Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream
for an Equal Deaf Education System
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2014
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2014
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, or 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."
Significant changes occurred at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s, where the Dual-Track Program and the Two-Track program, which were divided into an oral department and a sign language department, greatly impacted the lives of Deaf students. 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.
As a writer for a history website, I am fully aware of how societal norms and expectations can hinder people's success. One such norm is for women to include their accomplishments under their spouse's last name. I'd like to address this by writing first names for men, women, and gender identity. This small but significant change reflects my intention to recognize all individuals who contribute to and advocate for our community's causes equally.
The organization, previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, has changed its name to the Utah Association of the Deaf. We changed the name to "of" instead of "for" to avoid confusion. The association, known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, changed its name to the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963. Finally, in 2012, the association reverted to its original name, the Utah Association of the Deaf. We used both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras in 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."
Significant changes occurred at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s, where the Dual-Track Program and the Two-Track program, which were divided into an oral department and a sign language department, greatly impacted the lives of Deaf students. 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.
As a writer for a history website, I am fully aware of how societal norms and expectations can hinder people's success. One such norm is for women to include their accomplishments under their spouse's last name. I'd like to address this by writing first names for men, women, and gender identity. This small but significant change reflects my intention to recognize all individuals who contribute to and advocate for our community's causes equally.
The organization, previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, has changed its name to the Utah Association of the Deaf. We changed the name to "of" instead of "for" to avoid confusion. The association, known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, changed its name to the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963. Finally, in 2012, the association reverted to its original name, the Utah Association of the Deaf. We used both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras in 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. 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 in another, which was replaced by the combined system (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. As a result, more oral educators were recruited, and speech became the primary mode of communication. The Dual-Track Program required all students in the Primary Department 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 reached this age or grade, they had the option to either stay in the Oral Department, which taught speech and listening or move to the Simultaneous Communication Department, which taught both sign 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 Division and a Simultaneous Communication Division, 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 and caused 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 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.
In Ogden's residential school system, families had limited options with the 'Y' system, which prioritized the oral mechanism over the sign language approach. As a result, more oral educators were recruited, and speech became the primary mode of communication. The Dual-Track Program required all students in the Primary Department 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 reached this age or grade, they had the option to either stay in the Oral Department, which taught speech and listening or move to the Simultaneous Communication Department, which taught both sign 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 Division and a Simultaneous Communication Division, 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 and caused 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 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.
Did You Know?
In 1959, 97% of the Utah School for the Deaf teachers were members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (Christopulos, The Utah Eagle, November 1960).
The Implementation
of the The Two-Track Program
of the The Two-Track Program
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 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 down 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" 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 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 (1976 USD Reunion Book Programme; 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).
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 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 down 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" 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 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 (1976 USD Reunion Book Programme; 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. On April 14, 1977, Dr. Campbell presented his 202-page study report concerning the Utah School for the Deaf at the Utah State Board of Education. He also sought to improve the school's education system through more equitable evaluation and placement methods. However, Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, vehemently opposed Dr. Campbell's research, accusing it of containing falsehoods and drawing unfounded conclusions about the University of Utah's Teacher Oral Training Program and educational programs across the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). The presentation was heated, with over 300 parents supporting the oral method and applauding Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, 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). The meeting was attended by approximately 300 parents and 50 to 60 Deaf individuals, including Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd Perkins, Dennis Platt, and Kenneth L. Kinner, among 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. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. 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).
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, 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. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. 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).
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.
Bias Toward Oral Education
Although the Total Communication Program was available at the Utah School for the Deaf, many parents were still unaware of its existence. Dr. Bitter convened 'An Oral Demonstration Panel' at the University of Utah, which recruited local oral Deaf adults to participate. Deaf individuals, Dr. Robert Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, Kenneth L. Kinner, and other Deaf individuals who supported sign language, were in attendance, as were other hearing attendees, where the oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the audience. Dr. Bitter announced the start of a question-and-answer session. Dr. Sanderson rose to his feet and inquired, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" Dr. Bitter promptly adjourned the meeting, and the crowd dispersed without an explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The amusing aspect is that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's feud hostility worsened over time. Dr. Bitter regularly sponsored 'Oral Demonstration Panels' at the University of Utah and other venues like the McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden. When Dr. Bitter saw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann Campbell, in the audience, he would speak fast on purpose so that Dr. Sanderson would become lost for the questions after the demonstration. Beth Ann was determined to prevent this from happening. She signed as fast as she could. Dr. Sanderson absorbed the information and actively participated while focusing on his interpreter (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Perhaps the most troubling aspect was Dr. Bitter's recruitment of Deaf oral students for his demonstration panels. Instead of solely relying on his daughter, Colleen, he used another girl, Colleen Johnson Jones, to showcase her public speaking abilities. This decision, which was met with unease by Legia Johnson, Colleen's mother, eventually led to her resignation from her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf. Legia's actions were a clear stand against the use of her daughter as a prop in Dr. Bitter's demonstrations (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
The amusing aspect is that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's feud hostility worsened over time. Dr. Bitter regularly sponsored 'Oral Demonstration Panels' at the University of Utah and other venues like the McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden. When Dr. Bitter saw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann Campbell, in the audience, he would speak fast on purpose so that Dr. Sanderson would become lost for the questions after the demonstration. Beth Ann was determined to prevent this from happening. She signed as fast as she could. Dr. Sanderson absorbed the information and actively participated while focusing on his interpreter (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Perhaps the most troubling aspect was Dr. Bitter's recruitment of Deaf oral students for his demonstration panels. Instead of solely relying on his daughter, Colleen, he used another girl, Colleen Johnson Jones, to showcase her public speaking abilities. This decision, which was met with unease by Legia Johnson, Colleen's mother, eventually led to her resignation from her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf. Legia's actions were a clear stand against the use of her daughter as a prop in Dr. Bitter's demonstrations (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
Amid a heated controversy over the communication philosophy between oral and sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Sanderson's stance was clear: he supported parents in determining the most suitable educational program for their Deaf children. He rejected "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that was not backed by research, emphasizing the importance of accurate information (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992).
