Dr. Robert G. Sanderson: "Mainstreaming Is Not the Answer for All Deaf Children"

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson:
"Mainstreaming Is Not the Answer
for All Deaf Children"

Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney

Published in 2016
Updated in 2024

Author's Note

As a parent of two Deaf children, my passion for Deaf education comes from my personal journey. My father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, also sparked my interest and shared with me the history of Deaf education in Utah, including its oral and mainstreaming impact. This inspired me to meticulously document the controversial events of that era. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be able to advocate for my kids without knowing the history. 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 truly empowered me to advocate for my children and others in Utah who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled. This platform has given me the strength and voice to make a difference.

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."

When writing about individuals for our history website, I choose to use their first name to acknowledge all individuals who contribute to and advocate for our community's causes. Our patriarchal culture often expects to recognize women's advocacy, contributions, and achievements using their husbands' last names instead of their own. However, in the spirit of inclusivity, equality, and recognizing each individual's unique identity, I have decided to use their first names throughout the website. This decision reaffirms our commitment to these values and highlights the significant role of women's advocacy in our community.

Our organization, previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, changed its name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. The association was known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962. The association changed its name to the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963. Finally, in 2012, the association reverted to its previous name, the Utah Association of the Deaf. When writing the history website, I use both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of the association's history.

While advocating for Deaf education in Utah, I have gained firsthand experience with the Utah Code that regulates the Utah School for the Deaf. The code has been promoting mainstreaming for Deaf and hard of hearing students, and the Utah School for the Deaf has been a pioneer in mainstreaming since 1959. During my research for the history website, I discovered an article in the 1992 UAD Bulletin by our Deaf Education Advocate, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, titled "Mainstreaming is Not the Answer for All Deaf Children." Despite the article's publication, the mainstreaming trend continued until the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf merged with the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, which drastically changed its dynamic. The Utah Code had a significant impact on JMS, leading to a decline in student enrollment in mainstream settings. However, things changed for the better when we successfully advocated for a change in the law in 2009, as explained on this webpage.

Thank you for taking an interest in this topic. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah.

Enjoy!
Jodi Becker Kinner

Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming

Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Dr. Bitter's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who, in 1897, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' which mandated attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946; Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1897 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Dr. Bitter advocated for mainstreaming all Deaf children, paving the way for widespread acceptance of this approach in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, 1961

His daughter, Colleen, was born deaf in 1954, which was another reason for 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 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Martha Hughes Cannon. Source: Utah State Historical Society, Deseret News Archives

During Martha's tenure on the Board of Trustees in 1896, a significant effort was made to address the lack of a law requiring Deaf and Blind children to attend the state institution. Martha and her board members urgently wrote a letter to the Utah governor and legislature, requesting that these children be educated at the state institute rather than in public schools. Their letter specifically recommended a legislative requirement for these children's attendance at the state institution, emphasizing the life-changing impact of specialized education. The report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896, as detailed in the section below, provides a clearer picture of the content of this letter and its impact (Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896). After being elected as a senator, Martha continued her advocacy, spearheading a proposal for a mandatory school bill, which was successfully passed in 1896, bringing about positive change for Deaf and Blind children.

Source: 'Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind,' 1896

Source: 'Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896,' p. 10

However, in the 1970s, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf educator who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter, a firm advocate of oral and mainstream philosophy, was particularly vocal about his beliefs. His influence, as Dr. Baldwin noted, was profound. Dr. Bitter was a hard-core oralist and one of the top figures in oral deaf education, and no one was more persistent than him in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled how Dr. Bitter's criticism of the growing use of sign language had a significant impact, arguing that it hindered the development of oral skills and contributed to lower enrollment in residential schools, which he believed isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon and her team's proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution.

Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin

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. As a top figure in oral deaf education, Dr. Bitter played a significant role in shaping Deaf education policies, advocating for an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, as did the Utah Association for the Deaf, engaged in disagreements during the listening and speaking demonstration panels, picket 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. Dr. Bitter held significant power as a parental figure and used parental influence and leverage to advocate for oralism, making it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to oppose him. The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience in response to the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter's opposition. This period was a significant turning point in their history and played a crucial role in shaping Deaf education policies. Their strength and determination not only helped them overcome these obstacles but also served to inspire others along the way.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: Gallaudet University Archives

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 Training 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 strongly believed in oralism, which is the conviction that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. This belief was not merely theoretical for him; he actively supported the cause by founding the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970. This initiative reflected his commitment to oral deaf education. In 1981, he also established the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters. Additionally, Dr. Bitter served as the chair of the Utah Chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where he led efforts to support and advocate for oral Deaf individuals, further demonstrating his dedication to this mission (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).

Dr. Bitter and many other parents strongly supported oral education and opted not to send their Deaf children to Ogden's residential campus. In response to this demand, the Utah School for the Deaf established an Extension Division in Salt Lake City in 1959. This initiative allowed Deaf students to attend classes closer to their homes, paving the way for the mainstreaming movement. Dr. Bitter taught Deaf students in the USD Extension-Salt Lake City program from 1960 to 1962 (Utahn, 1963). During this time, he likely advocated for the growth of mainstreaming and the inclusion of all Deaf students in public schools. With his advocacy, the Utah School for the Deaf quickly established extension divisions throughout the state to provide day programs for Deaf students in heavily populated areas.

The demographics of Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf began to change in 1961 as the proportion of Deaf individuals with additional disabilities increased. Improvements in hearing aids allowed many Deaf individuals to communicate more effectively with hearing people. Additionally, the number of individuals who became deaf later in life began to decline, while the number of those born deaf increased.

Many Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a solid foundation in language before losing their hearing. However, the rising number of Deaf individuals born to hearing parents has negatively impacted their language development. A significant advancement for the Deaf community was the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1964. This created a formal system for training and certifying interpreters, which greatly improved access to education and services for Deaf individuals.

The Utah Deaf community previously relied on individuals who were hard of hearing and had learned written and spoken language before using hearing aids. Many of those who lost their hearing later in life maintained strong speaking abilities. However, the Utah Association of the Deaf anticipated a decline in the number of such individuals in the future. They also expected an increase in Deaf individuals with additional disabilities, which would further complicate the situation (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).

As more Deaf children without disabilities integrated into mainstream education, the number of Deaf students with disabilities at Ogden's residential campus increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The Utah Association of the Deaf's prediction about this trend proved accurate. The Utah School for the Deaf established self-contained deaf classes in local public schools to facilitate mainstreaming. Deaf students who excelled academically or were at the same level as their peers had the option to enroll in full inclusion programs within their school districts. The Utah Association of the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, a topic that was discussed during Institutional Council meetings (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009). They continued to advocate for improved educational opportunities for Deaf students, highlighting the persistent challenges faced by the Utah Deaf community.

Robert G. Sanderson Defends the
Utah School for the Deaf

The proposal to mainstream all Deaf children was first discussed in the April 20, 1959, newspaper edition in Salt Lake City. In his article "It's Leave Home or Education Ends," William Smiley advocated for establishing a day school for Deaf children in Salt Lake City, utilizing an oral approach (Smiley, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 20, 1959).

William Smiley, 'It's Leave Home or Education End.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 20, 1959

In response to William Smiley's article, Robert G. Sanderson, known as "Sadie" and "Bob," a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf who officially became a Deaf education advocate in 1955, presented a compelling argument on April 30, 1959, titled "Ogden School Best for Deaf Children." In an article, Bob defended the Utah School for the Deaf's use of sign language for communication. He emphasized the crucial role of sign language in the lives of Deaf children. Bob recognized the rights of parents to request special classes for their Deaf children in Salt Lake City, Utah. However, he opposed the notion that oral advocates deceive parents by emphasizing lip-reading and speech over education. Bob argued that a Deaf child attending the residential school in Ogden, Utah, received a better education compared to attending an oral day school. He also compared the education provided at the Utah School for the Deaf to that of a regular public school for hearing children. Bob highlighted the excellent academic instruction and vocational training available at the Utah School for the Deaf, urging parents to prioritize their child's education over their emotions when choosing a school. He also stressed that speech and lip-reading abilities would develop over time based on the child's capabilities, a crucial point often overlooked in the debate. In his conclusion, Bob emphasized that sign language is the natural and primary means of communication for Deaf children, and it was unreasonable for parents to deny their Deaf children the use of it. Bob stated that learning sign language would enable parents and children to communicate and bridge the language barrier sooner. He emphasized again that speech and lip-reading skills would develop over time based on each child's abilities (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 1959).

Robert G. Sanderson

Robert G. Sanderson, 'Ogden Schoo Best for Deaf Children.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 1959

The Utah School for the Deaf graduates and Utah Association of the Deaf officials, G. Leon Curtis and Ray G. Wenger, also a member of the Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, wrote in support of Robert Sanderson. Their newspaper pieces were in response to William Smiley's article (above) and Elizabeth H. Spear's "The Case for Oral Education of the Deaf," in which she disagreed with Robert. Leon and Ray highlighted in their writings that both speech lessons and sign language classes were available at the Utah School for the Deaf. They recommended that anyone interested attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (Curtis, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 1959; Wenger, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1959). They also said Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder could arrange a campus tour. They also assured the students' cheerful expressions would prove that the USD was excellently developing happy, self-sufficient Deaf adults (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 1959).

