The Deaf Education
History in Utah
History in Utah
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O'Hara,
Valerie G. Kinney, and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O'Hara,
Valerie G. Kinney, and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Author's Note
Working on the document "The Deaf Education History in Utah" has given me a deep appreciation for the Utah Association for the Deaf and its unwavering advocacy for improved education and services for the Deaf community. This document, which includes the names of key individuals, serves as a testament to their significant contributions. I admire the Utah Association for the Deaf and its advocates for protecting sign language.
We do not intend to criticize the Utah School for the Deaf or any individual. Rather, it aims to provide a clear historical perspective from the Utah Deaf community and its allies, including the hearing parents of Deaf children. The lack of a recorded Deaf perspective on the history of Deaf education in Utah demonstrates the need for recognition of this crucial narrative.
Additionally, this document acknowledges the tireless efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, the Utah Deaf community, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in preserving American Sign Language and supporting the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This school stands as a testament to the resilience and dedication of the Deaf community in Utah. By fostering an inclusive environment and promoting the use of American Sign Language, these organizations play a vital role in empowering Deaf students and ensuring their voices are heard within the broader educational landscape.
I am particularly interested in the history of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an oral and mainstreaming advocate whose ideologies have had a long-term impact on the Utah Deaf community. 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 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' landmark legislation that made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory for all Deaf, Dumb, and Blind citizens (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 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. This landmark legislation ensured that children with disabilities, including those who are Deaf or Blind, would have access to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As a result, the educational landscape for these children continued to evolve, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in learning.
Dr. Bitter's journey as an advocate for Deaf education was profoundly influenced by his daughter Colleen, who was born deaf in 1954. This personal experience deepened his commitment to promoting oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. His internship time at the Lexington School for the Deaf further shaped his beliefs, especially as he witnessed the separation of young children from their families. This experience reinforced his determination to fight for equal educational opportunities for Deaf children, as he believed that inclusivity not only benefits these children but also enriches the entire school community. His advocacy was driven by both his personal experiences and his professional dedication (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
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, a department that promotes a comprehensive approach to communication and education for Deaf students, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter was a staunch supporter of oral and mainstream education, and he was particularly vocal about his beliefs. According to Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Bitter's influence was profound; he was a hard-core oralist and one of the top leading figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than he was in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled that Dr. Bitter's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Dr. Bitter argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Dr. Bitter believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Dr. Hughes Cannon's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the unique needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Hughes Cannon felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society. This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Dr. Bitter strongly believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. Oralism is a teaching method that focuses on teaching Deaf students to speak and understand spoken language, often without the use of sign language. In contrast, mainstreaming is the practice of integrating Deaf students into regular public schools rather than placing them in specialized schools for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's advocacy push for both oral communication and mainstream education sparked a longstanding feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD). This association was primarily comprised of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, notably including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch advocate of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giant figures, Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference, but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain a political advantage in this complex educational landscape, much like a chess match, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. As tensions escalated, both parties began to gather supporters, launching campaigns to sway public opinion and influence policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own unique benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. One significant limitation is its lack of mainstream accessibility; most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Furthermore, many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lip-reading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
Dr. Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefit both oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. He highlighted the advantages of each approach. In contrast, Dr. Sanderson, backed by the Utah Association for the Deaf, actively engaged in ongoing debates regarding the benefits of sign language over oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible education in sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly during Dr. Bitter's oral demonstration panels, picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings. The UAD served as a crucial platform for Deaf individuals to share their perspectives and experiences within the Deaf educational system, offering valuable insights during these sessions. Their collective advocacy was essential in shaping these debates and fighting for the rights of Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. Additionally, he voiced dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Dr. Bitter also called for the firing of Dr. Sanderson, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake City), a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Dr. Sanderson, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Dr. Sanderson—a well-known Deaf educator and advocate—played a vital role in voicing concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Dr. Bitter aimed to promote these same policies. As a representative of the Deaf community, Dr. Sanderson provided significant insights into the challenges faced by Deaf individuals in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Dr. Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Dr. Bitter used his power to advocate for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD, including Dr. Sanderson, to effectively counter his efforts. Despite Dr. Bitter's substantial influence and the backing of other proponents of oralism, the UAD, particularly Dr. Sanderson, showed remarkable resilience in facing these challenges and countering his opposition. They remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
The UAD, with contributions from Dr. Sanderson, worked to change perceptions and policies to prioritize accessibility in language, communication, and school placement through discussions in educational committees, board meetings, and legislative hearings. They played a crucial role in shaping educational policies, recognizing the importance of sign language and the need for an accessible environment at the Utah School for the Deaf. To address these issues, they established a two-track program, replacing the original 1962 dual-track program that mandated oral enrollment. Since its implementation in 1971, this program has offered families of Deaf children a choice between oral and sign language education. It fostered collaboration among educators, parents, and the Utah Deaf community, emphasizing shared goals and unity. Through inclusive advocacy, the UAD empowered Deaf individuals by ensuring equitable access to education and resources, leading to a strong community. As a result, a balanced approach to Deaf education has emerged, valuing both ASL/English bilingual education and Listening and Spoken Language as equal options for families of Deaf children in the current hybrid program established in 2016.