According to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Utah State Office of Education, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son met with him in his office. The father expressed concern that his son, who was enrolling in the oral program, could barely read and write. He turned to Dr. Campbell for advice. Seeing an opportunity for a potentially beneficial shift, Dr. Campbell inquired of the father as to whether he was aware of the Total Communication Program. The father stated that he was unaware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This example of parental ignorance convinced Dr. Campbell that a brochure explaining both programs and their various communication strategies was necessary.
Furthermore, Dr. Campbell emphasized the necessity of regularly updating this pamphlet to summarize empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Bitter, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the plan. He asserted that the total communication system was only a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Despite Dr. Campbell's best efforts, the plan for the informational booklet came crashing down again.
According to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Utah State Office of Education, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son met with him in his office. The father expressed concern that his son, who was enrolling in the oral program, could barely read and write. He turned to Dr. Campbell for advice. Seeing an opportunity for a potentially beneficial shift, Dr. Campbell inquired of the father as to whether he was aware of the Total Communication Program. The father stated that he was unaware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This example of parental ignorance convinced Dr. Campbell that a brochure explaining both programs and their various communication strategies was necessary.
Furthermore, Dr. Campbell emphasized the necessity of regularly updating this pamphlet to summarize empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Bitter, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the plan. He asserted that the total communication system was only a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Despite Dr. Campbell's best efforts, the plan for the informational booklet came crashing down again.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter Poses Challenges
to the Utah Association for the Deaf
to the Utah Association for the Deaf
Dr. Bitter's challenge to the Utah Association for the Deaf was not a random act but a response to what he perceived as a threat to his position. During the interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf when he was 11 and grew up in both public school and state school for the deaf, 'knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the Deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the Deaf community was concerned' (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30). Dr. Sanderson campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education, along with other members of the Deaf community, to committees. Dr. Bitter challenged this, particularly Della Loveridge, a legislator and Deaf community advocate who appointed Dr. Sanderson and other Deaf members to her committee while Dr. Bitter was also on it. Dr. Bitter felt threatened by their committee appointments but denied it in his interview. He believed that his objection constituted a threat to them. At a state committee meeting, Della Loveridge described Dr. Bitter as emotionally disturbed. Dr. Bitter thought that the Utah Association for the Deaf had too much freedom in the state office of education, where they held their meetings, and requested that Della Loveridge step down as committee chairperson. This sparked a vendetta against Dr. Bitter (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Bitter's interview also shared a dramatic conflict between him and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an advocate for the Utah Deaf community, and Dr. Sanderson. Both Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson were part of a committee studying the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. With the support of 300 parents of Deaf oral children, Dr. Bitter successfully blocked their proposal on how the Utah School for the Deaf should run, as detailed in the 'Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of the Utah School for the Deaf' webpage.
The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience when faced with the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter, which marked a significant turning point in our history. They fought relentlessly and eventually handed over the task of continuing the struggle for deaf education equality in Utah to the next generation. The next generation, on the other hand, rose to the challenge and established four ASL/English Bilingual Programs in four different regions—Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. They made significant progress and provided a glimpse of the bright future ahead.
The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience when faced with the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter, which marked a significant turning point in our history. They fought relentlessly and eventually handed over the task of continuing the struggle for deaf education equality in Utah to the next generation. The next generation, on the other hand, rose to the challenge and established four ASL/English Bilingual Programs in four different regions—Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. They made significant progress and provided a glimpse of the bright future ahead.
A New Parent Infant Program Orientation
is Formed at the Utah School for the Deaf
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. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group, founded in 2010, which included Deaf parents and Deaf Education Advocates, challenged this biased approach and advocated 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.
Deaf student Toni Ekenstam gets auditory training from Steven Noyce, a teacher of the deaf. Toni is taught to lip read and communicate with her own voice, one of several methods used to teach deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf @ Deseret News, March 8, 1973. Deseret News Photo by Chief Photographer Don Groyston
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' webpage.
The Utah Deaf Education
Core Group is Formed
Core Group is Formed
The Utah Deaf community was concerned that Steven W. Noyce, a long-time teacher and director of the Utah School for the Deaf, would seek to carry on Dr. Bitter's legacy, jeopardizing the ASL/English Bilingual Program they had worked so hard to establish when the Utah State Board of Education elected him superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in August 2009. The state board disregarded the Utah Deaf community's outcry.
Steven Noyce was no stranger to the Utah Deaf community, having graduated from the Teacher Preparation Program at the University of Utah between 1965 and 1972 (LinkedIn: Steven Noyce). We were concerned about his advocacy for oral education. In response, Ella Mae Lentz, a co-founder of the Deafhood Foundation and a vocal champion for deaf education, proposed founding the Deaf Education Core Group in April 2010. The group aimed to protect ASL/English bilingual education and fight inequality in the deaf education system.