Elizabeth H. Spear. 'The Case for Oral Education of the Deaf.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1959

Ray G. Wenger

Ray G. Wenger. 'Educating Deaf Demands More Than Just 'Speech.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1959

G. Leon Curtis. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955

The First Concept of Mainstreaming
at the Stewart Training Program

The concept of mainstreaming Deaf and hard of hearing students originated from the determination of parents in the Salt Lake area of Utah. Unwilling to send their children to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, these parents collaborated with the Stewart Training School, a teacher training institution at the University of Utah, to establish a local oral day school. In the fall of 1956, the Stewart Training School opened its doors to provide an oral classroom for Deaf students (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, January 31, 2022). This grassroots movement, initiated by parents, has since gained momentum in Utah, leading the Utah School for the Deaf to expand its outreach programs within school districts.

The USD Oral Extension Program at the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School is located at 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utahn, 1960. Source: https://science.utah.edu/science-u/stewart/

Paul Williams Hodson made a significant decision when he enrolled his five-year-old son, Jonathan, in the Stewart Training program. Jonathan's teacher, Miss Hunt, played a pivotal role in his life; her influence was so profound that she later taught at Riley Elementary School under the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in 1959 (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, January 31, 2022). The Stewart Training School, known within the oral community as a beacon of hope for parents of Deaf children, provided education based on oral skills, focusing on speech and listening instead of sign language (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).

The Utah School for the Deaf has established an Extension Division for Deaf Students in their Neighborhood Homes

In the late 1950s, the Stewart Training School became overcrowded, particularly among kindergarten-age students, making it increasingly difficult to serve Deaf and hard of hearing students (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011). Due to the overcrowding of the Stewart Training School, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, faced opposition from parents who feared institutionalization, isolation, and segregation, as Dr. Bitter called it in his interview with the University of Utah in 1987 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). To address this concern, the Utah School for the Deaf sought assistance from Dr. Allen Bateman, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to partner with the Salt Lake City School District to support the parents. This collaboration led to the development of the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf, marking the beginning of mainstreaming for Deaf and hard of hearing students. Dr. Allen E. Bateman's positive response and support for the initiative were instrumental in its success (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960; The Utah Eagle, January 1968).

Dr. Allen E. Bateman,

In 1959, with the collaboration of the Utah State Board of Education, the legislature, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Salt Lake City Schools District, Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind established the first extension classroom for oral students in public schools. This allowed these students to continue their education at home (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The Extension Division, which began in 1959, first offered oral classes to elementary school students (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984). At that time, students had the option to attend a local public school or the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, where they could get the necessary academic and vocational skills for graduation (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).

Robert W. Tegeder. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959

The teachers in the extension classrooms followed the curriculum of the Utah School for the Deaf at the elementary level. As students advanced to the upper grades, the Salt Lake City School District's curriculum gradually aligned with that of the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). This educational transition also involved the integration of students into regular public schools.

With careful planning, students progressed from intensive training in speech, speech-reading, and listening skills to joining public school classes. Initially, they integrated with hearing students during recess and lunch and later participated in non-academic subjects such as physical education, art, industrial arts, and homemaking. Furthermore, the Extension Division assigned prepared students to more advanced academic classes for one or more periods during the day.

The Utah School for the Deaf eventually introduced the Total Communication Program in its Extension Division, following a process similar to that of oral students. The programs were funded by the Utah School for the Deaf, which also rented space from the local public school district (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).

The Extension Division, established in 1959, was a resounding success. It expanded from one to over twenty classrooms in Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, Brigham City, Logan, and Vernal from 1961 to 1970. As part of its outreach programs, the Utah School for the Deaf collaborated with various public schools in different areas. The Extension Division team included teachers, nursery teachers, teacher aides, consultants, volunteers, and a curriculum coordinator. The Extension Division offered classes at preschool, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high schools (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).

Since then, with the unwavering support of parents who passionately advocated for oral education and integration into mainstream schools, the school has been a leader in mainstreaming students who are deaf or hard of hearing into local school districts all over Utah. This collective effort, along with Dr. Bitter's mission, spearheaded the mainstreaming movement and led to a significant shift in Deaf education (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

The Utah School for the Deaf teacher giving student a speech training. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

In the Salt Lake area, the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf accepted children with disabilities who were capable of learning academically, starting as young as two and a half years old. After preschool, Deaf students would either transfer to the residential campus in Ogden or continue their education in the Extension Oral Program. The decision about placement was made collaboratively by curriculum coordinators, instructors, and parents, taking into account the student's academic performance, home environment, and social development.

Typically, students transitioned from preschool to kindergarten, a process that required careful evaluation and planning. If a student demonstrated satisfactory progress in all areas, they could remain under the supervision of the Extension Division until graduating from high school. However, if a student needed more intensive speech and listening training, the Extension Division had the option to transfer them to the Ogden residential campus, as there were not enough sections at each grade level to accommodate a wide range of proficiency in these oral skills (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).

An oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s

The Oral and Mainstreaming
Movement is Flourishing in Utah

Mary Burch, a retired teacher from Kentucky, played a significant role in the development of oral deaf education in Utah. Persuaded to come out of retirement, she established the first extension classroom in Salt Lake City in September 1959. Her previous experience at the Clarke School for the Deaf, a private oral school for the deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts, provided her with the skills necessary for this endeavor. The extension classroom she managed was highly successful during the academic year from September 1959 to May 1960 (Tegedar, The Utah Eagle, October 1959; The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).

Mary Burch. Source: Utahn, 1960

The Utah School for the Deaf expanded its facilities due to its success. In 1960, two additional classrooms were added at Riley Elementary School in the Salt Lake City area. This expansion marked a significant moment in the history of Deaf education in Utah, reflecting a growing interest in assessing the effectiveness of teaching Deaf children using speech and listening skills.

The educators involved in this initiative—Grant B. Bitter, Tony Christopulos, Bruce Wallace, Duane Harrison, Thomas VanDrimmenlen, Albert Thurber, and Mary Burch—strongly advocated oral instruction, which they implemented in their classrooms. To ensure the program's success, they actively marketed the initiative to parents, inviting them to observe the classes and engaging them in the process. They aimed to secure parental support to further enhance their educational agenda (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).

As an example of mainstreaming expansion, Grant B. Bitter, a strong oral advocate, taught the first integrated class for oral students at Jordan Middle School, Salt Lake City School District, in cooperation with the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf from 1962 to 1964. Following his doctorate, the Extension Division promoted him to Curriculum Coordinator, a role he held for two years from 1967 to 1969 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

The USD Oral Extension Program at the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School on 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: Utahn, 1960

For the first time in history, Utah established certification standards for Deaf education teachers in 1958 (The Utah Eagle, April 1958). In 1962, Reid C. Miller, an oral advocate, assistant professor, and director, established the Teacher Training Program under the Speech Pathology and Audiology Department at the University of Utah, focusing primarily on oral education through a collaboration between the University of Utah and the Utah School for the Deaf (Tony Christopulos, personal communication, November 5, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

The Department of Special Education later took over the Teacher Training Program in 1967 to help prepare future oral education teachers, known as an 'army of oral teachers,' for employment at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986).

At the time, university policy changed, requiring doctorates for program directors at this level. The university let go of Reid C. Miller, who held a master's degree, and hired Dr. Bitter, who was the Curriculum Coordinator of the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf, in 1968 to become an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Teacher Training Program after he completed his doctorate in 1967 (Utah Eagle, October 1967; Boyack, David County, 1970; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). From 1968 to 1969, Dr. Bitter served as both the Extension Division Coordinator and the Professor of the Teacher Training Program for a year. He resigned as an Extension Division coordinator and continued teaching the Teacher Training Program until his retirement in 1987 (Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Reid C. Miller. Source: Utonian: University of Utah, 1965

For Deaf education, the University of Utah provided licensed teachers with an emphasis on speaking and listening skills, whereas the Utah School for the Deaf provided student teaching facilities, internships, and daily on-site supervision for its student teachers (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985). However, the Special Education Department did not plan any such Teacher Training Program for prospective teachers who would teach Deaf students in sign language using the simultaneous communication method. The state board did not resolve this issue until 1984 (Utah, 1973; Campbell, 1977; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986).

Standing is Mary Burch, teacher and the oral class. Front row, left to right: Paul Anderson, Sandra Kwawegen, Bryan Monson, Debra Hale, Barbara June Clay and Jonathon Hodson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959

From there, Dr. Bitter incorporated his oral and mainstreaming philosophy into the curriculum for the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah. His daughter Colleen, who was Deaf, was born in 1954, and he wanted her to be able to speak. His ambition led him to play a key role in developing the oral teaching method. At the time, Utah had only one program for training Deaf education teachers. The main goal of this program was to train future teachers to teach Deaf children to speak and listen in the same way as hearing children. The curriculum focused solely on the oral method and did not include sign language training.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1967

In the UAD Spring 1964 Bulletin, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson stated that the University of Utah prioritized oral instruction in Deaf education. The university also attracted teachers trained in the oral instruction approach; many came from well-known oral deaf schools, such as Clarke School for the Deaf and Lexington School for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964). The Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah quickly produced teachers of oral and mainstream education.

The University of Utah Student Teachers teaching the oral program at Utah School for the Deaf, 1973

Standing is Wallace Bruce, an oral teacher with students, Ronald C. Burdett (left) and Thomas Rulon Osmond (right) listening to the music, 1959

Dr. Sanderson was not the only one who noticed the impact of having so many oral teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf. Both Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, who is a sign language interpreter, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, and a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community, and Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, witnessed the impact on the school. Since 90% of Deaf children have hearing parents, they became advocates for the oral and mainstreaming movements. Many hearing parents were unfamiliar with sign language and wanted their Deaf child to learn how to speak (Baldwin, 1975, p. 1; Campbell, 1977). In contrast, most Deaf adults preferred simultaneous communication, which involved the use of sign language in classroom instruction. However, the University of Utah rejected the Utah Association for the Deaf's request to include simultaneous communication methods in the Teacher Training Program curriculum (Campbell, 1977). Despite this rejection, the Utah Deaf community's advocacy for simultaneous communication demonstrated their resilience and unwavering commitment to their preferred educational approach, earning respect from all who understood their challenges.

Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1973

In the late 1960s and 1970s, a national shift in Deaf education was underway, moving from the oral method to Total Communication, which included the use of sign language. This change was greatly influenced by Dr. William C. Stokoe's research, which established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure (Wikipedia: William Stokoe). Despite this groundbreaking work, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education field remained resistant to change and continued to advocate for the oral approach. Furthermore, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program did not include sign language in its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transition period.

Dr. William C. Stokoe Jr. Source: Wikipedia

A Protest at the University of Utah

In 1971, the Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Lloyd H. Perkins, the Chairperson of the UAD Educational Committee, requested a written review of the Teacher Training Program (L. Perkins, personal communication, no date). On December 7, 1971, Dr. Erdman, the Department of Special Education Chairperson, wrote back to affirm to Lloyd that there would be a meeting on December 13 to review the Teacher Training Program. Dr. Stephen Hencley, the Dean of the Graduate School of Education, responded to Lloyd's letter on December 16, 1971, assuring him that the Teacher Training Program would undergo curriculum changes and incorporate a sign language component (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, December 6, 1971).

Lloyd H. Perkins. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970

Four years later, on July 23, 1974, Dr. Jay J. Campbell followed up with Dr. Erdman, the Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. He requested a report to confirm the implementation of a comprehensive communication curriculum in the Teacher Training Program. In response, Dr. Erdman informed Dr. Campbell that the Teacher Training Program hired Gene Stewart, a Children of Deaf Adults (CODA) and vocational rehabilitation counselor, in 1972 to teach a sign language course. Dr. Erdman's letter also included the new policy, as stated: "All students who are preparing to become teachers of the hearing impaired are required to master the basic manual communication competencies through involvement in one or both of the above described classes or be able to demonstrate those competencies if they have already had previous manual communication experiences and/or coursework in that area" (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, p. 2, August 15, 1974). There was a disagreement between the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Special Education Department regarding the extent of total communication courses that the program would offer. The Utah Association for the Deaf expected a comprehensive Total Communication Program, while the Teacher Training Program had a different perspective on this expectation.

Gene Stewart. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970

In 1977, the Utah Association for the Deaf continued to advocate for including a total communication curriculum in their program. They urged President Alfred C. Emery of the University of Utah and other administrators to review the Teacher Training Program, modify the curriculum, and include sign language as an equal component of oralism. In late August or early September 1977, UAD representatives met with Dr. Pete D. Gardner, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University, to present a 9-point list of concerns regarding the Teacher Training Program, as shown in the section below. During the meeting, Lloyd Perkins and other UAD representatives requested a meeting with President Emery to present their concerns. However, Dr. Gardner responded by sending a letter to Lloyd Perkins' wife, Madeleine Burton Perkins, who served as an interpreter for the meeting. In the letter, Dr. Gardner informed them that a meeting with President Emery would be unproductive and that Dr. Bitter had not violated any academic standards (P.D. Gardner, personal communication, September 14, 1977).

The Utah Association for the Deaf has released a nine-point list of complaints about the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library

President Emery's refusal to meet sparked controversy when W. David Mortensen, a well-known political activist and president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, organized two protests. The first protest took place on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education, and the second on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus. The University of Utah sparked the protests due to its unequal oral and total communication training program, preference for oral-only education, bias against the total communication method of teaching, preference for day schools, lack of a Deaf representative on the Advisory Committee, and consistent failure to listen to UAD and the Utah Deaf community. On November 28, approximately twenty Deaf people gathered in front of the Park Building to protest the university's handling of their concerns. M. J. Lewis published a letter to the Deseret News, stating that "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and put fear into parents that their children will never be able to function as normal human beings" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 28, 1977; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).

W. David Mortensen

During the protest, Dr. Bitter's still stance on how Deaf students should be educated in oralism and his rejection of the Utah Association for the Deaf's demand to include sign language in his curriculum. In response to the Utah Association for the Deaf protest, Dr. Bitter said, "We are trying to be fair and meet individual needs" (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977). He responded that he supported an oral-only approach because he believed it was the most effective way to help Deaf children integrate into society (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1).

'Pickets are outside the Utah State Office of Education, protesting the University of Utah's oral teaching method for the Deaf.' Source: Deseret News, November 19, 1977

Dr. Bitter further contended that oralism would help Deaf children develop a positive self-concept and prepare them for mainstream life independently without relying on a sign language interpreter. He further clarified that the Teacher Training Program included sign language classes. Dr. Bitter noted that the university had met its obligations to the Utah State Board of Education by incorporating total communication opportunities in its oral curriculum (Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977).

Arnold Moon. Source: The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977

Zelma Moon. Source: The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977

The protests, led by UAD President Mortensen, caught the attention of the Utah State Board of Education. In April 1979, they passed a motion directing the University of Utah to hire a faculty member to teach a total communication class to prospective Deaf education teachers (The Silent Spotlight, June 1979; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). 'The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication and Oralism at the University of Utah' provides more details about the protest. From 1979 to 1985, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson taught ASL (then total communication) as well as the social, psychological, and cultural aspects of deafness as an adjunct professor in the Division of Communication Disorders at the University of Utah (Newman, 2006).

Dr. Bitter revealed in an interview with the University of Utah in 1987 that he had been the target of a vicious attack by the Utah Deaf community. Community leaders viewed him as a scoundrel who knew nothing about deafness. During this time, picketers gathered on the University of Utah campus and at the Utah State Office of Education, staging protests that included burning his effigy. The "Years of Controversy" paper also contains slanderous statements, detailed in Jeffrey W. Pollock's paper, like, "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD" and "J.J. Campbell and R. Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is Deaf power" (Bluhm, Grant Bitter, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). It is clear that Dr. Bitter had little understanding of Deaf people's experiences in the oral and mainstreaming educational system. He could have gained a deeper understanding of Deaf people's experiences by listening to their viewpoints.

A New Deaf Education Program
at Utah State University

On April 20, 1982, Utah State University approved a new Deaf education major, marking a significant milestone in Utah's history of Deaf education. This major allowed teacher candidates to study total communication skills, a crucial aspect of Deaf education. Leading this program was Dr. Thomas C. Clark, the founder of SKI-HI, which served Deaf babies and toddlers. He, a professor and mentor, dedicated his life to training teachers and parent advisors who could meet the needs of Deaf children and their families. Dr. Clark was a pioneer of Deaf education and early intervention services for Deaf children in the nation. He knew that early access to language was crucial for Deaf children's success, so he developed programs that provided services to the families of Deaf children in their homes. He founded the SKI*HI Institute at Utah State University, which has become the model for early home intervention programs for Deaf children and children with disabilities in the United States and around the world (UAD Bulletin, April 2010).

Dr. Thomas C. Clark

Dr. Clark was the hearing son of a Deaf father, John H. Clark, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and became the first Utah graduate of Gallaudet College in 1902. He was also the second cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, who, like John H. Clark, graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897, became the first Utah graduate from Gallaudet College in 1902, and became the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf in 1909. However, it's important to note that funding was unavailable until 1985, when Utah State University established a preparation program to provide a total communication component.

John H. Clark. Source: FamilySearch.org

Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org

In 1974, the SKI-Hi Model packet featured Duane Kinner, the son of Deaf parents Kenneth and Ilene Kinner, on its front cover. The packet provided training through amplification and home intervention when visiting families with Deaf infants and toddlers.

Duane Kinner, the son of Deaf parents Kenneth and Ilene Kinner, was featured on the front cover of the SKI-Hi Model packet

Launching a Total Communication Program at Utah State University was a huge step forward for the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community! Previously, the majority of total communication teachers in Utah were from other states, while the majority of oral teachers came from the University of Utah. In 1991, Dr. J. Freeman King, a newly hired hearing professor, transformed the Deaf Education Program at Utah State University from a Total Communication Program to a Bilingual-Bicultural Program (UAD Bulletin, October 1991).

Dr. J. King Freeman

In 2007, Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University, led the establishment of the Listening and Spoken Language program. Initially, this led to a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program. Nonetheless, they coexisted and focused on their work within the same department.

Dr. Karl R. White

The Utah School for the Deaf Is Not
Comparable to Traditional Residential Schools

Over the years, Dr. Bitter has strongly advocated oralism and mainstreaming. The decline of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the integration of more Deaf students into mainstream education, saddened its alums. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have influenced Deaf education since the early 1960s, with Dr. Bitter playing a pivotal role. He used his influence and parental power to promote oralism in Deaf education, making it difficult for the Utah Association for the Deaf to challenge him. After the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, Dr. Bitter 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 speaking. This reflects the impact that Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, continues to have on Deaf education in Utah.

In 2001, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a member of the USDB Institutional Council at the time, observed that Utah took a different approach to Deaf education compared to other states, where residential schools were the norm. Instead of having children attend school on campus, Utah prioritized mainstreaming. This resulted in the integration of most Deaf children into public schools, with only a small number of students residing on campus. The Utah School for the Deaf also implemented self-contained classes led by its personnel staff in the local public school system to further integrate Deaf and hard of hearing students (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; Sanderson, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001).

Dr. Sanderson reported that 90% of Deaf and hard of hearing students in Utah were enrolled in local school districts. These students also registered at the Utah School for the Deaf, a specialized institution designed to meet their educational needs within the public school system. Additionally, the Utah School for the Deaf offered educational and consulting services to non-USD students who were Deaf or hard of hearing in a public school. Consequently, the state of Utah had designated the Utah School for the Deaf as a state institutional resource, providing expertise to any educational programs that serve Deaf and hard of hearing children in Utah (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; McAllister, 2002).