The Utah Association for the Deaf tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, and now the next generation has taken on the responsibility for this cause. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingualism and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
It is important to recognize the profound impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and oral advocates have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions to oral education are a vital part of this story. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must acknowledge the ongoing issues that persist today. The current political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are both enlightening and empowering. Understanding these debates allows us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities. The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive both academically and socially. By amplifying their voices and experiences, we can work toward a future in which every Deaf child is empowered to reach their full potential.
In my historical work, I use first names for everyone—men, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals—to honor their unique contributions and challenge the patriarchal norm of associating women's achievements with their husbands' last names. This choice acknowledges their contributions under their names, which is essential for recognizing their identities. Using first names not only makes each person feel valued and respected, but it also highlights the importance of women's advocacy in our community and fosters inclusivity. This approach emphasizes women's accomplishments and contributions while acknowledging the unique identity of each individual.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For some background, we were known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally reverted to our original name in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For a bit of background, we were called the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally embraced our original name again in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' webpage of this website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah. We appreciate your interest and look forward to your continued support.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
We do not intend to criticize the Utah School for the Deaf or any individual. Rather, it aims to provide a clear historical perspective from the Utah Deaf community and its allies, including the hearing parents of Deaf children. The lack of a recorded Deaf perspective on the history of Deaf education in Utah demonstrates the need for recognition of this crucial narrative.
Additionally, this document acknowledges the tireless efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, the Utah Deaf community, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in preserving American Sign Language and supporting the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This school stands as a testament to the resilience and dedication of the Deaf community in Utah. By fostering an inclusive environment and promoting the use of American Sign Language, these organizations play a vital role in empowering Deaf students and ensuring their voices are heard within the broader educational landscape.
I am particularly interested in the history of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an oral and mainstreaming advocate whose ideologies have had a long-term impact on the Utah Deaf community. 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 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' landmark legislation that made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory for all Deaf, Dumb, and Blind citizens (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 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. This landmark legislation ensured that children with disabilities, including those who are Deaf or Blind, would have access to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As a result, the educational landscape for these children continued to evolve, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in learning.
Dr. Bitter's journey as an advocate for Deaf education was profoundly influenced by his daughter Colleen, who was born deaf in 1954. This personal experience deepened his commitment to promoting oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. His internship time at the Lexington School for the Deaf further shaped his beliefs, especially as he witnessed the separation of young children from their families. This experience reinforced his determination to fight for equal educational opportunities for Deaf children, as he believed that inclusivity not only benefits these children but also enriches the entire school community. His advocacy was driven by both his personal experiences and his professional dedication (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
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, a department that promotes a comprehensive approach to communication and education for Deaf students, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter was a staunch supporter of oral and mainstream education, and he was particularly vocal about his beliefs. According to Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Bitter's influence was profound; he was a hard-core oralist and one of the top leading figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than he was in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled that Dr. Bitter's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Dr. Bitter argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Dr. Bitter believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Dr. Hughes Cannon's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the unique needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Hughes Cannon felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society. This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Dr. Bitter strongly believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. Oralism is a teaching method that focuses on teaching Deaf students to speak and understand spoken language, often without the use of sign language. In contrast, mainstreaming is the practice of integrating Deaf students into regular public schools rather than placing them in specialized schools for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's advocacy push for both oral communication and mainstream education sparked a longstanding feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD). This association was primarily comprised of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, notably including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch advocate of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giant figures, Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference, but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain a political advantage in this complex educational landscape, much like a chess match, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. As tensions escalated, both parties began to gather supporters, launching campaigns to sway public opinion and influence policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own unique benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. One significant limitation is its lack of mainstream accessibility; most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Furthermore, many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lip-reading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
Dr. Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefit both oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. He highlighted the advantages of each approach. In contrast, Dr. Sanderson, backed by the Utah Association for the Deaf, actively engaged in ongoing debates regarding the benefits of sign language over oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible education in sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly during Dr. Bitter's oral demonstration panels, picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings. The UAD served as a crucial platform for Deaf individuals to share their perspectives and experiences within the Deaf educational system, offering valuable insights during these sessions. Their collective advocacy was essential in shaping these debates and fighting for the rights of Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. Additionally, he voiced dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Dr. Bitter also called for the firing of Dr. Sanderson, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake City), a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Dr. Sanderson, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Dr. Sanderson—a well-known Deaf educator and advocate—played a vital role in voicing concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Dr. Bitter aimed to promote these same policies. As a representative of the Deaf community, Dr. Sanderson provided significant insights into the challenges faced by Deaf individuals in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Dr. Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Dr. Bitter used his power to advocate for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD, including Dr. Sanderson, to effectively counter his efforts. Despite Dr. Bitter's substantial influence and the backing of other proponents of oralism, the UAD, particularly Dr. Sanderson, showed remarkable resilience in facing these challenges and countering his opposition. They remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
The UAD, with contributions from Dr. Sanderson, worked to change perceptions and policies to prioritize accessibility in language, communication, and school placement through discussions in educational committees, board meetings, and legislative hearings. They played a crucial role in shaping educational policies, recognizing the importance of sign language and the need for an accessible environment at the Utah School for the Deaf. To address these issues, they established a two-track program, replacing the original 1962 dual-track program that mandated oral enrollment. Since its implementation in 1971, this program has offered families of Deaf children a choice between oral and sign language education. It fostered collaboration among educators, parents, and the Utah Deaf community, emphasizing shared goals and unity. Through inclusive advocacy, the UAD empowered Deaf individuals by ensuring equitable access to education and resources, leading to a strong community. As a result, a balanced approach to Deaf education has emerged, valuing both ASL/English bilingual education and Listening and Spoken Language as equal options for families of Deaf children in the current hybrid program established in 2016.