Following the 2005 USD/JMS merger, the staff of Jean Massieu Charter School, along with Utah Deaf community leaders and administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf, worked together to ensure that the ASL/English Bilingual educational approach, which was integral to JMS, received equal resources as the oral educational approach, which was USD's primary approach. Initially, JMS had a good working relationship with the Utah School for the Deaf. However, when the Utah State Board of Education appointed Steven W. Noyce, an avowed oralist and active member of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, as superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the situation changed. There has been a long-standing debate in Utah, dating back to 1884, on whether to teach using oral or sign language methods in formal deaf education. After the merger, the debate subsided, and the ASL and oral (now called listening and spoken language) teams worked together peacefully. However, Superintendent Noyce used his position to push for LSL education, believing it superior to ASL/English, and vigorously promoted his mission at the Utah School for the Deaf. The revelation of Superintendent Noyce's hidden agenda sparked outrage among the Utah Deaf community. As a result, the controversy resurfaced and was more intense this time.
Julio Diaz, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Jeff Pollock, Dan Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, James (JR) Goff, Duane Kinner, and I were all part of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of Deaf children who battled Steven W. Noyce in the 1990s, joined the group to help us achieve our objectives. The group's planning took place spontaneously. The Utah Association for the Deaf had a long-standing feud with Dr. Grant B. Bitter. USDB Superintendent Noyce reflected Dr. Bitter's personality, and their behavior was strikingly similar. When I, the website's author, talk with the Deaf community about "Deaf Education History in Utah," I often refer to the "Bitter Phase I group" and the "Noyce Phase II group."
While serving on the USDB Institutional Council (2004–2010) and Legislative Task Force (2007–2009), I recalled Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, 87, who served on the Institution Council before me, responding to my email on May 16, 2007, concerning the Utah Code, which governed the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. However, I could not rely on his direct involvement when I requested assistance, as he and his wife, Mary, were trying to enjoy their retirement. During the conflict with Superintendent Noyce, I remembered his statement in a 2007 e-mail: "It's up to young, vigorous, and enthusiastic deaf people like you to carry on," Dr. Sanderson said, sounding encouraging. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was picking up where Dr. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others had left off in the fight for deaf education equality in Utah. The challenges that the young leaders were dealing with sprang from the past.
Julio Diaz, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Jeff Pollock, Dan Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, James (JR) Goff, Duane Kinner, and I were all part of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of Deaf children who battled Steven W. Noyce in the 1990s, joined the group to help us achieve our objectives. The group's planning took place spontaneously. The Utah Association for the Deaf had a long-standing feud with Dr. Grant B. Bitter. USDB Superintendent Noyce reflected Dr. Bitter's personality, and their behavior was strikingly similar. When I, the website's author, talk with the Deaf community about "Deaf Education History in Utah," I often refer to the "Bitter Phase I group" and the "Noyce Phase II group."
While serving on the USDB Institutional Council (2004–2010) and Legislative Task Force (2007–2009), I recalled Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, 87, who served on the Institution Council before me, responding to my email on May 16, 2007, concerning the Utah Code, which governed the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. However, I could not rely on his direct involvement when I requested assistance, as he and his wife, Mary, were trying to enjoy their retirement. During the conflict with Superintendent Noyce, I remembered his statement in a 2007 e-mail: "It's up to young, vigorous, and enthusiastic deaf people like you to carry on," Dr. Sanderson said, sounding encouraging. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was picking up where Dr. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others had left off in the fight for deaf education equality in Utah. The challenges that the young leaders were dealing with sprang from the past.
Did You Know?
In 1894, Henry C. White, a principal and teacher of the Utah School for the Deaf, criticized school administrators for failing to consult directly with Deaf adults. He asked, "What of the deaf themselves?" "Have they no say in a matter that entails their intellectual life and death?" (Buchanan, p. 28). One hundred and seventeen years later, in 2011, the Utah Deaf community was still battling with school administrators who refused to listen to Deaf adults, even when they were also parents. Yes, deaf education is "life and death" for us. We grew up in a system that was and still is, in many aspects, broken, inadequate, and oppressive. Understandably, we were frustrated.
In different time periods, both the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group were involved in similar political activities to oppose Bitter and Noyce. The famous saying "History repeats itself because people don't listen the first time" resonated with the Utah Deaf community. This was because the Utah State Board of Education had ignored our protests about the state's unequal deaf education system under the Two-Track Program. Fortunately, we knew about Dr. Bitter's past and were able to advocate for communication and educational equality. We established the Utah Deaf Education Core Group because of our knowledge of history and the possibility of a recurrence of the same problem under Superintendent Steven W. Noyce's administration at the Utah Schools for the Deaf.
Since 1962, Dr. Grant B. Bitter and his team have taken pride in developing a unique dual-track approach to deaf education. Only a few other state schools for the deaf in the United States offer this unique program, and the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Steven W. Noyce, takes great pride in it. However, there has been an ongoing internal struggle between USD's oral and sign language programs. In both groups, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent-Teacher-Student Association have persistently fought for equal promotion. They also pushed the Utah School for the Deaf to allow parents to select both oral and sign language options instead of just one. As a result of these developments, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group criticized USD's implementation of the dual-track approach and did not recommend it to other states.