Lawrence M. Siegel. Source: Research at Gallaudet

The approach to Deaf education in Utah differed from that of other states in several ways. Initially, the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind interpreted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 94-142, to mean that the least restrictive environment (LRE) for these students would be a mainstream public school. The Utah School for the Deaf primarily focused on the oral method of instruction, reflecting this viewpoint. However, a problem arose when the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team considered educational placement options in Utah and other states. Unlike other states, Utah commonly refers to the LRE as a regular school classroom.

Despite Utah's LRE interpretation, Lawrence M. Siegel, a special education attorney specializing in Deaf education, noted in 2000 that a Deaf or hard of hearing student's educational placement decision should be based on communication-driven factors. We should give utmost consideration to the student's preferred mode of communication, a deeply personal and integral part of their identity. This prioritization would undoubtedly impact the outcome of the IEP placement decision. The more pressing question would be whether the student's school environment could provide them with an accessible language and equal communication opportunities. According to Lawrence, this was not just a matter of educational rights but of fundamental human rights. Deaf and hard of hearing students, according to Lawrence, have the same universal need for language and communication as any other human being. This fundamental requirement should be the starting point for all educational decisions. The deaf school made a poor decision by enrolling a student who is Deaf or hard of hearing in the public school system, expecting it to be the least restrictive environment possible. The IEP paperwork is a legal document that enforces all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should research the student's language accessibility needs before making placement decisions (National Deaf Education Project).

Utah Code 53A-25-104: The Culprit

Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, the Deaf community has viewed the public school system as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf students. The mainstreaming inclusion of more Deaf children led to their isolation from their peers and a lack of Deaf adult role models. This led to linguistic and social deprivation as they struggled to learn American Sign Language during their public school years (Erting et al., 1989). The Utah Association for the Deaf recognized that the mainstreaming philosophy and prevalent oral teaching methods at the Utah School for the Deaf had influenced mainstream placement decisions. During an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) meeting, Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent, her daughter Ellen, age 9, Steven Noyce, an oral and mainstreaming advocate, and the Outreach Program Director of the Utah School for the Deaf revealed the true nature of Deaf education in Utah.

Bronwyn O'Hara

In the fall of 1994, Bronwyn, who became friends with Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, a Deaf renowned leader and future co-founder of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, advocated the development of a day school for Deaf students where they could be together and share a common language and culture. In this place, hearing parents could learn from Deaf adults, and Deaf adults would feel valued. Bronwyn wanted this for all Deaf children and families. She formed the Support Group for Deaf Education with this goal in mind and planned to educate other parents of Deaf children about deaf issues and Deaf education. She has three Deaf children and understands the importance of receiving accurate information to make informed decisions. At the IEP meeting, Steven Noyce stated that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, under the Special Education Department, could not establish a deaf day school. He also noted that we would need to change the Utah Code, which regulates USDB, if we wanted a day school (O'Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995). Steven Noyce's insight reinforced information Bronwyn had obtained a few years prior during a phone conversation with Steve Kukic, the State Director of Special Education at the time. He informed her that all Deaf students began their education at the Department of Special Education rather than in regular schools. As a result, Utah law established specific rules to follow.

Bronwyn's plea during the 1994 IEP meeting sparked a dialogue with Steven Noyce. She requested that Ellen communicate in ASL directly with teachers and peers without using an interpreter, and she also needed peers with communication and linguistic abilities comparable to her own. Steven Noyce noted at the time that the law prohibited grade-level or above-grade-level Deaf students from attending the Utah School for the Deaf and its self-contained classes. He continued, "The classification of all Deaf children as special education students limited Ellen's educational options." Bronwyn was stunned. She asked where the intelligent Deaf students went. He replied with a single word: 'Mainstreamed' (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).

Steven W. Noyce

Unwilling to give up, Bronwyn pleaded with him to draft an IEP for Ellen, including gifted student goals, to enable her to receive an education at or above the grade level at the Utah School for the Deaf. Bronwyn was determined to overcome obstacles by circumventing existing laws to achieve her goal for Ellen, similar to how some states fund their gifted programs more efficiently by placing gifted students in special education without a waiver. However, Steven shrugged and remarked that it would not happen in Utah. He continued by stating that changing the law would be necessary for the situation to change (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).

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. Source: Deseret News, March 8, 1973. Deseret News Photo by Chief Photographer Don Groyston

Bronwyn came to the realization that her only option was to enroll Ellen in a public school. Having lived in Utah for eight years, Bronwyn suspected that parents had never discussed or clarified many USDB educational regulations. She also believed she had obtained enough information through reading, phone calls, and questioning at her children's IEP meetings. Nonetheless, when Bronwyn requested answers, the USDB officers responded vaguely. Following the eye-opening IEP meeting, Bronwyn warned the Utah Association for the Deaf and its Deaf Community about the law that governs the USDB. She believed they deserved to know what prevented the state from improving Deaf education (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, April 27, 2009). The UAD Bulletin published her letter on the third page, requesting their assistance in changing the law in the January 1995 issue, as shown in the section below.

Bronwyn O'Hara Writes a Letter
to the Utah Deaf Community

Dear Editor,

Right now, the law says that THE UTAH SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND IS UNDER SPECIAL EDUCATION. BECAUSE OF THAT RESTRICTION, THE ONLY DEAF CHILDREN WHO QUALIFY FOR ATTENDING USDB ARE THOSE WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION…

Does the Deaf community understand what this means?? This means that the deaf children who attend USDB must have delays in some area and need remedial help. This means the intelligent deaf children, on grade level or above, CAN NOT attend USDB. If they do attend USDB, they either are mainstreamed as much as possible or receive a remedial education with the rest of the remedial students (‘Remedial’ means “a special course to help students overcome deficiencies”).

The only way for deaf children to be educated together and for the possibility for a Day school is to CHANGE THE LAW. We need the Deaf community’s political clout to accomplish this. Please help! You accomplished so much last legislative session. You need to do it again.

Sincerely,
Bronwyn O’Hara, Parent
(O’Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3)

Bronwyn O’Hara. Source: UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3

Bronwyn refused to postpone Ellen's education until the law underwent a change. So, when it became clear that the current statute was a roadblock, the O'Hara family decided to leave Utah. Bronwyn had reservations about mainstreaming her Deaf children, as it would deprive them of Deaf adults and peers in terms of education and socialization. Ellen had an ineffective interpreter in fourth grade at Scera Park Elementary School, where she spent some of her time mainstreaming. In the Utah School for the Deaf system, there was no way to get a better one. These circumstances consistently hindered her child's academic advancement. In reality, squandering these years of education was irreversible. The family decided it was time to find a school that aligned with their values. In 1995, Ellen enrolled at the Indiana School for the Deaf, which was the first state school in 1990 to incorporate the bilingual-bicultural program and its philosophy into the curriculum.

Bronwyn & her daughter, Ellen who became the future JMS teacher

Another Parent's
Turn to Learn About the Law

Twelve years later, in 2007, it became another parent's turn to learn about Utah's law regulating the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. When I moved to Utah from Washington, D.C., in 2000, I was unaware of Bronwyn's family's issues with the Utah School for the Deaf. As a Deaf parent with two Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, I was elected in 2004 to serve on the USDB Institutional Council, which was later renamed the Advisory Council to represent the Utah Deaf community rather than as a parent. Bronwyn also submitted an application for a council position, but it did not lead to her selection. When I applied for a vacant position to replace Dr. Sanderson, whose term had expired, I suspected my background in oral education and mainstreaming contributed to my selection. This role as an advocate for the Utah Deaf community had given me a unique perspective and a platform to effect change.

My experience of enrolling my Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf was quite different. Before the merger of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind with the Jean Massieu School in 2005, enrolling Joshua at JMS was straightforward. Since JMS was an independent charter school, we did not need to go through the school district for the enrollment process when he turned three in 2004.

However, after the merger in 2005, JMS fell under Utah's Special Education regulations and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Families were required to refer their children to their local school district before enrolling them at the Utah School for the Deaf. Following this process, I enrolled my daughter, Danielle, who turned three in 2006, at JMS. However, as part of the IDEA process, Danielle was required to undergo evaluation testing, which took a considerable amount of time. The IEP meeting revealed that Danielle's school performance was six months behind that of her hearing peers, making her eligible for educational services at JMS.

I asked whether Danielle would still qualify to attend JMS if she performed academically on par with her peers. The IEP team said she would lose JMS eligibility if that happened. When I sought further clarification, I received vague responses, and like many parents before me, I let my questions go unanswered. During one IEP meeting, I was unable to fully understand the regulations of the Utah School for the Deaf.

Jodi Becker Kinner

A year later, in 2007, the issue resurfaced when Joshua's annual evaluation report arrived. During the IEP meeting, I learned that he, as a kindergartener, was just one point away from qualifying for mainstream education. I was stunned to learn that the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind had "kicked out" every Deaf and hard of hearing student scoring 85 or higher since the late 1970s, following the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975. This policy also impacted students with low vision and those who were blind or deaf-blind. According to Utah law, the USDB transferred students who performed well on standardized tests to public schools.

