ASL & LSL Controversy Correspondence
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Updated again in 2023
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Updated again in 2023
Note
The opening sections will be repeated across the "Deaf Education in Utah" web pages, and the content will get right to the point. Thank you for taking the time to read about the history of Deaf Education in Utah.
To avoid confusion, I refer to the Utah Association of the Deaf from the 1940s until 1962, when they used the word "of." In 1963, the name was changed from "of" to "for," as in the Utah Association for the Deaf, and again in 2012, as in the Utah Association of the Deaf.
To avoid confusion, I refer to the Utah Association of the Deaf from the 1940s until 1962, when they used the word "of." In 1963, the name was changed from "of" to "for," as in the Utah Association for the Deaf, and again in 2012, as in the Utah Association of the Deaf.
The Implementation of the Dual Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, known as the "Father of Mainstreaming," Utah's movement toward mainstreaming evolved steadily in the 1960s throughout his mainstreaming campaign before the phrase became popular with the passage of Public Law 94-142, commonly known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 1975. He was a hard-core oralist and one of the top oral leaders in the country. As the father of a Deaf daughter, Colleen (b. 1954), he was also a powerful voice for oral and mainstream education. According to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf man who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s, no one could match Dr. Bitter's persistent oral/mainstreaming philosophy. At every opportunity, Dr. Baldwin recalled his attacks on residential schools and his adamant opposition to the popular use of sign language in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter campaigned for oral and mainstream education for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students and had a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, especially with Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf community leader in Utah. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson were recognized as gigantic figures with animosity toward each other.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and a professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as the "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to favor this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track educational system on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and a professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as the "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to favor this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track educational system on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Utahn, 1963
When the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to USD, the Oral Program must have a " pure oral mindset." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
These changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The student's physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities, except sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened.
These changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The student's physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities, except sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened.
In the wake of the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and oral advocates suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) was orchestrating the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education looked into the matter but couldn't find any connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
Oral Deaf Education Major's
Impact on Utah Deaf Education
Impact on Utah Deaf Education
In 1962, the University of Utah was producing oral-trained teachers whom USD employed for their expanding Oral program. The Oral program now encompassed the Ogden campus and all Extension classrooms. Due to the oversupply of orally trained teachers, sign language was pushed to non-academic applications such as dormitory life. This communication shift disturbed Deaf Education professionals and families who favored sign language.
The Utah School for the Deaf wholeheartedly embraced the oral/aural philosophy, which believed that a child's ability to communicate effectively and listen well depended on early oral/aural exposure. The Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf praised the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department in 1963. (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). This occurred during the oral/aural dominance era in deaf education in Utah and nationwide.
The Utah School for the Deaf wholeheartedly embraced the oral/aural philosophy, which believed that a child's ability to communicate effectively and listen well depended on early oral/aural exposure. The Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf praised the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department in 1963. (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). This occurred during the oral/aural dominance era in deaf education in Utah and nationwide.
Attack on a Different Front
In October 1962, numerous parents alerted the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) to a letter favoring the USD Oral program. The letter was addressed to parents of deaf children in Utah who were in the oral/aural program. The complete letter is reproduced below from the UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3. There is no way to determine who wrote this 'Open Letter' to parents or who was on this council.
UTAH COUNCIL FOR THE DEAF
Dear Parents,
After several years of work, the Utah School for the Deaf finally inaugurated this year a dual program which gives parents a choice as to the type of education their children are to receive at the school. For the first time, parents who chose the oral program have found their children in an oral environment not only in the classrooms but in the dormitories, playgrounds, and dining rooms.
The staff has made a sincere effort to encourage oral communication at all times.
As a parent who has indicated an interest in having your child receive a strong oral program, we are sure that you are alarmed at recent events which have transpired at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden.
It is apparent that certain individuals in the adult deaf groups and some of the older group of students who are long-time trouble-makers in the non-oral department at the school have dedicated themselves to killing this program before it has a chance to prove its merits. To many parents who are somewhat undecided, they have made an aggressive campaign in order to cloud the issues. They make no attempt to hide their plan to foment disunity at the school and press for dismissal of the administrators and some school personnel who are trying to help us with the program. From information we have obtained, it is clear that they intend to make it impossible for Riley School to develop its present program.
If there is a change of administration at the State School, there is serious doubt whether any orally-trained or -inclined replacement teachers would be willing to come into a state where the education of the deaf is in the hands of a few antagonistic deaf alumni and a few disgruntled parents. Through control of hiring replacement teachers, an unsympathetic administration would be able to destroy the program without coming into the open.
After having planned and put into operation the present fine program, we will not willingly nor quietly lose what we have put forth so much effort to accomplish.
The State Board of Education is being subjected to tremendous pressure from the adult Deaf. One board member wants to eliminate or seriously hamper efforts to maintain the oral department at the State School for the Deaf. He has made no secret of his dislike for the day school program in Salt Lake City and any further expansion in oral education.
If we are to save the present oral program, it is imperative that you make your feelings known individually to the following board members:
(Names and addresses of nine board members, plus Dr. Marion G. Merkeley and Dr. Marsden B. Stokes are listed).
It may be necessary for us to appear in person before the board to demand that the adults deaf terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer the education program of our children in the Utah Schools and that the administration be left in the hands of those trained and hired for that job.
Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to continual harassment, personal attack, and degradation.
Once again, we are fighting for the survival of the present program. Write your letter now!
Sincerely yours,
Utah Council of the Deaf
(The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962)
After several years of work, the Utah School for the Deaf finally inaugurated this year a dual program which gives parents a choice as to the type of education their children are to receive at the school. For the first time, parents who chose the oral program have found their children in an oral environment not only in the classrooms but in the dormitories, playgrounds, and dining rooms.
The staff has made a sincere effort to encourage oral communication at all times.