The Utah Association for the Deaf tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, and now the next generation has taken on the responsibility for this cause. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingualism and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
It is important to recognize the profound impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and oral advocates have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions to oral education are a vital part of this story. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must acknowledge the ongoing issues that persist today. The current political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are both enlightening and empowering. Understanding these debates allows us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities. The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive both academically and socially. By amplifying their voices and experiences, we can work toward a future in which every Deaf child is empowered to reach their full potential.
In my historical work, I use first names for everyone—men, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals—to honor their unique contributions and challenge the patriarchal norm of associating women's achievements with their husbands' last names. This choice acknowledges their contributions under their names, which is essential for recognizing their identities. Using first names not only makes each person feel valued and respected, but it also highlights the importance of women's advocacy in our community and fosters inclusivity. This approach emphasizes women's accomplishments and contributions while acknowledging the unique identity of each individual.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For some background, we were known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally reverted to our original name in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For a bit of background, we were called the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally embraced our original name again in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' webpage of this website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah. We appreciate your interest and look forward to your continued support.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
Acknowledgement
I want to express my deep gratitude to everyone who played a crucial role in completing the Deaf Education History in Utah project. I am genuinely thankful for their support and contributions.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my spouse, Duane, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering patience and support throughout the years I have dedicated to this project. This endeavor has taken nearly two decades to complete and would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals.
I would like to commend Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, and Lloyd H. Perkins, along with other Utah Deaf leaders, for their courage and vigilance in protecting the Deaf educational system from the influences of oral education and mainstreaming.
Additionally, I want to express my deep appreciation to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing the fascinating history of Deaf education in Utah with me. This project, which I started in 2006, would not have come to fruition without his support and guidance.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who supported and contributed to the successful completion of this project. First and foremost, I am thankful to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson for inspiring me to diligently work on my homework, which ultimately led to the project's success.
I would also like to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and assistance provided by W. David Mortensen and Eleanor McCowan throughout the project. Additionally, I am deeply grateful to my parents, John and Jeanne Becker, for their unwavering support during this endeavor.
Furthermore, I extend my sincerest thanks to Valerie G. Kinney and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz for generously donating their time to revise and edit this document. Lastly, I want to thank my editor, Bronwyn O'Hara, for her invaluable contributions to the editing process.
I am grateful to Dr. Bitter for motivating me to write this history and for donating his documents to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His donation provided me with the resources needed to document the broader context of the oral and sign language controversy, making the history more compelling. Dr. Bitter's materials helped me fill the gaps with information from UAD Bulletins, newspapers, and more. I am fascinated by historical events that are intense, random, and unsettling. This history website presents a realistic and honest account of events rather than the rosy or overly optimistic narrative that some readers may expect. Learning about the darker aspects of history allows us to engage in open discussions, listen to one another, learn, and grow.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Doug Stringham for sharing the manuscript with Dr. Bryan K. Eldredge. This initiative led to the establishment of a senior-level "special topics" course titled "Deaf Education in Utah" at Utah Valley University, first introduced in 2011 and again in 2016. I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Eldredge for his unwavering commitment to teaching this course and promoting ASL/English bilingual education. His dedication has significantly increased awareness of the Deaf education system in Utah.
A big thank you!
Jodi Christel Becker
First and foremost, I would like to thank my spouse, Duane, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering patience and support throughout the years I have dedicated to this project. This endeavor has taken nearly two decades to complete and would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals.