As members of the Utah Deaf Education and Literacy Board for the JMS Charter School, we had hoped that the school would thrive after the merger, but unfortunately, that was not the case. In 2006, JMS Charter School experienced a decline in enrollment just one year after the merger, losing several intelligent students to mainstream programs. Additionally, some bright students transferred to state schools for the deaf in other states. Like the Utah School for the Deaf, JMS faced the challenge of losing academic-level students and struggling with retention. It was a frustrating cycle that felt like a Catch-22. Julio Diaz, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and I, the parents of JMS Deaf students, struggled to identify the root cause of our concerns until the administration of the Utah School for the Deaf revealed the underlying reason for the Utah Code. We were shocked to discover that the Utah Code governed USDB in a way that promoted mainstreaming and finally recognized its effect on JMS. Upon reviewing the Utah Code, we found that before creating an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and allowing students to attend the Utah School for the Deaf, Utah Code 53A-25-104(2)(a) and (b) requires that children identified as hearing-impaired undergo eligibility evaluations for special education services. In contrast, Utah Code 25A-25-103 defines the Utah School for the Deaf as an institution capable of educating all deaf and hard of hearing children in the state. This creates a clear contradiction between Utah Code 53A-25-104 and Utah Code 25A-25-103, as established by the Utah State Legislature.

I soon realized that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were mandated by law to identify Deaf and hard of hearing students as special education students if they demonstrated academic delays. An individualized education program (IEP) is required to provide services for those who need special education support. At USDB, only students with special needs or those experiencing academic delays received services. If these students showed academic delays, they would need an IEP.

However, a persistent issue arose for Deaf students who were at or above grade level but were not eligible for IEP services and could not attend USDB classes. This challenge, first identified by Bronwyn many years ago, has resurfaced. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a vital institution for education, language acquisition, and socialization, had recently enforced the removal of a Deaf or hard of hearing student from its environment under the auspices of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.

Furthermore, the decision to place students from the Utah School for the Deaf into mainstream programs significantly restricted their access to various educational opportunities due to communication barriers—the Utah Code aimed to promote mainstreaming, which necessitates urgent changes to prevent these unfortunate catch-22 situations.

Minnie Mae was familiar with the regulations because Bronwyn, whom she had mentored during her struggles with the deaf educational system, had previously worked with the Utah Code at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind before relocating to Indiana. However, Minnie Mae did not connect the consequences of the 2005 merger between USDB and the Utah School for the Deaf and the root of the problem until it personally affected her. She realized how contradictory the regulations were. Like me, she observed the effects of the legislation during her daughter Briella's IEP meeting. Briella's remarkable academic progress led the IEP team to inform Minnie Mae that her daughter would no longer be eligible for services at JMS. The news that Briella could not continue her education at JMS shocked Minnie Mae. In summary, JMS had to give up its autonomy in accepting Deaf and hard of hearing children from across the state, sacrificing this independence to comply with the regulations set by the Utah Department of Special Education.

Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz

I was very concerned about a law that could adversely affect my children's education, as well as the education of all Deaf and hard of hearing students. Having experienced mainstream education myself, where I learned to speak instead of using sign language, I was determined to protect my children from facing similar challenges. My experience in the Gallaudet School Social Work Program has helped me understand the complexities of education, legislation, and policy. Additionally, my position on the Institutional Council has empowered me to raise my concerns with those in authority.

Following the merger of the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf with the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, the dynamics of the school changed significantly, leading to a decline as a result of the implementation of the Utah Code. To address the ongoing issues related to student loss, I presented my research findings to the Institutional Council on May 23, 2007, specifically regarding Utah Codes 53A-25-104 and 53A-25-103. My presentation highlighted the contradictions between these laws and their detrimental effects on education. I emphasized the urgent need for change, using my children's experiences to illustrate the inconsistencies and negative impacts of these codes. Additionally, I requested that the Institutional Council support efforts to amend Code 53A-25-104 to align with current national trends in Deaf education, eliminate Utah's placement restrictions, and discontinue the promotion of mainstreaming. I also proposed amending Utah Code 25A-25-103 to explicitly state that the Utah School for the Deaf can accommodate both delayed and non-delayed Deaf or hard of hearing students. This amendment would allow students with academic delays to have their educational needs met if their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) include special services. Meanwhile, students at or above grade level could receive educational services under Section 504 of the federal statute, which requires that students with disabilities receive appropriate academic accommodations. Implementing these federal laws in this manner would enable the Utah School for the Deaf to provide services to any Deaf or hard of hearing student in the state who attends their programs (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).

Molly O'Hara, Jodi Becker Kinner, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, & Bronwyn O'Hara, 2009

The Utah Code had adversely affected the quality of education for Deaf and hard of hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Due to inadequate progress in academic delivery and procedures, many academically advanced students had to transfer to public schools, and some have chosen to attend out-of-state schools (Becker Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008). Furthermore, this Utah Code has prevented the school from adapting to current educational trends. Consequently, the regulation has hindered the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to effectively serve the Deaf and hard of hearing student population, directly conflicting with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).

For the first time, the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA included specific language addressing the needs of Deaf or hard of hearing students (Seaver, 2006). In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEA mandated a full continuum of alternative school placements to meet the communication, linguistic, social, personal, and cultural needs of Deaf children (CEASD's Position Paper on the Full Continuum of Educational Placements for All Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 2007). Given these developments, it became clear that the Utah Code needed urgent updates and revisions.

Olive Osmond home-schooling her sons, Thomas (left) and George Virl (right). Source: The Hearing Fund UK website

In a school for the deaf, teachers who had completed specialized Deaf education courses that focused on American Sign Language as the primary language of instruction viewed their deaf and hard of hearing students as typical learners. While some students may face academic challenges due to limited communication and language access at home, teachers adjusted their curriculum to meet the needs of traditional education while also encouraging their students to achieve academic success. Research shows a connection between student achievement and higher expectations set by teachers. However, if mainstream students choose to return to the Utah School for the Deaf classroom, they will find themselves in a Catch-22 situation because they did not have academic classmates to learn with. Similarly, the Utah Code required students at or above grade level to transfer out of the Utah School for the Deaf and attend a public school they did not want, resulting in this Catch-22 situation. The Utah Code's goal was to mainstream all Deaf and hard of hearing students in school districts, which resulted in a frustrating downward spiral for everyone involved, making it the 'Number One' culprit (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2007).

The Utah Code 53A-25-104 had significantly impacted oral, total communication, and ASL/English bilingual programs at the Utah School for the Deaf as well as mainstream settings across school districts. This code emphasized special education, which created substantial barriers to providing quality education at USD/JMS. As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf focused exclusively on mainstream placements. This shift hindered effective communication and the achievement of language-based educational goals for students, especially following the amendments made to the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 and 2004. Furthermore, the statute requiring remedial instruction made it difficult to improve the quality of Deaf education at both the state and district levels.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Deseret News, March 18, 1974

Dr. Bitter is believed to have played a significant role in the development of Utah Code 53A-25-104 during the late 1970s (Bitter, 1977). On November 29, 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 94-142 as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which aimed to integrate students with special education needs into regular public schools. The language used in Utah Code 53A-25-104 specifically focused on mainstreaming Deaf and hard of hearing students within the public school system.

When the parents of Deaf children and the Utah Deaf community learned about the impact of Utah Code 53A-25-104 on the Utah School for the Deaf, they were shocked and outraged. They spoke out passionately against it. Many members of Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc., which governed and operated the Jean Massiue School for the Deaf as a charter school and lobbied for the merger between USD and JMS in 2005, were unaware of these regulations. This law negatively affected all Deaf and hard of hearing students by limiting their educational choices and opportunities.

The Utah Code governing the Utah School for the Deaf has significant flaws. It appears that both the Utah School for the Deaf and local school districts were unaware of amendments made to accessibility requirements for Deaf education under the federal law, IDEA. These amendments conflicted with the outdated Utah Code 53A-25-104. As a result, they continued to follow the old Utah laws, neglecting the language and communication needs of Deaf and hard of hearing students during Individualized Education Program (IEP) sessions.

Many programs and classrooms at the Utah School for the Deaf faced challenges with low enrollment, which affected the quality of education provided. As a result, most students from the Utah School for the Deaf ended up in mainstream educational settings, where they often experienced unsatisfactory outcomes. The Deaf community advocated for a "language-rich environment" to support these students, but this perspective was frequently overlooked. Instead, emphasis was placed on integrating Deaf and hard of hearing students into the least restrictive environments, primary in public schools, to comply with PL 94-142, which promoted mainstreaming. Unfortunately, there was little consideration of whether these mainstream settings truly offered the best environment for the students.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 24, 1974

Mainstreaming Is Not
the Answer for All Deaf Children

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a Council member representing the Utah Deaf community, reviewed the Council's two-page statement during the February 1992 meeting of the USDB Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, also known as the State Institute Resource. This statement emphasized the significant importance of mainstreaming students to the maximum extent possible. In January 1992, the Institutional Council endorsed this statement, but Dr. Sanderson, a respected member, expressed his concerns about mainstreaming issues in the UAD Bulletin in February 1992, stating that mainstreaming is not the answer for all Deaf children. He raised several critical issues, as listed below.

USD's practice of mainstreaming the majority of its Deaf students,
Inappropriately biased educational placement, and
Improper, biased, and one-sided educational information for parents that lacked a research base.

Dr. Sanderson argued against mainstreaming all Deaf children in the UAD Bulletin of 1992. As an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he worked with and advocated for hundreds of Deaf individuals. He witnessed the outcomes of various educational programs and philosophies firsthand. He observed both the successes and failures of teenagers and adults, assisted many in furthering their education and training, and helped them secure jobs. Dr. Sanderson was fully aware of the emotional investment that Deaf parents have in their children. He understood their desire for their Deaf children to receive a "normal" education in nearby schools, similar to that of their hearing peers. He recognized that many parents, not just a few, were aware that public school programs had consistently underserved their children, both educationally and socially, from the very beginning.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: Gallaudet University Archives

Furthermore, according to Dr. Sanderson, the state of Utah needs to make more effort to investigate the outcomes of oral or total communication in mainstream programs. He noticed that the term "research" raised concerns among school personnel and parents. He was amazed and dismayed that many people seemed afraid of facts. He believed that conducting further research would help our understanding of the programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. If research reveals that a program is experiencing problems, whether related to oral, total communication, or a mainstream version, the state will be better positioned to address and solve the issues.