As a parent who has indicated an interest in having your child receive a strong oral program, we are sure that you are alarmed at recent events which have transpired at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden.
It is apparent that certain individuals in the adult deaf groups and some of the older group of students who are long-time trouble-makers in the non-oral department at the school have dedicated themselves to killing this program before it has a chance to prove its merits. To many parents who are somewhat undecided, they have made an aggressive campaign in order to cloud the issues. They make no attempt to hide their plan to foment disunity at the school and press for dismissal of the administrators and some school personnel who are trying to help us with the program. From information we have obtained, it is clear that they intend to make it impossible for Riley School to develop its present program.
If there is a change of administration at the State School, there is serious doubt whether any orally-trained or -inclined replacement teachers would be willing to come into a state where the education of the deaf is in the hands of a few antagonistic deaf alumni and a few disgruntled parents. Through control of hiring replacement teachers, an unsympathetic administration would be able to destroy the program without coming into the open.
After having planned and put into operation the present fine program, we will not willingly nor quietly lose what we have put forth so much effort to accomplish.
The State Board of Education is being subjected to tremendous pressure from the adult Deaf. One board member wants to eliminate or seriously hamper efforts to maintain the oral department at the State School for the Deaf. He has made no secret of his dislike for the day school program in Salt Lake City and any further expansion in oral education.
If we are to save the present oral program, it is imperative that you make your feelings known individually to the following board members:
(Names and addresses of nine board members, plus Dr. Marion G. Merkeley and Dr. Marsden B. Stokes are listed).
It may be necessary for us to appear in person before the board to demand that the adults deaf terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer the education program of our children in the Utah Schools and that the administration be left in the hands of those trained and hired for that job.
Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to continual harassment, personal attack, and degradation.
Once again, we are fighting for the survival of the present program. Write your letter now!
Sincerely yours,
Utah Council of the Deaf
(The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962)
The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
The UAD was alarmed about the letter, which could endanger the Utah School for the Deaf. The Utah State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction received copies. The UAD thought it was unnecessary to refute the letter because the state board was fully informed. To appease some parents, the UAD published the letter with an article titled 'Who's For the Deaf?' in the same UAD Bulletin issue (see above reference). This enraged the Utah Council for the Deaf. If the UAD answered this Council's Open Letter and shared the Deaf perspective, the Council members might better comprehend the UAD's policy on oral and aural education.
The Utah Council of the Deaf was unable to comprehend the reality of living with a hearing loss, according to the UAD. There were no Deaf members on the Council who might provide helpful comments on Deaf perspectives and experiences. The Council set goals for all Deaf, young and old. The UAD felt the Council was formed only to discredit and disparage any educational ideas that differed from the Council's views.
Then UAD pointed out that, as an association of Deaf and hard of hearing adults, it had endorsed a fair classroom test of the Utah School for the Deaf's "two-track" or dual program. This included giving the Oral/Aural program a chance. A rigorous 'no signing' restriction among or in front of oral/aural students caused the UAD to criticize the school for completely isolating the children. The segregation, based on communication methodology, interfered with religious activities, crippled athletic programs, and put extreme pressure on children in the oral department not to sign in or out of the classroom. This was challenging to enforce.
The Utah Council of the Deaf referred to deaf students who were living in an unpleasant segregated environment as "trouble-makers." UAD felt the Utah Council of the Deaf's insensitive emotional tactics and blatant name-calling were disrespectful.
To say the Deaf adult community was leading an aggressive campaign to obscure issues was a lie. According to what the UAD saw, Deaf people with advanced degrees advised parents to make decisions for their children's education while they were unaware of the implications of those decisions.
Calling the Deaf community "antagonistic" and hearing parents who disagreed "disgruntled" was defamatory. So why did the Utah Council of the Deaf identify individuals who disagreed with them negatively? They didn't seem to care about the UAD Deaf community or signing parents' viewpoints. They did not want to collaborate to find solutions.
The UAD's claim of an attack on Riley Elementary School's oral day school program was unexpected and false. The Utah Association of the Deaf indicated that the UAD does not oppose the Riley School Deaf Day program or any other school for the Deaf that trains teachers of the deaf adequately. The UAD opposed any deaf day school lacking proper staff, grade advancement, vocational training opportunities, and social activities. The UAD had confirmation of several oral programs in Utah day schools with untrained employees. The UAD said they hoped it wouldn't happen at Riley. The Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's oral program. This was a twisted fact. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
"Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to constant harassment, personal attack, and degradation," the Council said. The UAD knew of a few sign language teachers who had been persecuted but not of any oral language teachers.
Finally, the UAD answered the Council's dictatorial paragraph, telling parents to "demand that the deaf adults terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer our children's education program." The deaf response cited the state's UAD policy, which has been in place for 54 years. The deaf students in our schools deserve the best possible education to become self-supporting and valuable community members. We feel it is our duty and right as citizens to teach the public about deafness and to provide progressive and stimulating information on deaf education." The UAD did not want Deaf USD graduates to leave the Utah school system and become welfare recipients. The deaf adults in the community understood that improved outcomes for young deaf people were possible and were willing to share their knowledge with the State Office of Education and USD.
The UAD agreed with the Council that the State Board of Education supervised and administered the deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf and that Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was in charge of implementing it. Deaf people did not control or run the educational program assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
The Utah Council of the Deaf was unable to comprehend the reality of living with a hearing loss, according to the UAD. There were no Deaf members on the Council who might provide helpful comments on Deaf perspectives and experiences. The Council set goals for all Deaf, young and old. The UAD felt the Council was formed only to discredit and disparage any educational ideas that differed from the Council's views.