Since 1962, Dr. Grant B. Bitter and his team have taken pride in developing a unique dual-track approach to deaf education. Only a few other state schools for the deaf in the United States offer this unique program, and the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Steven W. Noyce, takes great pride in it. However, there has been an ongoing internal struggle between USD's oral and sign language programs. In both groups, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent-Teacher-Student Association have persistently fought for equal promotion. They also pushed the Utah School for the Deaf to allow parents to select both oral and sign language options instead of just one. As a result of these developments, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group criticized USD's implementation of the dual-track approach and did not recommend it to other states.
Members of the Utah
Deaf Education Core Group
Deaf Education Core Group
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group analyzed general concerns in other states and found a pattern of interference by two prominent LSL campaigners from Utah: USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce and Dr. Karl R. White, Director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management. The activities of Superintendent Noyce and Dr. White, who had expanded listening and spoken language to other states, helped me understand the difficulties faced by the Utah Association for the Deaf due to Dr. Grant B. Bitter. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group aimed to prevent other states from facing similar deaf education challenges in Utah.
The "Pro-Choice" Campaign
of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was aware of bias among staff members in favor of LSL services while restricting ASL/English services through the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Parents were often unaware of the ASL option until their Deaf child failed the LSL program, a condition known as oral failure or language deprivation. Additionally, the LSL team has a long history of dominating the USD. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group included ASL/English Bilingual advocates and Deaf parents of Deaf children. They had no choice but to campaign for the "choice" approach, which implied that through the Parent Infant Program, parents have the right to know all of their options, including ASL/English and LSL. As a result, they were branded "Pro-Choice."
Campaigning for either pro-choice or parental choice is considered a warning sign, according to Deafhood Training by Marvin T. Miller in 2019. In simpler terms, if American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) options are offered in a state school for the deaf, LSL supporters might undermine or weaken the ASL/English Bilingual Program. It was emphasized that we should firmly support ASL, just like the Delaware School for the Deaf and Indiana School for the Deaf did in 2011, when they resisted the LSL organization's efforts to introduce the LSL option in their schools. These state schools remained committed to their ASL/English Bilingual Program. However, for Utah, the situation is different. The Dual-Track Program at the Utah School for the Deaf has been in place since 1962. It was challenging for them to revert to their original status, similar to the situation faced by the South Dakota School for the Deaf in 2005. Consequently, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had limited options and had to advocate for choice within the existing system.
Campaigning for either pro-choice or parental choice is considered a warning sign, according to Deafhood Training by Marvin T. Miller in 2019. In simpler terms, if American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) options are offered in a state school for the deaf, LSL supporters might undermine or weaken the ASL/English Bilingual Program. It was emphasized that we should firmly support ASL, just like the Delaware School for the Deaf and Indiana School for the Deaf did in 2011, when they resisted the LSL organization's efforts to introduce the LSL option in their schools. These state schools remained committed to their ASL/English Bilingual Program. However, for Utah, the situation is different. The Dual-Track Program at the Utah School for the Deaf has been in place since 1962. It was challenging for them to revert to their original status, similar to the situation faced by the South Dakota School for the Deaf in 2005. Consequently, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had limited options and had to advocate for choice within the existing system.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group worked together to ensure equal access to quality education through two programs. Their main goal was to promote fair and unbiased communication and educational options for parents to choose from. The group was particularly concerned about the requirement that parents could only select one program instead of being able to choose both if desired. They insisted that all Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families had the right to decide to learn American Sign Language in addition to spoken language, rather than having to choose one over the other.
Jill Radford, Principal of the
Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Has Shown Incredible Courageous in the Face of Oralism
Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Has Shown Incredible Courageous in the Face of Oralism
Advocates for the ASL/English Bilingual Program strongly believed that infants and toddlers should have more opportunities to assess their skills in signing and speaking so that parents can make a decision reflecting their child's potential as a visual or auditory learner. For example, Jill Radford, a Deaf individual and former principal of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, responded to reporter Rosemary Winters via email and asked, "How do parents know which language the child needs? I promote choice, but I strongly believe it needs to be the child's choice. Often, parents will pick what is most convenient for them and their family [which tends to be LSL] because the child needs to be able to communicate with them" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). The ASL/English Bilingual Program faced skepticism from the majority of administrators. Several administrators who supported the ASL/English Bilingual Program quit, leaving Jill alone to fight Superintendent Noyce to protect JMS. Michelle Tanner, a teacher at the time, expressed the feeling of being a small army versus a larger army, according to Dan Mathis, a member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Jill Radford still looked like a fighter but was also somewhat bruised up (Dan Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
When the Legislative Education Interim Committee summoned Superintendent Noyce to speak at their meeting on September 21, 2010, he delivered a damaging report. In response to Superintendent Noyce's deliberately misleading findings, Jill resigned abruptly in front of the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. After two years of persistent conflicts with Superintendent Noyce, this report was the final straw. Jill stood up to him and informed him that she was concerned about his dishonest report in front of everyone, saying, "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche." Jill's resignation was a devastating blow to JMS and the Utah Deaf community. "It was just one more example of dedicated individuals finally succumbing to the unrelenting paternalistic majority of hearing individuals who do not value or understand the importance of ASL among the [Utah] Deaf community," Purpleterp said in a newspaper story published by The Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2011 (Purpleterp, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
When the Legislative Education Interim Committee summoned Superintendent Noyce to speak at their meeting on September 21, 2010, he delivered a damaging report. In response to Superintendent Noyce's deliberately misleading findings, Jill resigned abruptly in front of the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. After two years of persistent conflicts with Superintendent Noyce, this report was the final straw. Jill stood up to him and informed him that she was concerned about his dishonest report in front of everyone, saying, "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche." Jill's resignation was a devastating blow to JMS and the Utah Deaf community. "It was just one more example of dedicated individuals finally succumbing to the unrelenting paternalistic majority of hearing individuals who do not value or understand the importance of ASL among the [Utah] Deaf community," Purpleterp said in a newspaper story published by The Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2011 (Purpleterp, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Jill's resignation came as a shock to the Utah Deaf community. The Deaf Education Advocates accused Superintendent Noyce of giving preferential treatment to USD's LSL program over the ASL/English Bilingual Program. When he targeted JMS, Jill was protecting the school. Superintendent Noyce, who was in his third year as superintendent, claimed that all programs had received equal funding. He stated that the listening and spoken language program has become increasingly popular in recent years, with about 70 percent of parents choosing the LSL track for their deaf and hard of hearing children before they enter preschool. Students learn to listen and speak; most can return to their neighborhood schools by the third grade. He also mentioned that a few students have transferred from the LSL to the ASL program, but it does happen (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). However, JMS consistently enrolled many 3rd graders with no language skills who struggled in the LSL program. Superintendent Noyce's report failed to address several factors contributing to poor academic achievement among JMS students.