Robert R. Sanderson. 'Mainstreaming Is Not The Answer For All Deaf Children.' Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992

Dr. Sanderson emphasized that he does not dispute parents' right to choose a program for their Deaf children based on fair information. He strongly opposed improper, biased, and one-sided material that lacks research support. He sympathized with parents who faced difficult decisions due to conflicting advice from so-called experts.

Dr. Sanderson referred to himself as a "mainstreamed failure" or "integrated failure." At the age of eleven, he received a diagnosis of spinal meningitis in the seventh grade. Because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time, he returned to the same class he had been attending before his illness. Despite his classmates and teachers' efforts, he was unable to overcome the obstacles. His teachers and principal advised him to attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He stated that his time at the USD in a residential atmosphere, from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to be a serious and disciplined student. Therefore, Dr. Sanderson believed that a Deaf child could have a positive educational experience if they received an education that aligned with their natural abilities and perceptual positioning, along with the support of parents and teachers. He stressed the need to not limit the child by prolonging unsuitable situations once it becomes clear that the child is not thriving.

Robert G. Sanderson, Utah School for the Deaf Senior Class of 1936

Dr. Sanderson's suggestions align closely with those made by the 2007 Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD). The CEASD emphasized that a "least restrictive environment" should be based on each child's communication, language, and educational needs rather than a generic or "one-size-fits-all" approach. Bronwyn supported Dr. Sanderson's research recommendations and highlighted the necessity of changing the perception of "omniscience" at the Utah School for the Deaf. While the programs at the school appeared impressive, they failed to produce desirable outcomes, and administrators struggled to address legitimate questions. Additionally, professionals either underutilized the available information or neglected to use it altogether, resulting in minimal improvements in programs for Deaf students. In her personal communication on August 27, 2009, Bronwyn O'Hara expressed that the traditional oral approach to teaching Deaf students was outdated and needed revision.

CEASD emphasized the importance of providing a full continuum of alternative educational placements as mandated by IDEA, which includes special schools (e.g., schools for the Deaf) for Deaf and hard of hearing students. They expressed concern over the recent trend in the United States to eliminate special schools from the educational continuum, deeming it unacceptable and potentially harmful to a child's development. CEASD believes this trend contradicts the intent of IDEA. When people hear the term "least restrictive environment" (LRE), they often assume it refers to placing a Deaf or hard of hearing student in a classroom with peers without disabilities. However, LRE can also refer to a "language-rich environment," as outlined in the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA. CEASD endorsed this definition in their Position Paper from February 2007.

Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin

In 1988, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a former Total Communication Division curriculum coordinator for both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Outreach Program, stated that the Commission on Education of the Deaf ruled that the federal government, particularly the Department of Education, needed to clarify the concept of the "least restrictive environment." LRE has been a highly debated topic in Deaf education. The state schools for the deaf considered public schools the "most restrictive environment" for their Deaf and hard of hearing students (Baldwin, 1990).

CEASD, along with other organizations, recognized that communication should drive educational decision-making for Deaf and hard of hearing students throughout the IEP process. This would include decisions on where to put things. CEASD further explains that they specifically design deaf schools to educate children with hearing loss. The schools best fit many students, including those at the grade level. Often, a deaf school would be the least restrictive setting where a child might attain successful educational outcomes.

Dr. Grant B. Bitter Poses Challenges
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' (Bluhm, 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 and became entrenched 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 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Della L. Loveridge. Source: Utah Department of Cultural & Community Engagement

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 Deaf Residential Schools as the
State's "Treasure Resource"

In 2000, Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney, highlighted the vital role of the state schools for the deaf, which he regarded as a "treasure resource." He emphasized that the State Office of Education should recognize residential and/or day schools for the deaf as equitable placement options. Lawrence Siegel urged the allocation of appropriate funds to ensure that each school district has access to these resources. He pointed out that state schools offer expertise in the communication and language development of Deaf children, underscore the need for staff proficient in communication, and provide a comprehensive, communication-rich academic environment (Siegel, 2000).

Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney. Source: Child Law Group

The implementation of the Jean Massieu School's ASL/English bilingual program in 2005 brought significant changes to the Utah School for the Deaf. The goal of JMS was to create a school that would offer classes from preschool through high school, along with a student athletic program similar to other state schools for the deaf. One of the challenges was determining how to implement these changes within the existing Utah School for the Deaf system. One approach involved reconsidering the day school concept to overcome the drawbacks of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind as a state agency. It made sense to locate the Utah School for the Deaf on a school site, as this would help serve all Deaf and hard of hearing students statewide. Once the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf joined the Utah School for the Deaf, providing a day school program for the children became possible. As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf had to work with the Utah State Board of Education and the legislature to amend the Utah Code, allowing for the construction of a permanent school building to accommodate the growing student population at JMS.

Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Salt Lake City, Utah

Deaf Leaders Speak
at the Utah State Board of Education

However, parents and members of the Utah Deaf community were surprised by the Utah Code governing the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, which prioritized and promoted mainstream education. They discovered that the Utah School for the Deaf administration and advocates of oral education had created this code with a hidden agenda that favored mainstreaming while engaging with families in a vague manner. Before Bronwyn and her family moved to Indiana, USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson told her, "I won't lie to you, but I won't necessarily tell you everything." At that moment, Bronwyn realized that Steven Noyce had 'copied' Superintendent Robinson's approach. (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).

Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, along with the Utah State Board of Education, received twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community between September 18, 2007, and October 2, 2007. These letters expressed concern about the Utah Code governing the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind and its impact on the Jean Massiue School for the Deaf. The correspondents urged them to revise the statute, particularly concerning the promotion of mainstream education for Deaf students. At that time, Dr. Bitter had passed away, and Steven Noyce had relocated out of state for a job opportunity. The ASL/English bilingual advocates were finally making progress after enduring years of challenges from oral advocates. Throughout his tenure, USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith actively pushed for amendments to the Utah Code.

Four individuals attended the Utah State Board of Education meeting on October 5, 2007 to hear the USDB Legislative Workgroup report. They were as follows:

Dan Mathis, a grandson of USD Alumni Jack and Vida White,
Jeff Pollock, Coordinator of Deaf Services/Advisor,
Julio Diaz, the husband of JMS co-founder Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and
Jodi Becker Kinner, a Deaf representative on the USDB Institutional Council

Dr. Patti Harrington. Source: KSL.com

Dan expressed his dissatisfaction with Utah's deaf education system, stating that he had seen better education for deaf children in other parts of the United States. He supported the recommended code revisions and believed that legislative changes were necessary to allow the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to offer improved options and services to parents of Deaf, blind, and Deaf-blind children. Jeff added, "We can't stop changing the law. In Utah, there are systematic problems throughout USDB that impact Deaf education. According to the Utah State Board of Education minutes from October 5, 2007, Deaf students are not receiving adequate college preparation.

Many Deaf parents and members of the Utah Deaf Community supported changing the Utah Code to allow students who were at or above the grade level to attend USDB, which would result in not all USDB children having an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The twenty-eight letters of support had a positive impact on the Utah State Board of Education, and ultimately, State Superintendent Harrington brought the legislators' attention to the concerns expressed in those letters (Utah State Board of Education: USDB Legislative Workgroup Report, October 5, 2007).

Dan Mathis

Julio Diaz, Jr.

Jeff Pollock

The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Legislative Workgroup Is Formed

Karl Wilson, the USDB supervisor from the Utah State Office of Education, convened the USDB Legislative Workgroup on August 17, 2007; this was similar to Dr. J. J. Campbell's efforts in the 1970s. The group, which included stakeholders and lawmakers, aimed to revise and update the Utah Code that governs the USDB. They met monthly from the start until June 1, 2008. The workgroup comprised Dennis Platt and me, who were the two Deaf representatives on the Institutional Council, and Jil Radford, the principal of JMS at the time. They represented the state school's interests and objectives. The workgroup's main concerns were:

USDB's future administrative structure,
Students' eligibility and admissions to USDB, including placement options and,
USDB's funding, and
USDB's relationships with local education agencies became hot topics of discussion.

Karl White. Source: Utah Public Education

Dennis Platt

Jill Radford. Source: Idaho State Univesity

Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
Signs Senate House Bill 296

On February 17, 2009, after two years of the USDB Legislative Workgroup meetings—a collaborative effort involving various stakeholders in Deaf education—I had the chance to address the House Education Committee and advocate for House Bill (HB) 296. Legislators Kenneth W. Sumsion and Jennifer Seelig sponsored this bill, which emerged from extensive research, discussions, and negotiations within the workgroup. The House Education Committee unanimously supported the proposed bill, and the State Senate also stood behind it, which speaks volumes about the importance of this legislation. On February 18, it passed with a vote of 68-0 in the House of Representatives, and on March 18, it passed with a vote of 27-0 in the Senate. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., signed the bill into law on March 25, 2009, with the signing ceremony on April 30, 2009.