Then UAD pointed out that, as an association of Deaf and hard of hearing adults, it had endorsed a fair classroom test of the Utah School for the Deaf's "two-track" or dual program. This included giving the Oral/Aural program a chance. A rigorous 'no signing' restriction among or in front of oral/aural students caused the UAD to criticize the school for completely isolating the children. The segregation, based on communication methodology, interfered with religious activities, crippled athletic programs, and put extreme pressure on children in the oral department not to sign in or out of the classroom. This was challenging to enforce.
The Utah Council of the Deaf referred to deaf students who were living in an unpleasant segregated environment as "trouble-makers." UAD felt the Utah Council of the Deaf's insensitive emotional tactics and blatant name-calling were disrespectful.
To say the Deaf adult community was leading an aggressive campaign to obscure issues was a lie. According to what the UAD saw, Deaf people with advanced degrees advised parents to make decisions for their children's education while they were unaware of the implications of those decisions.
Calling the Deaf community "antagonistic" and hearing parents who disagreed "disgruntled" was defamatory. So why did the Utah Council of the Deaf identify individuals who disagreed with them negatively? They didn't seem to care about the UAD Deaf community or signing parents' viewpoints. They did not want to collaborate to find solutions.
The UAD's claim of an attack on Riley Elementary School's oral day school program was unexpected and false. The Utah Association of the Deaf indicated that the UAD does not oppose the Riley School Deaf Day program or any other school for the Deaf that trains teachers of the deaf adequately. The UAD opposed any deaf day school lacking proper staff, grade advancement, vocational training opportunities, and social activities. The UAD had confirmation of several oral programs in Utah day schools with untrained employees. The UAD said they hoped it wouldn't happen at Riley. The Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's oral program. This was a twisted fact. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
"Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to constant harassment, personal attack, and degradation," the Council said. The UAD knew of a few sign language teachers who had been persecuted but not of any oral language teachers.
Finally, the UAD answered the Council's dictatorial paragraph, telling parents to "demand that the deaf adults terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer our children's education program." The deaf response cited the state's UAD policy, which has been in place for 54 years. The deaf students in our schools deserve the best possible education to become self-supporting and valuable community members. We feel it is our duty and right as citizens to teach the public about deafness and to provide progressive and stimulating information on deaf education." The UAD did not want Deaf USD graduates to leave the Utah school system and become welfare recipients. The deaf adults in the community understood that improved outcomes for young deaf people were possible and were willing to share their knowledge with the State Office of Education and USD.
The UAD agreed with the Council that the State Board of Education supervised and administered the deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf and that Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was in charge of implementing it. Deaf people did not control or run the educational program assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
UAD President, Robert G. Sanderson,
Responds to a Parent’s Letter
Responds to a Parent’s Letter
On April 25, 1963, D'On Reese, a parent of an oral Deaf son from Smithfield, Utah, feared the Utah Association for the Deaf was seeking to eradicate oralism. She wrote to President Robert G. Sanderson to convey her opinions. Her letter and Robert's reply were published in the UAD Bulletin in the summer of 1963. Their letters are below:
Robert G. Sanderson, UAD President. The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1993
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
I really enjoy reading your UAD Bulletin. I’ve never seen so much nonsense put together. It really makes for funny reading.
Why don’t you put your time to good use, instead of just trying to find ways of get rid of oralism?
I have a son in the oral department of the Utah School for the Deaf. And I have not heard one parent that has a child in that school say anything against oralism. It’s just you adult Deaf.
I don’t know what satisfaction it gives you to try to stop oralism. As long as I’m alive, (I’m a lot younger than you) you’ll have me to fight, if you expect to get rid of oralism.
The only time that I feel bad about my son being deaf is for fear he might meet up with ignorant people like you.
When you wrote to Dr. Greenaway at the Yorkshire School for the Deaf, did you inform him that the parents at our school are perfectly satisfied with what they have?
Did you tell him that it’s just you meddling outsiders, that are afraid that our children might be getting something better than you did, that are upset?
Did you tell him that you went to the school board members last fall and tried to stop our oral program?
Did you tell him that you got ahold of our students last fall and staged a walk -out to get rid of oralism?
Did you tell him that you circulated a letter to our legislators to try and get our budget for the school cut so that we can’t have qualified teachers?
Where has all of this gotten you?
Our oral department is still there and I think it will be there after you’re long gone.
Do you see us oral parents going around trying to chop your fingers off so you can’t sign?
I’m perfectly willing to let the simultaneous dept. stay at our school.
Those people who are too lazy to learn to talk need it.
We’re not bothering you so why don’t you leave us alone?
We are the ones that brought these deaf children into the world. We are the ones who have stayed awake at nights trying to decide what’s best for them. We’ve looked at both sides of the ways to teach our children and we have come to the conclusion that oralism is best.
Are you willing for me to tell you how to educate your hearing children?
According to you I have every right to because I can hear and you can’t.
We have a wonderful administration at our school and very good teachers. Now if you’ll just leave them and our children alone, we’ll be most grateful.
When we need your help, we’ll ask for it.
Sincerely yours,
D’On Reese
Smithfield, R.F.D. #1 Utah
(The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2 & 14)
I really enjoy reading your UAD Bulletin. I’ve never seen so much nonsense put together. It really makes for funny reading.
Why don’t you put your time to good use, instead of just trying to find ways of get rid of oralism?
I have a son in the oral department of the Utah School for the Deaf. And I have not heard one parent that has a child in that school say anything against oralism. It’s just you adult Deaf.
I don’t know what satisfaction it gives you to try to stop oralism. As long as I’m alive, (I’m a lot younger than you) you’ll have me to fight, if you expect to get rid of oralism.
The only time that I feel bad about my son being deaf is for fear he might meet up with ignorant people like you.
When you wrote to Dr. Greenaway at the Yorkshire School for the Deaf, did you inform him that the parents at our school are perfectly satisfied with what they have?
Did you tell him that it’s just you meddling outsiders, that are afraid that our children might be getting something better than you did, that are upset?