I would like to commend Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, and Lloyd H. Perkins, along with other Utah Deaf leaders, for their courage and vigilance in protecting the Deaf educational system from the influences of oral education and mainstreaming.
Additionally, I want to express my deep appreciation to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing the fascinating history of Deaf education in Utah with me. This project, which I started in 2006, would not have come to fruition without his support and guidance.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who supported and contributed to the successful completion of this project. First and foremost, I am thankful to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson for inspiring me to diligently work on my homework, which ultimately led to the project's success.
I would also like to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and assistance provided by W. David Mortensen and Eleanor McCowan throughout the project. Additionally, I am deeply grateful to my parents, John and Jeanne Becker, for their unwavering support during this endeavor.
Furthermore, I extend my sincerest thanks to Valerie G. Kinney and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz for generously donating their time to revise and edit this document. Lastly, I want to thank my editor, Bronwyn O'Hara, for her invaluable contributions to the editing process.
I am grateful to Dr. Bitter for motivating me to write this history and for donating his documents to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His donation provided me with the resources needed to document the broader context of the oral and sign language controversy, making the history more compelling. Dr. Bitter's materials helped me fill the gaps with information from UAD Bulletins, newspapers, and more. I am fascinated by historical events that are intense, random, and unsettling. This history website presents a realistic and honest account of events rather than the rosy or overly optimistic narrative that some readers may expect. Learning about the darker aspects of history allows us to engage in open discussions, listen to one another, learn, and grow.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Doug Stringham for sharing the manuscript with Dr. Bryan K. Eldredge. This initiative led to the establishment of a senior-level "special topics" course titled "Deaf Education in Utah" at Utah Valley University, first introduced in 2011 and again in 2016. I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Eldredge for his unwavering commitment to teaching this course and promoting ASL/English bilingual education. His dedication has significantly increased awareness of the Deaf education system in Utah.
A big thank you!
Jodi Christel Becker
The Evolution of
Deaf Education in Utah
Deaf Education in Utah
We will explore the history of Deaf Education in Utah, with a focus on the early days of the Utah School for the Deaf. These days are an important part of this story and connect us to our roots. On this webpage, we will discuss the following topics.
I. National Deaf Education History
II. Origin and Early Beginnings of Utah School for the Deaf
III. Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational Placement Regarding Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
IV. The Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual Teaching Method in Utah
V. In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
VI: Final Thoughts on Deaf Education in Utah
I. National Deaf Education History
II. Origin and Early Beginnings of Utah School for the Deaf
III. Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational Placement Regarding Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
IV. The Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual Teaching Method in Utah
V. In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
VI: Final Thoughts on Deaf Education in Utah
"Nothing about us, without us."
~2012 NAD Conference~
~2012 NAD Conference~
A History of Deaf Education
in the United States
Part I
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
in the United States
Part I
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
Deaf Genes in Martha’s Vineyard
To understand Utah's Deaf history, it is essential to first explore the national context of Deaf history. This history can be traced back to Martha's Vineyard, an island off the coast of Massachusetts, where a significant incidence of deafness was present for 250 years, beginning with a Deaf resident named Jonathan Lambert in 1694. The isolated community on the island led to intermarriage among its residents, which spread the gene for deafness through generations of his descendants (Shapiro, 1994). While eighty-five percent of Deaf children had two hearing parents, many had Deaf relatives (Roberts, 1994).
On Martha's Vineyard, there were no barriers to communication; the entire community relied on sign language, even in the absence of Deaf individuals. Deaf residents actively participated in their bilingual society, marrying hearing individuals and taking on important roles within the community. Because everyone used sign language, the islanders viewed deafness as a normal trait rather than a disability, fostering a culture of respect and acceptance (Groce, 1985; Shapiro, 1994; Foster, 1998).
On Martha's Vineyard, there were no barriers to communication; the entire community relied on sign language, even in the absence of Deaf individuals. Deaf residents actively participated in their bilingual society, marrying hearing individuals and taking on important roles within the community. Because everyone used sign language, the islanders viewed deafness as a normal trait rather than a disability, fostering a culture of respect and acceptance (Groce, 1985; Shapiro, 1994; Foster, 1998).
The First Deaf School in America
In 1817, the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, which later became known as the American School for the Deaf, as the first permanent school, was established in Hartford, Connecticut. Two key figures founded this institution: Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, a hearing minister, and Laurent Clerc, a prominent Deaf leader from France who played a crucial role in American Deaf education. American Sign Language (ASL) was developed through a combination of Clerc’s French sign language and the signed communication used by Deaf students at the school. This collaboration ultimately led to the creation of ASL.
Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
The school taught students in ASL, enabling them to reach literacy levels comparable to their hearing peers. With teachers fluent in sign language who incorporated ASL into their instruction, Deaf students demonstrated impressive literacy skills (Shapiro, 1994).