On April 30, 2009, Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., held a press conference in the Gold Room of the Utah Capitol building to sign House Bill 296, a significant milestone in ending Utah's promotion of mainstreaming and allowing for on-campus education for students. This legal victory also directed funds and resources toward placing all Deaf and hard of hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf at the appropriate grade level, thereby eliminating the educational disparities they faced. Teachers at JMS and USD agreed that bringing the students up to such levels would take time, but it was achievable and marked the beginning of a new era in Utah's Deaf education. The most recent shift was in educational options, emphasizing language and communication-driven access. All students at the school now have complete access to the core curriculum, empowering them to reach their full academic potential. Additionally, this would facilitate a departure from restrictive or ineffective placements, such as mainstreaming in local schools, and foster a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. This new law also aligns with the amended Federal IDEA law, which utilizes Section 504 for students who are on grade level and need accommodations, and IEPs for students who are not on grade level and require accommodations.

Kenneth W. Sumsion. Source: KenForSenate14

The twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community to Dr. Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, were critical in changing the direction of Deaf education. We extend our gratitude to Deaf advocates Dan Mathis and Jeff Pollock for their unwavering dedication and commitment to speaking before the Utah State Board of Education about the needs of Deaf and hard of hearing students across the state. Their position among Utah State Board of Education members and their courage in speaking out on this critical matter emphasized the law's inequality. It was encouraging to see legislators recognize the value of Deaf and hard of hearing students staying at the Utah School for the Deaf to meet their educational, linguistic, and social needs. The USDB Institutional Council and USDB Legislative Workgroup received approval from the legislature, as detailed below.

Jennifer Seelig. Source: Utah Democratic Party

Under House Bill 296, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind are required to provide equal services to both delayed and non-delayed students. We accomplish this by following current trends in Deaf education, removing placement restrictions, and discontinuing the promotion of mainstreaming. To ensure fairness, we have developed individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with delays and implemented Section 504 accommodations for students performing at grade level. These measures guarantee that all students, regardless of their academic standing, receive the necessary support, such as direct communication and instruction in American Sign Language. This approach allows the Utah School for the Deaf to effectively meet the needs of any Deaf or hard of hearing student, fostering an environment of equity and inclusivity (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Utah Governor. Source: Wikipedia

On April 30, 2009, a historic event took place at the Utah State Capitol. Legislators, members, and staff of the USDB Institutional Council, along with parents and students from JMS, gathered to witness a moment that would change countless lives. On this day, Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman signed House Bill 296 into law, marking a significant victory for the state of Utah. This bill empowered the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to improve education and opportunities for all, including individuals with disabilities. This momentous occasion was a testament to the power of collaboration and dedication to a common cause.

Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., ceremoniously signed HB 296 into law at the Utah Capitol on April 30, 2009, regulating Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. I'm on the left side, wearing a vest and a white blouse, witnessing the signature

A New Permanent School Building Needed for
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
in the Salt Lake Area

In 2008, during the development of House Bill 296, I was interviewed by The Deseret News, The Salt Lake Tribune, and SignNews as a parent of two Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, who attended the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. I expressed my concerns about the challenges that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind faced in securing funding from the legislature for a permanent school building. For ten years, the Utah State Legislature had rejected USDB's requests for a permanent school facility in the Salt Lake area.

The JMS community speculated that either the state-building list had not prioritized USDB sufficiently or the marginalization of Deaf and hard of hearing students was a contributing factor. This situation made Deaf students feel less valued compared to their hearing peers, who had access to buildings, equipment, green spaces, mascots, and strong school identities. Deaf students yearned for the same amenities afforded to their hearing counterparts. Unfortunately, USDB's need for school buildings equipped with adequate classrooms, gyms, playgrounds, and other essential spaces remained largely unrecognized.

A significant challenge arose from the legal document that established USDB as a state agency. Despite being an educational organization, USDB faced operational limitations due to its status as a state entity. While many other states classified their deaf schools as educational institutions, Utah's classification came with notable drawbacks. As a state agency, USDB was vulnerable to budget cuts and lacked recognition as an independent academic institution, which created numerous obstacles in securing the necessary funding from the legislature.

Jodi Becker Kinner (center) at home with her Deaf children, Danielle, 4 & Joshua, 6, protested the lack of a permanent school building. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008. Photo by Scott Sommerdorf

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent advocate for Deaf education, played a crucial role in shaping Utah's approach to educating Deaf students. He noticed that Utah's method differed significantly from most state schools for the deaf across the United States. While many other state schools focused on providing education primarily to Deaf and hard of hearing students, the Utah School for the Deaf was required to enroll these students in public schools as soon as possible.

House Bill 296 ultimately repealed this practice, which had been standard until the 2009 legislative session. The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind had misinterpreted the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, leading to this shift in approach.

According to Public Law 94-142, many state administrators believed that mainstream public schools would offer the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. In response, the Utah School for the Deaf maintained self-contained classes within neighborhood schools, serving as an educational provider for Deaf children rather than merely integrating them into public schools. This approach allowed their students to participate in regular education classes throughout the day. The administrators believed they were adhering to the federal mandate to place students in the least restrictive environment.

In 2005, the merger of the Jean Massiseu School for the Deaf led to significant changes in the function of the Utah School for the Deaf. JMS, located at the USDB, aimed to offer what other state schools for the deaf provided, including a dedicated building for students from pre-kindergarten through high school and an athletic program for students. However, a key question remained: How could they achieve this within the current Utah School for the Deaf system?

The Utah School for the Deaf, which primarily served Deaf and hard of hearing children throughout the state, recognized the urgent need for a dedicated school entity on a physical campus. In partnership with the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, the Utah School for the Deaf aimed to establish a day school program for its students. However, this initiative faced several challenges, particularly the necessity of convincing the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah Legislature of the need for a permanent building.

In 2004, an amendment to the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, mandated a continuum of equal and appropriate educational placement options for Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those in specialized schools. The state encountered significant challenges in ensuring this continuity. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf provided language-driven placement options for parents, emphasizing the complexities involved in implementing the bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf.

Jodi Becker Kinner signs with her son, Joshua, 6, about a remote-controlled toy helicopter. Jodi is lobbying for a school for Deaf children. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008. Photo by Scott Sommerdorf

Utah's strong interpretation of the "least restrictive environment" for Deaf students led to their enrollment in USD programs in numerous neighborhood schools. As the enrollment of public schools grew, a space dilemma developed. Mainstream deaf programs have to relocate to new spaces. The frequent movement of Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students was a cause for frustration. Yet, these resilient students continued to attend classes in facilities with insufficient space, run-down buildings, or aging portables. Malfunctioning plumbing, faulty heating or air conditioning, leaking roofs, and unsafe carpets were common problems in the building that originally housed JMS.

The playground also lacked grass and was unsuitable for a play area, resulting in a shortage of space that hampered the children's academic and social development. The cold classroom also made students uncomfortable, making it difficult for them to pay attention to their teachers. They deserved a secure, consistent learning environment in a permanent building (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 2008; Firkins, SignNews, September 2008). However, this was not the case, and they had to relocate regularly. In June 2005, the Jean Massieu School needed to relocate quickly to a leased location in South Jordan, Utah, and the State of Utah had to determine whether to provide them with a permanent facility. During a discussion with stakeholders, State Superintendent Patti Harrington strongly advised using the USDB Conner Street location for JMS students. Superintendent Timothy W. Smith of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind agreed, and the Jean Massieu School relocated to USDB's former administrative offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, in June 2008. The plan was to keep JMS there until the lease expired at the end of 2009.

July 8th Rally on Capitol Hill

Fed up with frequent relocations, around 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community held a rally at the Utah State Capitol site on July 8, 2008, demanding a new permanent school building. In an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, I shared that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind requested a school building for ten years, but state lawmakers rejected their plea (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). At the rally, parents, Utah Deaf community members, and students held signs reading “No Child Left Behind, Unless You Are Deaf and Blind,” “Crumbling Classrooms are Not Acceptable,” and “School Building Now!”

At the Utah Capitol Rally in 2008, parents, Utah Deaf community members, and students held signs reading "Crumbling Classrooms are Not Acceptable"

A news reporter interviewed Maggie Flavin, a 12-year-old JMS student. She said, "It's just unfair. We need to open a new school for our students. That way, we can communicate with each other. If I were the only deaf student among hearing students, I wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. I would be isolated. I wouldn’t be able to learn and communicate” (Ziegler, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).

Jennifer Jackson, the hearing mother of a 12-year-old JMS student, also participated in the interview. She said, “The alternative, [which is] mainstreaming the students, is not a satisfactory option.” She emphasized that the JMS students gain a sense of strength through their unity as the deaf student body. My son's progress would rapidly decline if he were mainstreamed. He has a sense of pride—he is deaf and proud of it—and he wants to be with his deaf peers." (Ziegler, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).

Triplets Abby, Ben and Colin Poole & Keith Johnson. Source: Deseret News, July 9, 2008

Although there was already a Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind facility in Ogden, Utah, parents believed that Salt Lake County needed its own building to serve Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled students, as it was the largest population center (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). However, since most Deaf students were mainstreaming into their local school systems, the State of Utah might have assumed that the USDB only needed an administrative office to fulfill its integration mission. The lawmakers were unaware that the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, which operated under the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, served actual students on a real school campus.

As both a state agency and a school, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind cannot collect funds like regular school districts. Instead, they must request funding from the legislature every year. Being a state agency also makes them vulnerable to budget cuts (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). Moreover, unlike many other state schools for the deaf, the USDB did not receive academic recognition.

Parents and supporters of Deaf students in Utah were dissatisfied with the poor educational conditions their children and teachers were facing, including insufficient space and deteriorating facilities. Despite numerous efforts to bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers, they did not receive a prompt response. As a result, they organized a rally on the steps of the Capitol to advocate for funding to establish a permanent school building in Salt Lake County (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).