The Listening and Spoken Language administrators assigned the ASL/English Bilingual Program as a last resort to assist students who struggled with oral communication and had additional disabilities. It was similar to past programs like Simultaneous Communication and Total Communication. JMS also enrolled many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families due to its focus on bilingual education. These factors understandably contributed to language deprivation among the students. Jill expressed concern about LSL students' parents enrolling their children in the program regardless of their abilities. The ASL/English Bilingual Program was the last resort for students who didn't learn to listen and talk as quickly as their parents expected (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
The Listening and Spoken Language administrators assigned the ASL/English Bilingual Program as a last resort to assist students who struggled with oral communication and had additional disabilities. It was similar to past programs like Simultaneous Communication and Total Communication. JMS also enrolled many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families due to its focus on bilingual education. These factors understandably contributed to language deprivation among the students. Jill expressed concern about LSL students' parents enrolling their children in the program regardless of their abilities. The ASL/English Bilingual Program was the last resort for students who didn't learn to listen and talk as quickly as their parents expected (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jill was not alone in this situation. Superintendent Noyce's narrative also took JMS parents and members of the Utah Deaf community by surprise. As previously noted, the study did not divulge all the details about why JMS's academic achievement outcomes were so low. People suspected Superintendent Noyce of fabricating statistics for personal gain, potentially to discredit both JMS and KBS (Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf in Ogden). Superintendent Noyce said in defense, "It really shouldn't be a reflection on the teachers or JMS. "We need to find out why the scores are lower and know what we can do to fix that." "The measure of success for all of our students is how well they can read, write, and use math. Our role as educators, frankly, is to teach them to read and write. Whether they speak or use sign language is not the important part" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). The Utah Deaf Education Core Group disputed Superintendent Noyce's assertions. They suspected the Two-Track Program was using tainted statistics to punish them for speaking up against inequality. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group praised Jill Radford for standing up for Deaf children's right to education despite her "unprofessional" resignation, as the Utah State Board of Education claimed. She was a hero to the Utah Deaf Community because she dared to challenge Superintendent Noyce.
Jacob Dietz, a JMS hearing father of two Deaf children, said of Jill Radford, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids." "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's hard to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jacob Dietz, a JMS hearing father of two Deaf children, said of Jill Radford, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids." "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's hard to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jill Radford Meets Dr. Martell Menlove,
Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Jill Radford's departure had a significant impact on JMS's parents and the Utah Deaf community. They had never seen Jill as someone who put in long hours at work without getting personally invested. She had consistently been involved in every part of JMS, from the top down. JMS had been her entire life at the expense of her own health and happiness. Following her departure, Jill promised to continue campaigning for the rights and needs of Deaf and hard of hearing children. On the Facebook page, Brittany Watterson, a former USD student, made a great analogy of Mr. Noyce, saying, "When there is a will, there is a way. Noyce is a good example. He is very passionate about his flawed beliefs and even after many battles we have taken out on him, he is still standing strong" (Brittany Watterson, personal communication, August 26, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce stood firm, her reference to Principal Jill Radford and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's ongoing conflicts and challenges with him was spot on.
After Jill Radford resigned, she informed Dr. Martell Menlove, the Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction, about the Utah Association of the Deaf's formation of an Education Committee. The committee's main objective was to prove to the Utah State Board of Education that ASL/English Bilingual education can effectively educate all Deaf children. They believed they could achieve this by eliminating the 'Y' system mindset, the "either/or" approach, and promoting parent unity instead of division. However, this issue remained unresolved until Joel Coleman, the newly appointed superintendent who replaced Steven of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in 2013, appointed Michelle Tanner as Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf in 2014 to oversee it.
Superintendent Noyce's
Two-Year Contract Ends
Two-Year Contract Ends
According to Robert Heinlein, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." To advocate effectively for Deaf children's communication and language rights, it is critical to be aware of Utah's long history of political conflict over educational inequality. Even if Deaf activists cannot continue to preserve the ASL/English Bilingual Program indefinitely, they can pass it on to future generations, like the Utah Association for the Deaf during Bitter Phase I, when they passed the torch to the Utah Deaf Education Group Core in Noyce Phase II. In the third phase, we aim to avoid a repeat of the past, urging the future administrator of the Utah School for the Deaf to consider the Utah Deaf Community, unlike the time when Steven W. Noyce took over as USDB Superintendent without our input. Michelle Tanner joined us in making our voices heard when Joel Coleman became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in 2013, replacing Steven Noyce.