Laurent Clere: Source:
Gallaudet University
Archives
The Oral Movement in the United States
The oral movement in the United States began in 1843 when two American educators, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe and Horace Mann, who had limited knowledge of Deaf individuals, traveled to Europe to study different education systems. In Germany, they were surprised to find Deaf children who could speak and read lips. Upon their return to America, Samuel and Horace published a report that strongly urged the instruction of speech and lip-reading for Deaf students. Some administrators of schools for the deaf in America chose to use spoken methods for individuals with partial hearing, especially those who had lost their hearing after learning to speak. However, sign language continued to be the primary mode of instruction (Pace, 1946).
Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe. Source: Wikipedia
Interest in oral education began to grow significantly in the late 19th century. In 1867, a wealthy Bostonian named Gardiner Greene Hubbard, who was the father-in-law of Alexander Graham Bell, founded the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts. This school was the first permanent oral school for the deaf in the United States.
Two years later, in 1869, the second oral school, the Horace Mann School for the Deaf, opened as a day school in Boston. This marked the beginning of a new educational model for the deaf. The first principal of this school, Sarah Fuller, served in her role for forty-one years and was also Helen Keller’s speech instructor. Following this, a pattern emerged in the 1860s, with an increasing number of oral schools, particularly day schools, being established (Pace, 1946; Shapiro, 1994).
Two years later, in 1869, the second oral school, the Horace Mann School for the Deaf, opened as a day school in Boston. This marked the beginning of a new educational model for the deaf. The first principal of this school, Sarah Fuller, served in her role for forty-one years and was also Helen Keller’s speech instructor. Following this, a pattern emerged in the 1860s, with an increasing number of oral schools, particularly day schools, being established (Pace, 1946; Shapiro, 1994).
Horace Mann. Source: Wikipedia
The Most Influential Oral Advocate
In the 1870s, Alexander Graham Bell emerged as the most influential oral advocate for Deaf Americans, emphasizing the importance of speech training. His father, Alexander Melville Bell, was a master of phonetics, and his mother, Eliza Grace, was hard-of-hearing. While she had enough hearing to use an ear tube for one-on-one conversations, Mr. Bell often communicated with her using the manual alphabet. Ironically, although he was well-versed in sign language, he believed speech was the superior method of communication. His wife, Mabel Gardiner Hubbard, was Deaf but did not use sign language (Pace, 1946; Winefield, 1987).
Alexander Graham Bell. Source: Wikipedia
Most Americans recognize Dr. Alexander Graham Bell as the inventor of the telephone. In 1876, at the age of 29, he patented a device called the “electrical speech machine,” which was designed to transmit spoken words over a wire. Bell believed this invention would help his wife and hoped it would enable the Deaf to hear. However, instead of benefiting those who were Deaf, the telephone ultimately became a barrier for them. As a result of his invention, Dr. Bell gained fame and wealth. He used his resources, prestige, and influence to support the oral movement (Gannon, 1981; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Alexander Graham Bell and his wife, Mabel Hubbard Bell. Source: montessorieducation.com
Throughout his life, Dr. Bell was dedicated to the education of Deaf individuals and was one of the most prominent advocates for oralism. He actively campaigned for the full assimilation of Deaf people into hearing society and opposed the use of sign language, intermarriage among Deaf individuals, and residential schools (Erting et al., 1989; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989; Shapiro, 1994; Parasnis, 1998).
The Establishment of the National Association of the Deaf
Since the establishment of the first Deaf school in Hartford in 1817 (Gannon, 1981), several states have formed associations for the deaf. In August 1880, Deaf representatives from various states convened in Cincinnati, Ohio, for the First National Convention, where they founded the National Association of the Deaf (Gannon, 1981; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989). The attendees at this convention were the products of nearly 60 years of the American Deaf school system and included teachers, school founders, principals, business owners, and community leaders.
The association focused on several key issues: opposing laws that would limit their rights, discouraging impostors and Deaf peddlers, promoting a better understanding of Deaf issues in the general public, advocating for improved vocational training in schools, enhancing educational methods, and combating employment discrimination. Their primary goal was to improve the quality of life for Deaf individuals (Gannon, 1981).
The association focused on several key issues: opposing laws that would limit their rights, discouraging impostors and Deaf peddlers, promoting a better understanding of Deaf issues in the general public, advocating for improved vocational training in schools, enhancing educational methods, and combating employment discrimination. Their primary goal was to improve the quality of life for Deaf individuals (Gannon, 1981).
The Infamous Milan Congress of 1880
A few weeks after the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf convened in Milan, Italy, on September 11, 1880. In stark contrast to the wishes of Deaf individuals from around the world, Congress adopted the oral method as the "best" approach for Deaf education (Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989; Parasnis, 1998; Shapiro, 1994). The oral advocates who organized the convention agreed to promote speech methods while prohibiting the use of sign language. The vote overwhelmingly favored oral education. Out of more than 150 participants, James Denison, a principal from the Kendall School in Washington, D.C., was the only Deaf delegate at the Milan Congress.
