education in Utah, which was referred to as the 'Dark Ages.' This term was a stark reminder of the obstacles that the Deaf community in Utah had to face. After all, Gene's courage in standing up for the Utah Deaf community is truly admirable. The countless hours that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson have spent studying and aiming to make improvements in deaf education in Utah are also commendable.
Did You Know?
Norman Williams, a 1962 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and father of two Deaf daughters, Penny and Jan, remembers finding Dr. Campbell's Comprehensive Study in the trash can at the Utah State Office of Education a few years after the fateful presentation. He had heard a lot about this research and was overjoyed to finally have the book in his hands (Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010). Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell’s
Education of the Deaf in Utah:
A Comprehensive Study
February 15, 1977
Education of the Deaf in Utah:
A Comprehensive Study
February 15, 1977
I have obtained permission from Dr. Jay J. Campbell to share his comprehensive study, which I have now posted in the section below for your viewing pleasure.
Thank you for visiting this webpage!
Jodi Becker Kinner
Thank you for visiting this webpage!
Jodi Becker Kinner
A. FRONT COVER - Education of the Deaf in Utah
B. Study on the Education of the Deaf – Table of Contents
C. Introduction & Statement Problem 1 – 32
D. Study of Deaf Children in Utah School District 33 – 41
E. Sample of Opinions of Parents of Older Students at the Utah School for the Deaf 42 – 74
F. Input from the Professional Staff of the Utah School for the Deaf 75 – 90
G. Letters & Materials Received from National Leaders & Others in the Field of Education for the Deaf 91 – 104
H. Perceptions & Recommendations from Former Students 105 – 135
I. Recommendations from Professional Interpreters of the Deaf 126
J. Recommendations from Professional Counselors of the Deaf 127 – 129
K. Observations by the Writer 130 – 148
L. Report on the Utah School for the Deaf Submitted by Richard G. Keene 149 – 178
M. Conclusions 179 – 187
N. Recommendations 188 – 190
O. Appendix A 191
B. Study on the Education of the Deaf – Table of Contents
C. Introduction & Statement Problem 1 – 32
D. Study of Deaf Children in Utah School District 33 – 41
E. Sample of Opinions of Parents of Older Students at the Utah School for the Deaf 42 – 74
F. Input from the Professional Staff of the Utah School for the Deaf 75 – 90
G. Letters & Materials Received from National Leaders & Others in the Field of Education for the Deaf 91 – 104
H. Perceptions & Recommendations from Former Students 105 – 135
I. Recommendations from Professional Interpreters of the Deaf 126
J. Recommendations from Professional Counselors of the Deaf 127 – 129
K. Observations by the Writer 130 – 148
L. Report on the Utah School for the Deaf Submitted by Richard G. Keene 149 – 178
M. Conclusions 179 – 187
N. Recommendations 188 – 190
O. Appendix A 191
Thank You Note
"Thank you for sending me the "Deaf Education History in Utah” paper you have written. I am very impressed with it and all the work you have done. You are to be commended. I hope that people who really are interested in this subject will take the time to read your paper. As you know, I really don't believe many people ever read it [Comprehension Study]. Thanks for bringing it "out of the dust." Beth Ann and I were really happy to meet with you and get acquainted." ~ Dr. Jay J. Campbell, July 1, 2007
A Biography of Dr. Jay J. Campbell
Dr. Jay Junior Campbell was born in Burley, Idaho, on December 29, 1924, to Chesta Marie Rasmussen Campbell and John James Campbell. He served in the United States Army in Europe from July 22, 1943, to April 27, 1946. He graduated from Burley High School (1943), Ricks College with a BA in Music (1950), the University of Utah with an MS in Music (1951), and an Ed.D. in Educational Administration (1957). Dr. Campbell was Chairman of the Division of Fine Arts at Adams State College, Alamosa, Colorado, from 1953 to 1966. He was appointed Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education in 1966. He was the Utah Coordinator for the study "Designing Education for the Future." He supervised the three junior colleges and the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind under the State Board of Education.
Jay married Beth Ann Moon Stewart of Salt Lake City in 1976, and they were married for 43 years. Beth Ann Stewart is a well-known figure in the Utah Deaf community. As a child of Deaf parents, she has the distinction of being the first nationally certified interpreter in the United States. She is also a former director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf.
After retirement, they enjoyed escorting Deaf and hearing people on tours (Cruises and Bus Tours). They also served as full-time missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Family and Church History Mission for one year starting January 3, 2003. They then served as missionaries at the Utah State Prison from March 2004 to July 22, 2009. They kept busy reading Church Work, Utah Daughters of the Pioneers. He conducted “The Messiah” for over 30 years and was the conductor of the “Swanee Singers” Male Chorus for 35 years.
After retirement, they enjoyed escorting Deaf and hearing people on tours (Cruises and Bus Tours). They also served as full-time missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Family and Church History Mission for one year starting January 3, 2003. They then served as missionaries at the Utah State Prison from March 2004 to July 22, 2009. They kept busy reading Church Work, Utah Daughters of the Pioneers. He conducted “The Messiah” for over 30 years and was the conductor of the “Swanee Singers” Male Chorus for 35 years.
Notes
Will add more references later
Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007.
G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978.
Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.
Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010.
Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007.
G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978.
Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.
Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010.
References
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Campbell, Jay J. Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, February 15, 1977.
“Dual Method For Teaching Deaf.” Deseret News, December 29, 1970.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
“New Developments in Utah’s Educational Programs for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 79, no. 4 (January 1968): 1 -3.
“Recommendation on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sanderson, Robert G. “Perceptions and Recommendations from Former Students.” Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, 1977. (On reserve, Utah State Achieves: Series 8556).
Wright, Ray. "Deaf Teaching Methods Debated." The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970.