Did you tell him that you went to the school board members last fall and tried to stop our oral program?
Did you tell him that you got ahold of our students last fall and staged a walk -out to get rid of oralism?
Did you tell him that you circulated a letter to our legislators to try and get our budget for the school cut so that we can’t have qualified teachers?
Where has all of this gotten you?
Our oral department is still there and I think it will be there after you’re long gone.
Do you see us oral parents going around trying to chop your fingers off so you can’t sign?
I’m perfectly willing to let the simultaneous dept. stay at our school.
Those people who are too lazy to learn to talk need it.
We’re not bothering you so why don’t you leave us alone?
We are the ones that brought these deaf children into the world. We are the ones who have stayed awake at nights trying to decide what’s best for them. We’ve looked at both sides of the ways to teach our children and we have come to the conclusion that oralism is best.
Are you willing for me to tell you how to educate your hearing children?
According to you I have every right to because I can hear and you can’t.
We have a wonderful administration at our school and very good teachers. Now if you’ll just leave them and our children alone, we’ll be most grateful.
When we need your help, we’ll ask for it.
Sincerely yours,
D’On Reese
Smithfield, R.F.D. #1 Utah
(The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2 & 14)
The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Dear Mrs. Reese:
Thank you very much for your letter of April 25. As you requested, we shall publish it in full, verbatim.
The UAD welcomes expressions of opinions from parents, teachers, professional educators, and individuals of every philosophy. The pages of the UAD Bulletin are always open to those who wish to be heard.
Membership in the Association entitles one to attend meetings, propose and discuss policies and actions. Where a majority of the membership does not agree with the policies and actions of the officers, they may exercise the American right of “voting them out” at regularly scheduled elections. We would welcome your attendance at our forthcoming convention and would give you and any other parent an opportunity to be heard at the proper time and in proper order; the same privileges are extended to all registered members.
Contrary to the belief of oralists that the adult deaf oppose oral instruction, we certainly do not. It has its place in the curriculum, for those who can benefit from it, along with reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, science, and all of the other subjects a school must teach. What the adult deaf do oppose is disproportionate attention to speech and lip-reading aspects, to the extent that the assimilation of subject matter becomes so difficult and so delayed that the total education of the deaf child suffers.
We adult deaf are interested in seeing deaf children acquire the best possible education as well as seeing them learn to speak. As we have learned in our personal lives, covering in the aggregate hundreds of years of experience in coping with the multitudinous socio-economic problems of deafness on a day-to-day basis, speech and lip-reading, while useful, solve no basic problems. The quality and the amount of education received, academically and vocationally, are what count.
I sincerely hope that your deaf son can profit by total oralism. Some children can and some cannot and any professional educator, if he is honest, will tell you so. If it should become apparent to you that your boy’s progress is not what it should be or what you expect or that his happiness (which is so close to your heart) is at stake, then perhaps your love for him would suggest another approach – one that guarantees to him an immediate means of expressing himself. The satisfaction of early and full self expression cannot be overestimated in its value to a well-adjusted child.
It should be remembered that we deaf adults had parents, many of whom once felt as you do, so we understand and appreciate your position.
Where the official position of the Association is concerned, I would suggest that you ascertain the facts with reference to other matters you mention in your letter. However, any member of our association, regardless of his office, may act individually as his conscience so dictates since he is also a taxpayer with those certain rights and privileges we value here in America. If any of our members choose to petition legislators against further spending on education, building, or any other phase of government and has his reasons, he is a free agent. His personal stand is not necessarily that of the association.
I must deny, publicly and categorically, in the strongest possible terms, that the Utah Association for the Deaf had anything to do with the student strike at the school last fall. The strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against conditions, restrictions, and personalities, which they felt, had become intolerable. The State Board of Education investigated and failed to turn up any connection between the students and the UAD. Severe pressures brought to bear on student leaders also failed to establish any connection. There was one coincidence: A member of our association happened to be at the school on a business matter (verifiable) and out of this coincidence some rather wild rumors grew.
I honestly believe that the adult deaf and parents of deaf children should work together closely toward the better education of deaf children. Working at cross-purposes merely ensures continuing and futile disputes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Sanderson
President
(Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14)
Thank you very much for your letter of April 25. As you requested, we shall publish it in full, verbatim.
The UAD welcomes expressions of opinions from parents, teachers, professional educators, and individuals of every philosophy. The pages of the UAD Bulletin are always open to those who wish to be heard.
Membership in the Association entitles one to attend meetings, propose and discuss policies and actions. Where a majority of the membership does not agree with the policies and actions of the officers, they may exercise the American right of “voting them out” at regularly scheduled elections. We would welcome your attendance at our forthcoming convention and would give you and any other parent an opportunity to be heard at the proper time and in proper order; the same privileges are extended to all registered members.
Contrary to the belief of oralists that the adult deaf oppose oral instruction, we certainly do not. It has its place in the curriculum, for those who can benefit from it, along with reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, science, and all of the other subjects a school must teach. What the adult deaf do oppose is disproportionate attention to speech and lip-reading aspects, to the extent that the assimilation of subject matter becomes so difficult and so delayed that the total education of the deaf child suffers.
We adult deaf are interested in seeing deaf children acquire the best possible education as well as seeing them learn to speak. As we have learned in our personal lives, covering in the aggregate hundreds of years of experience in coping with the multitudinous socio-economic problems of deafness on a day-to-day basis, speech and lip-reading, while useful, solve no basic problems. The quality and the amount of education received, academically and vocationally, are what count.
I sincerely hope that your deaf son can profit by total oralism. Some children can and some cannot and any professional educator, if he is honest, will tell you so. If it should become apparent to you that your boy’s progress is not what it should be or what you expect or that his happiness (which is so close to your heart) is at stake, then perhaps your love for him would suggest another approach – one that guarantees to him an immediate means of expressing himself. The satisfaction of early and full self expression cannot be overestimated in its value to a well-adjusted child.