James Denison. Source: Societe Laurent Clerc/
Only five attendees were from the United States, which included the two sons of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet: Thomas Gallaudet, the Episcopal priest of St. Ann's Church for the Deaf, and Edward Miner Gallaudet, the president of Gallaudet College. Americans generally believed that Deaf children should be taught using sign language. However, the majority of oral advocates from Europe and the United States voted in favor of the oral method for Deaf education. This victory, engineered by European oralists, energized the oral movement in the United States (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 25; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989).
Edward Miner Gallaudet. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
The Establishment of Alexander Graham Bell
Association for the Deaf
Association for the Deaf
In 1890, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf was established to promote speech education for the deaf. Today, it is the largest organization in the world dedicated to teaching spoken language to Deaf individuals. Dr. Bell's advocacy for oral education had a significant impact on how Deaf children were taught.
The Pendulum of Deaf Education
Despite Edward Miner Gallaudet's best efforts to combat the rise of pure oralism, the Milan decision and Dr. Bell's initiatives shifted the focus of Deaf education in America toward using speech as the primary means of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. This shift led to the establishment of local oral day schools, the removal of sign instruction from residential schools, and the replacement of Deaf teachers with hearing instructors (Winefield, 1987; Parasnis, 1998). Dr. Bell's main opponent, Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet, supported a combined system of sign language and spoken English in the education of Deaf students. He was raised by his Deaf mother, Sophia Fowler Gallaudet, Dr. Gallaudet's mother. Unlike Dr. Bell, she had no usable hearing, spoke unintelligibly, and relied on sign language for communication. He regarded her success as a significant influence on his views regarding communication methods. She shaped not only his approach to communication but also his attitude toward deafness (Winefield, 1987). Nevertheless, the Milan Congress extensively promoted oral education, leading to a rapid decline in the combined system of education.
Sophia Fowler Gallaudet. Source: visitguilfordct.com/women-in-guilford
The Dismissal of Deaf Teachers
Following the conclusion of the Milan Congress of 1880, hundreds of Deaf teachers across Europe lost their jobs in favor of hearing teachers who did not know sign language. Many Deaf schools prohibited the use of sign language (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989; Shapiro, 1994).
In the United States, most Deaf leaders and educators advocated for a combined system of instruction as the primary method for educating Deaf children. They fiercely defended residential schools and fought to preserve sign language. However, the movement favoring oral education gained momentum, resulting in the replacement of Deaf principals by their hearing counterparts. Despite facing numerous challenges, Deaf teachers were not completely removed from the educational system. Typically, the educational system assigned them to teach older students labeled "oral failures." Unfortunately, these teachers often could not focus on academic subjects (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989). According to Erting et al. (1989), oralism had a significant negative impact on Deaf children's academic achievement. As a result, society began to perceive Deaf individuals and their identities as inferior and inadequate—a belief that was often reinforced by the educators responsible for their education.
In the United States, most Deaf leaders and educators advocated for a combined system of instruction as the primary method for educating Deaf children. They fiercely defended residential schools and fought to preserve sign language. However, the movement favoring oral education gained momentum, resulting in the replacement of Deaf principals by their hearing counterparts. Despite facing numerous challenges, Deaf teachers were not completely removed from the educational system. Typically, the educational system assigned them to teach older students labeled "oral failures." Unfortunately, these teachers often could not focus on academic subjects (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989). According to Erting et al. (1989), oralism had a significant negative impact on Deaf children's academic achievement. As a result, society began to perceive Deaf individuals and their identities as inferior and inadequate—a belief that was often reinforced by the educators responsible for their education.
The Survival of the Deaf Community
Despite the suppression of sign language within the educational system, Deaf communities worldwide have continued to thrive. Since 1880, Deaf individuals have preserved their languages and communities despite efforts to isolate them from one another. Deaf parents at residential schools transmitted sign language to their children and to other Deaf children through interactions with peers and a few Deaf adult staff members. Residential schools forbade the use of sign language in classrooms, but allowed its free use in dormitories and playgrounds. Additionally, Deaf individuals continued to socialize at clubs, compete in Deaf sports events, publish newspapers and magazines, and participate in state associations to improve their lives (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989; Parasnis, 1998).
Origin and Early Beginnings
of the Utah School for the Deaf
Part II
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
of the Utah School for the Deaf
Part II
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
The establishment of state schools for the deaf was a growing trend across the United States in the late 19th century. In August 1884, a new chapter began for the deaf community in the Utah territory. Three primary factors contributed to the founding of the Utah School for the Deaf:
The Utah School for the Deaf was established in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1884. From 1884 to 1896, enrollment increased from fourteen to fifty-five students. Instruction at the school included speech and lip-reading, as well as practical skills such as printing, carpentry, shoemaking, cooking, sewing, and housework. Due to the increasing student population, in August 1896, the school relocated to Ogden, Utah. This move occurred eight months after Utah became a state on January 4, 1896.The Utah School for the Deaf evolved into an independent educational institution serving Deaf students from Utah, Idaho, and the territory of Arizona.