As the author of this website, I would like to clarify that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was an activist group, not a radical or fanatic one, as Superintendent Noyce and the LSL group claimed. We were concerned about the potential compromise of the ASL/English Bilingual Program, so we worked hard to stop Superintendent Noyce from achieving his objective by crossing the goal line. Although we made a lot of noise, he continued to push LSL services and mainstream opportunities, much like a football player sprinting towards the goal line. Ultimately, he could continue Dr. Bitter's legacy until Joel Coleman and Michelle Tanner took over the administration of the Utah School for the Deaf and put a stop to it by implementing the Hybrid Program, which is explained in detail in the section below.
Between 2010 and 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group attempted to remove Steve W. Noyce from his two-year contract. Despite our efforts, which included a peaceful vigil, the Utah State Board of Education members voted to extend Superintendent Noyce's contract for another two years after 395 Listening and Spoken Language supporters signed a petition and wrote a letter supporting him. This decision was considered a victory for LSL families by Anissa Wardell, an LSL parent, expressed her agreement on her blog. However, Superintendent Noyce portrayed the core group as radical, similar to Dr. Bitter's feud against the Utah Association for the Deaf, especially Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. After exhausting all possibilities to terminate his contract, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group remained silent for two years.
As the author of this website, I would like to clarify that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was an activist group, not a radical or fanatic one, as Superintendent Noyce and the LSL group claimed. We were concerned about the potential compromise of the ASL/English Bilingual Program, so we worked hard to stop Superintendent Noyce from achieving his objective by crossing the goal line. Although we made a lot of noise, he continued to push LSL services and mainstream opportunities, much like a football player sprinting towards the goal line. Ultimately, he could continue Dr. Bitter's legacy until Joel Coleman and Michelle Tanner took over the administration of the Utah School for the Deaf and put a stop to it by implementing the Hybrid Program, which is explained in detail in the section below.
Between 2010 and 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group attempted to remove Steve W. Noyce from his two-year contract. Despite our efforts, which included a peaceful vigil, the Utah State Board of Education members voted to extend Superintendent Noyce's contract for another two years after 395 Listening and Spoken Language supporters signed a petition and wrote a letter supporting him. This decision was considered a victory for LSL families by Anissa Wardell, an LSL parent, expressed her agreement on her blog. However, Superintendent Noyce portrayed the core group as radical, similar to Dr. Bitter's feud against the Utah Association for the Deaf, especially Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. After exhausting all possibilities to terminate his contract, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group remained silent for two years.
Superintendent Noyce's contract was terminated in 2013. The Utah State Board of Education unanimously voted not to extend his appointment on January 10, 2013. The state school board's chairperson, Debra Roberts, declined to reveal why the board decided not to extend Steve's contract, citing privacy concerns. She mentioned that there had been no misconduct and that the board had been debating the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). The news came as a surprise to Steven. He explained, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months, things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). As of today, the reason for the termination of his contract remains unknown.
I can't help but question what might be a better course of action. Should they take a more active or passive role in the movement? Consider what could have happened if the Utah Association for the Deaf had not battled to safeguard sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Could ASL have died out completely if the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained subservient? Would ASL/English Bilingual Education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu of the Deaf and Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept Utah? In such circumstances, there was no win-win situation.
In the 2013–14 school year, Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner of the Utah School for the Deaf and Superintendent Joel Coleman of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind—who was also a member of the Utah State Board of Education during the conflict between Superintendent Noyce and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group—recognized the critical need for equal ASL/English and LSL options as well as an equitable educational system. Their collaboration and efforts made a significant contribution to the development of an inclusive educational system.
I can't help but question what might be a better course of action. Should they take a more active or passive role in the movement? Consider what could have happened if the Utah Association for the Deaf had not battled to safeguard sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Could ASL have died out completely if the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained subservient? Would ASL/English Bilingual Education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu of the Deaf and Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept Utah? In such circumstances, there was no win-win situation.
In the 2013–14 school year, Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner of the Utah School for the Deaf and Superintendent Joel Coleman of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind—who was also a member of the Utah State Board of Education during the conflict between Superintendent Noyce and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group—recognized the critical need for equal ASL/English and LSL options as well as an equitable educational system. Their collaboration and efforts made a significant contribution to the development of an inclusive educational system.
Did You Know?
Joel Coleman, who joined the Utah State Board of Education in 2010 and later became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in 2013, is Rachel Coleman's brother-in-law, who created the "Signing Time" films.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream of an
Equal Deaf Education System
Equal Deaf Education System
Since 1962, the Utah Association for the Deaf has been active in political conflicts over deaf education inequalities. The Dual-Track Program and Two-Track Program were hotly debated topics. Various teaching practices, communication methods, educational philosophies, and concerns about the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) have all contributed to division among administrators, teachers, parents, and Utah Deaf community members. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group remained determined to realize Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's vision of an equal deaf education system despite conflicts with Superintendent Noyce. Finally, in 2013 and 2014, USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman and Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner also recognized Dr. Sanderson's dream of an equal deaf education system, and they made it a reality by providing parents with equal and fair information. This is a significant milestone in pursuing an equal educational system for Deaf students.
Look at the part below on Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream, which he published on page 8 in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992.
Look at the part below on Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream, which he published on page 8 in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992.
“MY DREAM”
“This is my dream and only mine. I’ll share it with you, even though some of you may think it’s more like a nightmare.