It should be remembered that we deaf adults had parents, many of whom once felt as you do, so we understand and appreciate your position.
Where the official position of the Association is concerned, I would suggest that you ascertain the facts with reference to other matters you mention in your letter. However, any member of our association, regardless of his office, may act individually as his conscience so dictates since he is also a taxpayer with those certain rights and privileges we value here in America. If any of our members choose to petition legislators against further spending on education, building, or any other phase of government and has his reasons, he is a free agent. His personal stand is not necessarily that of the association.
I must deny, publicly and categorically, in the strongest possible terms, that the Utah Association for the Deaf had anything to do with the student strike at the school last fall. The strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against conditions, restrictions, and personalities, which they felt, had become intolerable. The State Board of Education investigated and failed to turn up any connection between the students and the UAD. Severe pressures brought to bear on student leaders also failed to establish any connection. There was one coincidence: A member of our association happened to be at the school on a business matter (verifiable) and out of this coincidence some rather wild rumors grew.
I honestly believe that the adult deaf and parents of deaf children should work together closely toward the better education of deaf children. Working at cross-purposes merely ensures continuing and futile disputes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Sanderson
President
(Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14)
The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group Is Formed
When Steven W. Noyce, a long-serving teacher and director of the Utah School for the Deaf, was elected superintendent of USDB by the Utah State Board of Education in 2009, the Utah Deaf community feared he would strive to carry Dr. Bitter's legacy endangering the ASL/English Bilingual program they fought hard to develop. The state board disregarded the protests of the Utah Deaf community.
Noyce was no stranger to the Utah Deaf Community. They were aware that he had attended the University of Utah's Oral Training Program from 1965-1972, where he was mentored by Dr. Bitter (Steven Noyce: LinkedIn). On the recommendation of Ella Mae Lentz, co-founder of the Deafhood Foundation and well-known Deaf Education advocate, the Deaf Education Core Group was created in April 2010 to safeguard ASL/English Bilingual Education and campaign against inequality in the Deaf Education system through a Two-Track Program in Utah. More information about the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is available on the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage.
Noyce was no stranger to the Utah Deaf Community. They were aware that he had attended the University of Utah's Oral Training Program from 1965-1972, where he was mentored by Dr. Bitter (Steven Noyce: LinkedIn). On the recommendation of Ella Mae Lentz, co-founder of the Deafhood Foundation and well-known Deaf Education advocate, the Deaf Education Core Group was created in April 2010 to safeguard ASL/English Bilingual Education and campaign against inequality in the Deaf Education system through a Two-Track Program in Utah. More information about the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is available on the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage.
Steven Noyce
Utah Deaf Education Core Group's Response to the
Comments Section of the Salt Lake Tribune Article
Comments Section of the Salt Lake Tribune Article
On May 5, 2011, the Salt Lake Tribune article "Parents rally to get boss of schools for Deaf, blind ousted" sparked a lengthy debate among ASL/English Bilingual and Listening and Spoken Language advocates. USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce distorted his words by claiming the ASL campaigners' goal was to show that ASL should be taught to all children with hearing loss, something he cannot endorse. It outraged LSL parents. They were riled up against the Utah Deaf Education Core Group.
The LSL parents backed Noyce's efforts as USDB superintendent. They feared that the Utah Deaf community would try to take away their right to use LSL. The Core Group was criticized for making the "war" ASL vs. LSL. Also, the LSL parents defended Mr. Noyce for putting the USDB in debt. They blamed the 3% districts, the USDB Financial Director, and the State Board because the 3% rule was implemented before Noyce was hired.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group could practically hear Noyce defame the Utah Deaf community behind closed doors by suggesting the Core Group wanted Deaf students and families to have no choice. According to a newspaper article dated May 5, 2011, the Utah Deaf community wanted to force Deaf or hard of hearing children to use sign language. Not on Core Group's website or blog did ASL parents and members ask to eliminate the LSL program or call LSL parents' names. The Core Group knew they slandered Noyce, but they didn't call him names.
LSL Blog condemned the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. USDB Superintendent Noyce met with LSL parents just before a USBE meeting on May 5, but no evidence exists. Superintendent Noyce apparently was "feeding" the LSL parents false information, making it look like the Core Group wanted the LSL option eliminated, as LSL parents frequently complained in the comments section. Most core group members were raised by hearing parents and attended public schools. Some grew up with ASL; some did not. Many of them were Deaf parents. As Robert G. Sanderson stated in his 1963 letter to D'On Reese, they felt they had a constitutional right to advocate for Deaf Education in Utah because they lived in the deaf school system themselves.
The real problem was that Superintendent Noyce did not allow families to choose and fund ALL USD programs equally. ASL and LSL were clashing. Superintendent Noyce's mission should be to equally fund and champion BOTH educational approaches, leaving it to parents and families to decide their child's educational modality without bias or favor. The Core Group also acknowledged that the majority of parents chose LSL and that the money was spent where the most participants were. Still, they also recognized his motive behind favoring one at the expense of all others.
One of the 142 comments by Michelle4LSL highlighted the misunderstanding dispute between ASL and LSL proponents. It was disconcerting to learn that Michelle4LSL (2011) and D'On Reese (1963) used identical deceptive words about the ASL group. D'On Reese asked the Utah Association of the Deaf to stop trying to eradicate oralism. Similarly, Michelle4LSL also argued ASL supporters should stop. See her resulting comment:
The LSL parents backed Noyce's efforts as USDB superintendent. They feared that the Utah Deaf community would try to take away their right to use LSL. The Core Group was criticized for making the "war" ASL vs. LSL. Also, the LSL parents defended Mr. Noyce for putting the USDB in debt. They blamed the 3% districts, the USDB Financial Director, and the State Board because the 3% rule was implemented before Noyce was hired.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group could practically hear Noyce defame the Utah Deaf community behind closed doors by suggesting the Core Group wanted Deaf students and families to have no choice. According to a newspaper article dated May 5, 2011, the Utah Deaf community wanted to force Deaf or hard of hearing children to use sign language. Not on Core Group's website or blog did ASL parents and members ask to eliminate the LSL program or call LSL parents' names. The Core Group knew they slandered Noyce, but they didn't call him names.