During its early years, the school had three main objectives:
These skills enabled Deaf individuals to lead productive lives within the wider society (Roberts, 1994).
- A widespread interest in the education of the deaf population throughout the United States.
- The strong commitment to education felt by the early settlers of Utah.
- The religious homogeneity of the communities in the region (Pace, 1946, p. 9).
The Utah School for the Deaf was established in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1884. From 1884 to 1896, enrollment increased from fourteen to fifty-five students. Instruction at the school included speech and lip-reading, as well as practical skills such as printing, carpentry, shoemaking, cooking, sewing, and housework. Due to the increasing student population, in August 1896, the school relocated to Ogden, Utah. This move occurred eight months after Utah became a state on January 4, 1896.The Utah School for the Deaf evolved into an independent educational institution serving Deaf students from Utah, Idaho, and the territory of Arizona.
During its early years, the school had three main objectives:
- Provide instruction in both oral and sign language for the Deaf,
- Provide vocational training for students and
- Teach academic skills similar to those in other public schools.
These skills enabled Deaf individuals to lead productive lives within the wider society (Roberts, 1994).
Interest in the Education of the Deaf
The American School for the Deaf, the first school for the deaf in the United States, was established in 1817. By 1875, an additional twenty-three schools had been founded across the country. This movement sparked considerable interest and enthusiasm for Deaf education in the Utah territory (Pace, 1946).
General Education in Utah
The early Latter-day Saint settlers had a strong commitment to education. They entered Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. Despite the extreme hardships of pioneer life, they established a school just three months later (Pace, 1946).
In 1850, the Legislative Assembly convened and created the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah. This university served as a board of education for the Utah Territory and primarily functioned as a policy-making organization. Under its leadership, local schools were established throughout the region, providing education for children with disabilities (Pace, 1946).
In 1850, the Legislative Assembly convened and created the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah. This university served as a board of education for the Utah Territory and primarily functioned as a policy-making organization. Under its leadership, local schools were established throughout the region, providing education for children with disabilities (Pace, 1946).
Religion as a Factor
The Utah pioneers were deeply religious and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Parents of Deaf children preferred their children to receive their education within the Utah territory due to the high costs associated with sending their children to deaf schools located outside the territory. The nearest school was the Colorado School for the Deaf. People viewed the prolonged separation from family and church as unfavorable (Pace, 1946).
Following the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1884, students initially attended a Protestant church due to the predominantly Protestant backgrounds of the teachers who had come to Utah (Roberts, 1994). This Protestant influence raised concerns among several Latter-day Saint parents. In response, they requested that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organize a Sunday School for their children.
On January 10, 1892, the church officially organized the first Sunday School in Salt Lake City, Utah, which had a membership of eleven boys and sixteen girls. Elder H.C. Barrell was appointed as the first superintendent of the Sunday School, with Elder Laron Pratt, who was Deaf, serving as his assistant (The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892).
Following the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1884, students initially attended a Protestant church due to the predominantly Protestant backgrounds of the teachers who had come to Utah (Roberts, 1994). This Protestant influence raised concerns among several Latter-day Saint parents. In response, they requested that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organize a Sunday School for their children.
On January 10, 1892, the church officially organized the first Sunday School in Salt Lake City, Utah, which had a membership of eleven boys and sixteen girls. Elder H.C. Barrell was appointed as the first superintendent of the Sunday School, with Elder Laron Pratt, who was Deaf, serving as his assistant (The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892).
Laron Pratt. Source: God Made Me Deaf Accounts from Deaf Latter-day Saint, 1836-1916
On November 16, 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf relocated to Ogden, Utah, and began offering the same Sunday School program to Deaf and Blind students and adults. The old 4th Ward Amusement Hall in Ogden served as the venue for these classes (Deseret News, November 21, 1896).
Ogden Branch for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Photo by Kenneth L. Kinner
Later, on February 14, 1917, the Ogden Branch for the Deaf was established as a Deaf-friendly meetinghouse for Deaf members in Ogden. The Ogden Stake then transformed this signing branch into an independent branch. This branch ultimately became a model for future units for the Deaf, including the Salt Lake Valley Deaf Ward, Los Angeles Deaf Branch, Portland Heights Deaf Branch, Fremont Deaf Branch, Gooding Deaf Branch, and others around the world (Walker, 2006).