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992).”
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
- A top-quality comprehensive residential school for deaf children who live far from urban schools;
- A high quality day school with proper grading K-12 in a central division location in each of the major cities, SLC, Ogden, and Provo—in which children who are deaf may interact freely with their peers;
- Schools in which communication philosophies fit the child, and not the child to the philosophies.
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
- Administrators who know who to motivate and get the best out of their teachers;
- Top-quality professional teachers who not only understand the subjects they teach, but deafness as well, and who will earn salaries commensurate with the special skills they have;
- That all graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf will score in the top 20% of all high school graduate statewide, and will qualify for higher education if they so desire.
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992).”
The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Michelle Tanner, with Joel's support, realized Dr. Sanderson's dream in 2016, twenty-four years after he published his dream in 1992, by creating the "Hybrid" Program, enabling unbiased collaboration between the Listening and Spoken Language Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, resulting in offering a personalized deaf education placement. This program also eliminates the need for parents to make an 'either/or' decision between the two programs, which is a significant step towards providing unbiased and equal information. Joel and Michelle played essential roles in achieving Dr. Sanderson's dream. Working together can have a greater impact on promoting deaf education equity for all Utah Deaf and hard of hearing students.
The Collaboration Between the Listening & Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual
Departments Faces Challenges
Departments Faces Challenges
Michelle Tanner, a long-serving teacher and director at the Utah School for the Deaf (USD), was appointed Associate Superintendent in 2014. She works under Superintendent Joel Coleman, who was appointed by the Utah State Board of Education in 2013. During Michelle's first year as Associate Superintendent, she seriously considered the "Y" system mentality that had been in place at the USD for years. Many parents were confused about why they had to choose one option over the other. Michelle wondered if the long-standing dispute over the education of Deaf and hard of hearing students could ever be resolved. "Will this fight ever end?" she pondered. The battle has been well-documented throughout history on numerous continents. She thought aloud, "Can the two factions ever get along?" Michelle realized as she contemplated these issues that she had the capacity and authority in her current position to try something different for the state of Utah. In this case, she might have some influence. But how could she go about doing it?
As a strong advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, Michelle wondered how she could get Listening & Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English to work together. Her goal was to break free from the "Y" system mindset. She recognized that in today's culture, we value options and the ability to create the option that best suits our needs. Michelle knew that the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments in Salt Lake City and Ogden shared a campus. As a result, she started by changing policies to eliminate the "either/or" mindset. Michelle spoke with the educational directors and emphasized that in the preschool program, parents would no longer have to choose between the two options, and instructors would be able to stick to their educational philosophy. Students would be the ones to go from class to class based on the IEP team's decision. Teachers would be able to maintain true to their methodology approach while students could get an education in both programs. At the same time, Michelle informed parents of students transferring to Part B services about the change, explaining that they no longer had to choose between LSL and ASL/English options; they could attend both classes.
The ASL/English teachers were very accepting and supportive of the change. The LSL teachers, on the other hand, faced fierce opposition throughout the first two years of implementation. Despite the subterfuge and attempts to sway parents away from the ASL/English Bilingual education, Michelle stood firmly with the newly designed Hybrid Program to provide equal family options. Furthermore, the LSL teachers' determination motivated some parents to obtain statistics to verify whether or not the program worked before making a decision, resulting in some filing complaints with the Utah State Board of Education. Many LSL teachers were adamant about not collaborating with ASL/English teachers. Michelle was highly involved in weekly meetings with all the teachers at the time, addressing questions and resolving conflicts. Each year, the USD team readjusted and strengthened their work, reorganizing how they shared students. The USD administration also implemented a strict policy prohibiting one teacher from speaking with a parent without the involvement of the partnering teacher from the other teaching philosophy. They had to remove some teachers from these cooperation tasks and replace them with more open-minded teachers.
As a strong advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, Michelle wondered how she could get Listening & Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English to work together. Her goal was to break free from the "Y" system mindset. She recognized that in today's culture, we value options and the ability to create the option that best suits our needs. Michelle knew that the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments in Salt Lake City and Ogden shared a campus. As a result, she started by changing policies to eliminate the "either/or" mindset. Michelle spoke with the educational directors and emphasized that in the preschool program, parents would no longer have to choose between the two options, and instructors would be able to stick to their educational philosophy. Students would be the ones to go from class to class based on the IEP team's decision. Teachers would be able to maintain true to their methodology approach while students could get an education in both programs. At the same time, Michelle informed parents of students transferring to Part B services about the change, explaining that they no longer had to choose between LSL and ASL/English options; they could attend both classes.
The ASL/English teachers were very accepting and supportive of the change. The LSL teachers, on the other hand, faced fierce opposition throughout the first two years of implementation. Despite the subterfuge and attempts to sway parents away from the ASL/English Bilingual education, Michelle stood firmly with the newly designed Hybrid Program to provide equal family options. Furthermore, the LSL teachers' determination motivated some parents to obtain statistics to verify whether or not the program worked before making a decision, resulting in some filing complaints with the Utah State Board of Education. Many LSL teachers were adamant about not collaborating with ASL/English teachers. Michelle was highly involved in weekly meetings with all the teachers at the time, addressing questions and resolving conflicts. Each year, the USD team readjusted and strengthened their work, reorganizing how they shared students. The USD administration also implemented a strict policy prohibiting one teacher from speaking with a parent without the involvement of the partnering teacher from the other teaching philosophy. They had to remove some teachers from these cooperation tasks and replace them with more open-minded teachers.