LSL Blog condemned the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. USDB Superintendent Noyce met with LSL parents just before a USBE meeting on May 5, but no evidence exists. Superintendent Noyce apparently was "feeding" the LSL parents false information, making it look like the Core Group wanted the LSL option eliminated, as LSL parents frequently complained in the comments section. Most core group members were raised by hearing parents and attended public schools. Some grew up with ASL; some did not. Many of them were Deaf parents. As Robert G. Sanderson stated in his 1963 letter to D'On Reese, they felt they had a constitutional right to advocate for Deaf Education in Utah because they lived in the deaf school system themselves.
The real problem was that Superintendent Noyce did not allow families to choose and fund ALL USD programs equally. ASL and LSL were clashing. Superintendent Noyce's mission should be to equally fund and champion BOTH educational approaches, leaving it to parents and families to decide their child's educational modality without bias or favor. The Core Group also acknowledged that the majority of parents chose LSL and that the money was spent where the most participants were. Still, they also recognized his motive behind favoring one at the expense of all others.
One of the 142 comments by Michelle4LSL highlighted the misunderstanding dispute between ASL and LSL proponents. It was disconcerting to learn that Michelle4LSL (2011) and D'On Reese (1963) used identical deceptive words about the ASL group. D'On Reese asked the Utah Association of the Deaf to stop trying to eradicate oralism. Similarly, Michelle4LSL also argued ASL supporters should stop. See her resulting comment:
The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011
To All The ASL or ASL/E
What you all don't seem to get, is that the Utah School Board of Education is FED UP WITH YOU!! They are so tired of your constant complaining. Before Total Communication or TC was taken away, you had battles for other things, it really doesn't matter what is done in your behalf...they give you stuff to shut you up! But you just keep coming back with your hands and mouths open... someone, I don't know who...coined the term Fat Kids for your group....for the very simple reason that no matter how much you are given, you are NEVER satisfied!
Because of all the tirades and rallies and exhaustive amount of tantrums the ASL (not all of you...) community has put the school board through, they have been discussing for months any possible actions they can take to get rid of you as well as the other groups like the blind and LSL. They are so tired of it all that they will do just about anything to pawn us all of on someone else.
In pawning us all off, they will effectively take the rights and services of all the children away. They wrongly assume that our students can get interpreters, speech therapists, (any and all of the Related Services), etc. through the school districts who will have to pick up the slack. First off, the school districts are not equipped to help us...none of us, like we need. Second, for those parents who are ill informed or who are shy and don't have the strength to stand up for their child's rights...they will be left in the dust.
Many of us LSL parents are getting involved and are upset with the ASL group because you are endangering our children's future whether you believe it or not. You can say that the school board cannot do those things, but if you personally talk to members of the board and they are honest with you, they will tell you. The other reason we are involved is because we now understand how much you are all getting, and how little the rest of the kids are getting.
We are not fighting just for our kids...we are fighting for the blind kids. Other than a select few, we have not seen parents from the blind come forth to really fight (for whatever reason that may be...we are not picking on them here, we want to do what we can to help).
We feel that we should all be able to get along...the meanness comes out when your group is essentially screwing the rest of us over because you cannot get enough. We don't believe in your way of teaching, and that is our right...our decision, leave it alone. We have left you alone to do what you want in teaching, don't try to take our rights away.
If you really need or want something, try going back to being a charter school or try asking in a different manner...quit being bullies! Michelle4LSL
What you all don't seem to get, is that the Utah School Board of Education is FED UP WITH YOU!! They are so tired of your constant complaining. Before Total Communication or TC was taken away, you had battles for other things, it really doesn't matter what is done in your behalf...they give you stuff to shut you up! But you just keep coming back with your hands and mouths open... someone, I don't know who...coined the term Fat Kids for your group....for the very simple reason that no matter how much you are given, you are NEVER satisfied!
Because of all the tirades and rallies and exhaustive amount of tantrums the ASL (not all of you...) community has put the school board through, they have been discussing for months any possible actions they can take to get rid of you as well as the other groups like the blind and LSL. They are so tired of it all that they will do just about anything to pawn us all of on someone else.
In pawning us all off, they will effectively take the rights and services of all the children away. They wrongly assume that our students can get interpreters, speech therapists, (any and all of the Related Services), etc. through the school districts who will have to pick up the slack. First off, the school districts are not equipped to help us...none of us, like we need. Second, for those parents who are ill informed or who are shy and don't have the strength to stand up for their child's rights...they will be left in the dust.
Many of us LSL parents are getting involved and are upset with the ASL group because you are endangering our children's future whether you believe it or not. You can say that the school board cannot do those things, but if you personally talk to members of the board and they are honest with you, they will tell you. The other reason we are involved is because we now understand how much you are all getting, and how little the rest of the kids are getting.
We are not fighting just for our kids...we are fighting for the blind kids. Other than a select few, we have not seen parents from the blind come forth to really fight (for whatever reason that may be...we are not picking on them here, we want to do what we can to help).
We feel that we should all be able to get along...the meanness comes out when your group is essentially screwing the rest of us over because you cannot get enough. We don't believe in your way of teaching, and that is our right...our decision, leave it alone. We have left you alone to do what you want in teaching, don't try to take our rights away.