Bryce Jackson holds a sign during a rally at the Capitol for a better school facility for Deaf students in Utah. Keith Johnson,. Source: Deseret News, July 9, 2008

In an email interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, I stated, "We feel our children have been marginalized because their sensory disabilities appear to make them less worthy citizens than other 'normal' school children who have buildings and equipment and green space and mascots and identity." I also pointed out the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, which mandates "equal and appropriate education placement options" for students with disabilities (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).

Joshua & Danielle at the Utah State Capitol rally for a new school building. Source: KSL.com, July 8, 2008

The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind served approximately 2,100 students from birth to age 21, per Melanie Austin, assistant superintendent for USDB. Of these, 85 to 90 percent were deaf, 10 to 15 percent were blind or visually impaired, and a small percentage were both Deaf and blind. Many Deaf students attended traditional schools, where they learned lip-reading skills. In contrast, students who preferred an American Sign Language curriculum with their Deaf peers attended the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).

On July 8, 2008, parents and campaigners organized a rally to urge Utah legislators to allocate funding to construct a stand-alone school for the deaf in Salt Lake Valley. The proposed school aimed to transform the often negative experiences of 350–450 Deaf students into positive ones. This effort aimed to prioritize the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind during the 2009 legislative session in January (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008). On July 8, 2008, as shown in the section below, we distributed the flyer with ten points to demonstrate a need for a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area.

At the Utah Capitol Rally in 2008, parents, Utah Deaf community members, and students held signs reading "Our Children are Citizens too!"

10 Talking Points for the Demonstration

Gwyneth Kenner

I collaborated with two hearing parents, Gwyneth Kenner and Amy Porter Poole, to create ten "Talking Points" for the July 8, 2008 rally, which effectively clarified the topics we sought to address. We distributed a flyer at the Utah State Capitol that detailed USDB's past struggles in obtaining state money for a permanent building. As mentioned in the section below, on July 8, 2008, they circulated a ten-point flier to demonstrate the need for a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area.

USDB is both a state agency and a statewide school serving approximately 2000 students throughout Utah. Approximately 400 are served in self-contained classrooms by teachers of the Deaf and blind.
For 10 years, the Utah legislature has turned down requests from USDB for permanent buildings.
During the 2007 legislative session, USDB was offered a used five-story office building that the state had and $500,000 for renovations instead of approving their request. The legislature assured USDB it was this old building or nothing.
USDB made a good effort to make use of this older building mentioned in #3 but it soon became clear that renovations for the first floor alone, to bring it up-to-code, would cost 1.4 million. In addition, the law forbade a school to exceed more than three stories. When this was brought to the State Office of Education’s attention, the funds were taken away and no other plan was discussed.
The building which housed USDB’s newly expanded ASL/English Bilingual students was due to be demolished this year (2008) leaving the school with nowhere to house their 72-day school students in grades pre-k through 9th grade.
Next, USDB was offered a school building in the Salt Lake City school district. However, because it was riddled with asbestos and out-of-code, it would require over $1.5 million to renovate in order to make it useable. Plus, USDB would need another $660,000 per year to lease the same building. To help out, the legislature provided a grand-total of $264,000, from the one-time lease monies fund. USDB would have to make up the rest through cuts in direct services to students.
The meetings and negotiations held by USOE, Legislators, and Governor’s Office to discuss the buildings needed by USDB often took place without inviting the state school’s administrators.
At the eleventh hour, the State of Utah gave the Deaf and blind school one more office building inappropriate for student use. There was not enough time before the start of school to renovate a satisfactory amount of classroom space. There was a total of 45 days left to accomplish this impossible task. The petitioners couldn’t see how the Connor Street building was a viable choice. There wasn’t enough room; the blind preschool was there, along with staff offices. The building was run down and only had a year’s lease left. What would be done for these children when the Conner Street lease expired in Spring 2009?
We, parents, feel our children have been marginalized, that is, relegated to an unimportant and powerless position. Their overall educational needs have not been met, equal to their hearing peers. They deserve to have a school of which to be proud, with its attendant buildings, equipment, mascot, school spirit, and identity.
We are here to raise public awareness and to raise the awareness of those who are our public servants. We ask the leaders of the State of Utah to please roll up your sleeves and truly serve the Utah children who are Deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired and Deaf/blind. Please support permanent facilities in Salt Lake County and Utah County for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind! (See Appendix H to get an idea of what the “10 Talking Points for the Demonstration” flyer looks like).

The flyer with ten points for the demonstration of a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area was distributed on July 8, 2008

Following the rally, the parents of Deaf children and I were invited to meet with Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Two cabinet colleagues and a Utah Department of Facilities and Construction Management representative attended the meeting. This department was in charge of finding buildings for government use. As I approached the governor's office, Governor Huntsman informed us about Thomas Edison's light bulbs. I was delighted to see his original ones, but I wondered if these lawmakers knew Edison was deaf. During the discussion, the governor mentioned proposals that were still in the early stages of development. Nonetheless, Governor Huntsman implied support for a permanent school building. The outcome, which we found to be quite positive, appeared to be a step in the right direction.

Thomas Edison. Source: Wikipedia

The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Wins Funding Support

About a month and a half after the rally on Capitol Hill, Dr. Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote a letter, dated August 19, 2008, to Ron Bigelow. Ron was a member of the Utah House of Representatives and served on the Education Committee. When there was a need for a building, Supt. Harrington suggested handling USDB like any other state agency. The Department of Facilities and Construction Management handled those requests. There was a ranking process in place, but Superintendent Harrington explained that the needs of USDB’s students were of such a nature that they were considered in a specialized category (Utah State Office of Education, 2008). This initiated the necessary approval process.

Timothy W. Smith

Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
Signs Senate Bill 201

Continuing the positive path for parents and the Utah Deaf community, USDB Supt. Timothy W. Smith presented his case to the Utah State Board of Education on September 13, 2008. The board responded to his appeal with a decisive, unanimous vote, publicly endorsing Superintendent Smith's proposal to seek state funding for a permanent building. This decisive action by the board underscored the importance of the issue at hand. Equally significant was the support from the top legislative leadership, which further solidified the cause (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).

The goal was to purchase and renovate the Granite School District's Libby Edwards Elementary School, located at 1655 East 3300 South, to serve as the Jean Massieu School's permanent location, with classes starting in the fall of 2009. However, as a state agency, USDB cannot put forth a bond issue in a general election and collect revenue to run their school as public school districts do. USDB must go to lawmakers yearly to explain its needs and request money (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008). During the 2008 legislative session, Superintendent Smith requested $14.9 million from state lawmakers for a school in Salt Lake County. Everyone was surprised when they turned down the request. He said, "If the Legislature refuses what we're proposing, to be honest, I don't know what we're going to do... Circumstances will worsen" (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).

Fortunately, the Department of Facilities Construction and Management had prepared a political strategy to enhance "gainsmanship." Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., signed Senate Bill 201 on March 23, 2009, another historic moment after this strategy elevated the state school's building request to the top of the list. This bill authorized bond issuance so the state could purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School building.

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at the
Libby Edwards Elementary School

In March 2009, the Utah State Board of Education and legislators voted in favor of USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith, enabling the state to issue bonds for the purchase of the Libby Edwards Elementary School building in Salt Lake City, Utah. Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., signed Senate Bill 201, which paved the way for the purchase. On March 15, 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony marked the end of the decade-long struggle to find a permanent home for the school. The Utah School for the Deaf has improved the quality of education for Deaf and hard of hearing students since the 2005 merger of USD and JMS, thanks to HB 296. This bill facilitates full language and communication accessibility on the campus, eliminates barriers such as limited educational choices, and fosters a supportive learning and social environment for Deaf and hard of hearing students to thrive and succeed.

Steven Noyce, superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, left, and David G. Buxton, director of the Utah Department of Administrative Services, use giant scissors to cut the ribbon. Source: Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News, March 16, 2010

Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: USDB Website

In 2009, a shocking moment in Utah's deaf education system occurred when Steven Noyce assumed the role of USDB Superintendent following the enactment of House Bill 296. Concerns within the Utah Deaf community prompted the formation of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, which aimed to protect the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf and its ASL/English bilingual education program. From 2009 to 2013, Superintendent Noyce faced numerous challenges while working within the existing regulations. A notable incident occurred during an Individualized Education Program meeting when the JMS administrator informed me that only an IEP was necessary, rejecting the importance of Section 504.

Steven W. Noyce. Source: Twitter

Nonetheless, the new statute favoring the ASL community paved the way for the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf to thrive academically and socially, leading to the construction of a new permanent school building. This achievement was a testament to the collective efforts of parents, the Utah Association for the Deaf, and the Utah Deaf Community. The passage of House Bill 296 and Senate Bill 201 was instrumental in the establishment and success of three deaf schools—Jean Massieu School, Kenneth Burdett School, and Elizabeth DeLong School.

Furthermore, Joel Coleman, the Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, and Michelle Tanner, the Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, have made significant progress in providing educational placement options for Deaf and hard of hearing students and their parents without any limitations. In 2016, they successfully implemented the hybrid program, a groundbreaking initiative that offers an ASL/English bilingual program as well as listening and spoken language program options for families without restriction, as outlined in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage of this website. This innovative approach has opened up new possibilities for Deaf education, instilling hope and optimism in the community.

Michelle Tanner, USD Assoc. Supt; Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent; Carolyn Lasater, USB Assoc. Supt. Source: Twitter

References - Coming soon!

Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD)’s Position Paper. (2007, February). (Online) Available HTTP: http://www.ceasd.org/acrobat/continuum.pdf

Sanderson, R.G "Mainstreaming was not the answer for ALL deaf children." UAD Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 10, (March 1992): 3.