The Utah School for the Deaf team has significantly progressed from 2014 to 2020, creating a more collaborative environment. This progress has led to Michelle no longer needing to attend weekly teacher meetings, as the teachers are now more cooperative. In August 2016, the term "hybrid" was coined to describe the newfound collaboration between classes, essentially creating an ASL/English Bilingual program. This program required collaboration between two faculties, creating the term "hybrid" program. Michelle refers to it as a "collaboration" between the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual programs or a personalized deaf education placement, which ends in 1st grade. Due to these improvements, some parents have expressed interest in extending this opportunity to older grades and the USD team is exploring their options. Based on their findings, students either return to a district program (if they are more oral) or continue in the ASL/English Bilingual Program. Parents are advocating for the USD to continue providing this structure for students in the upper grades who need it.
The ultimate goal of providing education for Deaf and hard of hearing students is to ensure that parents have access to a range of options and do not feel restricted to a limited choice for their child's education. This approach, which introduces American Sign Language (ASL) without forcing students into a placement that isn't effective, has been successful in reducing language deprivation. Michelle Tanner noted that parents are thrilled that the USD team has moved away from the "Y" system approach and is now working collaboratively to meet the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021).
The ultimate goal of providing education for Deaf and hard of hearing students is to ensure that parents have access to a range of options and do not feel restricted to a limited choice for their child's education. This approach, which introduces American Sign Language (ASL) without forcing students into a placement that isn't effective, has been successful in reducing language deprivation. Michelle Tanner noted that parents are thrilled that the USD team has moved away from the "Y" system approach and is now working collaboratively to meet the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021).
Implementing and Promoting Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K)
To provide background information regarding implementing and promoting Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K). California enacted Senate Bill 210 on October 8, 2015, to further promote the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1994. The law requires all Deaf and hard of hearing babies in California to have language acquisition assessments every six months until they are five (California Department of Education, 1994; California Legislative Information, 2015). Julie Rems-Smario, a Deaf Education advocate and political activist who spearheaded the LEAD-K, encourages all other states to follow California's lead, which Utah did, as detailed below. The Senate Bill aims to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing children are academically prepared for kindergarten. Following the bill's passage, the Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K) organization was established with the goal of providing equal access to language acquisition and literacy for Deaf and hard of hearing children before they enter kindergarten (California Legislative Information, 2015; Deaf Nation, 2015; Endeavors, Fall 2015).
In 2018, the Coleman/Tanner administration launched the LEAD-K (Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids) Policy, a groundbreaking initiative that offered parents a range of options instead of a restrictive 'either/or' situation. Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and ally of the Utah Deaf community, first suggested this approach in the 1970s, which Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an oral and mainstreaming advocate, rejected. LEAD-K is a beacon of hope, aiming to ensure that Deaf children are fully prepared for kindergarten by promoting language equality and acquisition. In 2021, the USD Language and Communication Policy underwent an amendment, establishing clear standards for each Listening and Spoken Language Program and ASL/English Bilingual Program. This amendment provides parents with accurate information about communication and educational options, ensuring that students have access to their communication and language needs.
Although Dr. Sanderson passed away in 2012, he would have been delighted and appreciative of Michelle Tanner for making his dream a reality. As a Deaf parent with two Deaf children and a former Deaf Education Advocate, I believe my research on this website helped her create solutions and strategies for collaboration with the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments. Without these plans, both programs would struggle to meet the needs of both parents and children effectively. Getting here has taken a long time, but better late than never!
Although Dr. Sanderson passed away in 2012, he would have been delighted and appreciative of Michelle Tanner for making his dream a reality. As a Deaf parent with two Deaf children and a former Deaf Education Advocate, I believe my research on this website helped her create solutions and strategies for collaboration with the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments. Without these plans, both programs would struggle to meet the needs of both parents and children effectively. Getting here has taken a long time, but better late than never!
Deaf Representatives
Make Up 51% of USD Committees
Make Up 51% of USD Committees
Under the administration of Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner, the LEAD-K Policy was formed by a committee comprised of more than 51% Deaf individuals, similar to the approach taken by Gallaudet University's Board of Trustees following the 1988 Deaf President Now protest. USD adopted the California law's recommendations for team members and goals for LEAD-K. The Utah School for the Deaf also ensures that the Communication and Language Policy Committee, along with all other committees, is set up in the same way. Michelle believed it was necessary for all policy changes and everything that would affect Deaf and hard of hearing students and employees.
The LEAD-K Committee included both ASL and LSL Deaf representatives who worked with USD ASL/LSL administrators to create the policy. The Deaf representatives on the LEAD-K were Philippe Montalette, Leanna Turman Gale, Brooke Budzinski Grossinger, Jared Allebest, Stephanie Morgan, Lori Ruth, and Jamie Warengo. Philippe and Jared were also members of the USDB Advisory Council while serving on the LEAD-K Committee.
The LEAD-K Committee included both ASL and LSL Deaf representatives who worked with USD ASL/LSL administrators to create the policy. The Deaf representatives on the LEAD-K were Philippe Montalette, Leanna Turman Gale, Brooke Budzinski Grossinger, Jared Allebest, Stephanie Morgan, Lori Ruth, and Jamie Warengo. Philippe and Jared were also members of the USDB Advisory Council while serving on the LEAD-K Committee.
Note
Will update the references later.
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
References
Sanderson, R.G. (1992, July). My Dream. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 8.