If you really need or want something, try going back to being a charter school or try asking in a different manner...quit being bullies! Michelle4LSL
Following in the footsteps of former UAD President Robert G. Sanderson, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group responded to Michelle4LSL's post for clarifications on their intentions regarding USDB Superintendent Noyce, quickly ending the argument between these two parties.
Utah Deaf Education Core Group's Website
In response to some of the comments that have been posted in the responses to the article published in the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday, May 5, 2011 (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51761405-78/noyce-parents-program-Deaf.html.csp), we wish to let our readers know the following:
We are NOT fighting to get LSL removed from the Deaf division of USDB. We respect parents' right to choose LSL if they feel that it would work for their children. This is NOT an ASL versus LSL battle. We have never said that our goal was to have USD be an ASL-only school. We only ask for fair, unbiased options for all families and students, and for families to be able to choose both options if they so desire.
Let it be known that in 2007, elementary teachers in the Central Deaf Division of USDB who taught in the Total Communication program asked to be merged with JMS. Later, in 2009, when Steven W. Noyce revamped Parent Infant Program, he removed what was called the Total Communication option (which included both sign and speech) and restructured the program so that it offers either LSL or ASL, which upset many parents who wanted both options. Mr. Noyce also announced the phasing out of the USDB Total Communication program at Churchill. The Deaf community had no part of this change.
The Total Communication program utilized signing and speaking simultaneously and was ineffective for a number of reasons, one of which is that ASL and English are two distinct languages. Advocates of ASL/English bilingualism support the utilization of both ASL and written/spoken English in the instruction of deaf and hard of hearing children, with the understanding that one or the other language is used as appropriate and not simultaneously. A thorough explanation of this, however, is beyond the scope of this report.
Our first concern is for parents who WANT to learn ASL in addition to obtaining the intensive speech therapy that's provided to LSL parents and their children. We understand that parents who choose the ASL/English bilingual approach do receive oracy training, but that for some parents, oracy is not enough. Parents who want LSL training should be allowed to learn ASL as well if they want it. Along these lines, let it be understood that we support the concept of ASL/English AND LSL, rather than ASL/English OR LSL (AND, not OR). As discussed above, PIP has been restructured so that parents can only choose one option or the other. We feel there should be a way parents can choose both.
Our second concern is the apparent favoritism of one program over the other, particularly in the Deaf division. In one example, speech therapists have been TAKEN AWAY from parents who had already had speech therapists from USDB working with their children, but who then chose the ASL/English path. Another example is the lack of a playgroup for ASL/English children. In fact, ASL/English parents who were attending the LSL playgroup were asked to stop attending. A final example is an allocation of $440,000 to the Sound Beginnings, an oral program in Logan, without an equivalent allocation to an ASL/English program.
It has been said that the ASL/English program in SLC is receiving funds that other programs aren't and the playground has been listed as an example. The fact is that funds for the playground have come from the PTA and, to many people's surprise, the legislature - brought up by an interested senator. USDB has NOT allocated ANY funds towards the playground. Furthermore, the playground has been designed to accommodate ALL disabilities, including those with visual impairments. It has ALSO been designed to be safe for children with cochlear implants. All deaf/hard of hearing, blind, and deaf-blind children are welcome to play on this playground once it is set up.
Likewise, the building that's occupied by students in the ASL/English bilingual program in SLC was obtained after years of struggle. There are 100 students in this program, and rooms/teachers are needed for these 100 students. Parents and teachers of LSL students tend to want their children to be housed in local public schools so that the kids are exposed to other hearing children, which is their right. Parents of ASL/English students want them to be educated together. Can we have the building for that?
As a side note, while it is true that the ASL/English program was expanded with high school classes, a predicted enrollment of 30 additional students to the elementary and middle school classes for Fall 2010 mysteriously ended up being zero. It was eventually discovered that negative information was circulating around USDB regarding the ASL/English bilingual programs available at USD and about sign language in general, causing parents to NOT want to enroll their children at JMS.
Furthermore, there is actually a policy that there would never be any separate "hard money" funding for special education charter schools in Utah. Mr. Noyce and a few others lobbied for this policy, and it made the future possibility of JMS to be a charter school again impossible. This legislation made permanent the placement of JMS under the direction of USDB.
Our final concern is the termination of the two-year contract for Steven W. Noyce, USDB Superintendent, due to his 1. Favoring one program over the other programs, 2. Unwillingness to offer parents the option of choosing BOTH LSL and ASL/English bilingualism, 3. Unbalanced funding of USD programs, and 4. Bungling of the school's fiscal-management.
Parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Finally and importantly, we, ASL parents and community have the constitutional right to voice our concerns to the Utah State Board of Education, and it is their job to listen to us. We feel that it is important for them to hear our concerns to make effective decisions for USDB.
Also, all of the information included on our website can be verified by minutes from various meetings held by the Advisory Council and other organizations. All of the letters from parents were written by real parents who went through the experiences that are recorded in the letters. The information is real, not lies like one of the comments to the article states.
FYI, we as a group have declined to meet with Mr. Noyce face to face regarding these issues as we feel that such a meeting would probably not be productive because of a long history of his trivializing ASL/English bilingual issues.
We are NOT fighting to get LSL removed from the Deaf division of USDB. We respect parents' right to choose LSL if they feel that it would work for their children. This is NOT an ASL versus LSL battle. We have never said that our goal was to have USD be an ASL-only school. We only ask for fair, unbiased options for all families and students, and for families to be able to choose both options if they so desire.
Let it be known that in 2007, elementary teachers in the Central Deaf Division of USDB who taught in the Total Communication program asked to be merged with JMS. Later, in 2009, when Steven W. Noyce revamped Parent Infant Program, he removed what was called the Total Communication option (which included both sign and speech) and restructured the program so that it offers either LSL or ASL, which upset many parents who wanted both options. Mr. Noyce also announced the phasing out of the USDB Total Communication program at Churchill. The Deaf community had no part of this change.
The Total Communication program utilized signing and speaking simultaneously and was ineffective for a number of reasons, one of which is that ASL and English are two distinct languages. Advocates of ASL/English bilingualism support the utilization of both ASL and written/spoken English in the instruction of deaf and hard of hearing children, with the understanding that one or the other language is used as appropriate and not simultaneously. A thorough explanation of this, however, is beyond the scope of this report.
Our first concern is for parents who WANT to learn ASL in addition to obtaining the intensive speech therapy that's provided to LSL parents and their children. We understand that parents who choose the ASL/English bilingual approach do receive oracy training, but that for some parents, oracy is not enough. Parents who want LSL training should be allowed to learn ASL as well if they want it. Along these lines, let it be understood that we support the concept of ASL/English AND LSL, rather than ASL/English OR LSL (AND, not OR). As discussed above, PIP has been restructured so that parents can only choose one option or the other. We feel there should be a way parents can choose both.
Our second concern is the apparent favoritism of one program over the other, particularly in the Deaf division. In one example, speech therapists have been TAKEN AWAY from parents who had already had speech therapists from USDB working with their children, but who then chose the ASL/English path. Another example is the lack of a playgroup for ASL/English children. In fact, ASL/English parents who were attending the LSL playgroup were asked to stop attending. A final example is an allocation of $440,000 to the Sound Beginnings, an oral program in Logan, without an equivalent allocation to an ASL/English program.
It has been said that the ASL/English program in SLC is receiving funds that other programs aren't and the playground has been listed as an example. The fact is that funds for the playground have come from the PTA and, to many people's surprise, the legislature - brought up by an interested senator. USDB has NOT allocated ANY funds towards the playground. Furthermore, the playground has been designed to accommodate ALL disabilities, including those with visual impairments. It has ALSO been designed to be safe for children with cochlear implants. All deaf/hard of hearing, blind, and deaf-blind children are welcome to play on this playground once it is set up.
Likewise, the building that's occupied by students in the ASL/English bilingual program in SLC was obtained after years of struggle. There are 100 students in this program, and rooms/teachers are needed for these 100 students. Parents and teachers of LSL students tend to want their children to be housed in local public schools so that the kids are exposed to other hearing children, which is their right. Parents of ASL/English students want them to be educated together. Can we have the building for that?
As a side note, while it is true that the ASL/English program was expanded with high school classes, a predicted enrollment of 30 additional students to the elementary and middle school classes for Fall 2010 mysteriously ended up being zero. It was eventually discovered that negative information was circulating around USDB regarding the ASL/English bilingual programs available at USD and about sign language in general, causing parents to NOT want to enroll their children at JMS.
Furthermore, there is actually a policy that there would never be any separate "hard money" funding for special education charter schools in Utah. Mr. Noyce and a few others lobbied for this policy, and it made the future possibility of JMS to be a charter school again impossible. This legislation made permanent the placement of JMS under the direction of USDB.
Our final concern is the termination of the two-year contract for Steven W. Noyce, USDB Superintendent, due to his 1. Favoring one program over the other programs, 2. Unwillingness to offer parents the option of choosing BOTH LSL and ASL/English bilingualism, 3. Unbalanced funding of USD programs, and 4. Bungling of the school's fiscal-management.
Parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Finally and importantly, we, ASL parents and community have the constitutional right to voice our concerns to the Utah State Board of Education, and it is their job to listen to us. We feel that it is important for them to hear our concerns to make effective decisions for USDB.
Also, all of the information included on our website can be verified by minutes from various meetings held by the Advisory Council and other organizations. All of the letters from parents were written by real parents who went through the experiences that are recorded in the letters. The information is real, not lies like one of the comments to the article states.
FYI, we as a group have declined to meet with Mr. Noyce face to face regarding these issues as we feel that such a meeting would probably not be productive because of a long history of his trivializing ASL/English bilingual issues.
Superintendent Noyce's Two-Year Contract Ends
From 2010 to 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group spent a year trying to get Steve W. Noyce out of his two-year contract. Despite their political outcries, which included a peaceful vigil to await the results that enraged the board members, the Utah State Board of Education voted to extend Superintendent Noyce's contract for another two years after 395 LSL supporters signed a petition and wrote a letter in support of him. The Utah State Office of Education, according to LSL parent Anissa Wardell's blog, has declared this a victory for LSL families! I Totally AGREE! (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 5, 2011). Like Dr. Bitter with UAD, Superintendent Noyce was effective in portraying the core group as extremist. After exhausting all other possibilities to terminate his contract, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group sat silent for two years.
Superintendent Noyce's contract was terminated two years later, in 2013. The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously in the open session on January 10, 2013, not to extend his appointment. The state school board's chairperson, Debra Roberts, declined to reveal why the board decided not to extend Steve's contract, citing privacy concerns. She went on to say that there had been no misconduct and that the board had been debating the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). The news took Steven aback. He explained, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months, things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune January 10, 2013). As of today, no one knew why his contract had ended.
It was not until 2013-14 that the rightful USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman, a former member of the Utah State Board of Education, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner joined forces to address the long-overdue need for equal ASL/English Bilingual and LSL options, as well as an equitable deaf educational system.
Superintendent Noyce's contract was terminated two years later, in 2013. The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously in the open session on January 10, 2013, not to extend his appointment. The state school board's chairperson, Debra Roberts, declined to reveal why the board decided not to extend Steve's contract, citing privacy concerns. She went on to say that there had been no misconduct and that the board had been debating the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). The news took Steven aback. He explained, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months, things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune January 10, 2013). As of today, no one knew why his contract had ended.
It was not until 2013-14 that the rightful USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman, a former member of the Utah State Board of Education, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner joined forces to address the long-overdue need for equal ASL/English Bilingual and LSL options, as well as an equitable deaf educational system.
Anissa Wardell's Blog
References