The Work of John Beck and William Wood
John Beck and William Wood were pioneers in establishing a school for the Deaf in Utah, motivated by their own experiences as parents of Deaf children. John Beck had three Deaf sons—Joseph, John A., and Jacob—who were attending the California School for the Deaf. Meanwhile, William Wood’s Deaf daughter, Elizabeth Mary, was enrolled at the Colorado School for the Deaf in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Metcalf, 1900; Pace, 1947; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994). John and William wanted their children to have the opportunity to live closer to home (Evans, 1999). They are credited with originating the idea of educating the Deaf in Utah and collaborated to establish a school specifically for this purpose (Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1898).
John Beck. Source: FamilySearch.org
While John Beck, the owner of the Bullion-Beck Mine and Beck’s Hot Springs, was working to establish a school for the deaf in the Utah territory, he gathered data from the 1880 United States Census. This effort revealed that 118 Deaf individuals were living in the territory. In 1883, he distributed a letter throughout the area to determine how many Deaf children were of school age. In response, he received a list of fifty school-age Deaf children (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure, Evans, 1999).
William Wood. Source: FamilySearch.org
Around the same time, the length of the journey and the cost of sending Elizabeth Mary Wood to Colorado Springs prompted William Wood to consider establishing a school for the deaf in Utah. He learned about Mr. Beck’s efforts and visited him at home to discuss the matter. Together, they gathered statistics on the status of the Deaf community in Utah and petitioned the legislature to establish a school for the deaf (Metcalf, 1898; Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure). With the support of their collected statistics, they decided to lobby the territorial legislature (Evans, 1999).
During the legislative session of 1883, Utah Governor Eli Murray became interested in advocating for the Deaf community in the territory. He presented the needs of Deaf individuals to the territorial legislature, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a school where Deaf children could receive an appropriate education (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
During the legislative session of 1883, Utah Governor Eli Murray became interested in advocating for the Deaf community in the territory. He presented the needs of Deaf individuals to the territorial legislature, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a school where Deaf children could receive an appropriate education (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Eli Murray. Source: Wikipedia
On February 17, 1883, William Wood submitted a petition that prompted the legislature to approve an appropriation of $4,000, which would provide $2,000 per annum for two years to start a class for Deaf students under the administration of the University of Deseret in Salt Lake City, Utah (Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). William Wood contributed $250, while John Beck donated $500 to help establish the class for Deaf children (Clarke, 1897). This connection between the school and the university was the first of its kind in the nation.
Opening of the School
After the establishment of a classroom for Deaf students and the enactment of the appropriation bill, Dr. John Rocky Park, president of the University of Deseret, was tasked with making arrangements to start a Deaf class in connection with the university. He initially attempted to find a qualified teacher for the Deaf in the territory. When this effort proved unsuccessful, he traveled to the East in 1884 to meet Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet, president of Gallaudet College (The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Evans, 1999).
Dr. John Rocky Park. Source: Wikipedia
Dr. Gallaudet recommended hiring Henry C. White, a Deaf man from Boston and a graduate of the National Deaf-Mute College (later renamed Gallaudet University, class of 1880), as the teacher to lead the class. Following Dr. Gallaudet's recommendation, Dr. Park appointed Mr. White as the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Evans, 1999).
Henry C. White. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
On August 26, 1884, a room at the University of Deseret was established as the Utah School for the Deaf, using a Combined System as the instructional method. This monumental event brought hope and opportunity to the Deaf community in Utah. Elizabeth Mary Wood, the Deaf daughter of William Wood, who had been attending the Colorado School for the Deaf, joined Professor White on the first day of class (Fay, Histories of American Schools for the Deaf, 1817–1893). Professor Henry C. White, a visionary, served as the school's first principal, as well as a teacher and head teacher, until 1890 (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946). His dedication and expertise shaped the school's early years. His leadership was also a significant turning point in the history of Deaf education in Utah, providing hope and a platform for the Utah Deaf community to receive education, thrive, and contribute to society.
Elizabeth Mary Wood, 1886. Source: FamilySearch.org
Shortly after, John Beck's three Deaf sons, Joseph, John, and Jacob, who were attending the California School for the Deaf, also joined the class (Evans, 1999). Four students enrolled by the end of September, bringing the total enrollment for the first year to fourteen. In its second year, enrollment grew to eighteen students. The school aimed to prepare graduates to be proficient in both vocational and academic fields (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
Jacob Beck, 1921. Source: 1966 NFSD SLC Division, No. 56
Professor Henry C. White, a visionary, served as the school's first principal, as well as a teacher and head teacher, until 1890 (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946). His dedication and expertise shaped the school's early years. His leadership was also a significant turning point in the history of Deaf education in Utah, providing hope and a platform for the Utah Deaf community to not only receive education but also to thrive and contribute to society.
The Utah School for the Deaf was located at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1886
During its first two years, from 1884 to 1886, the Utah School for the Deaf operated as a day school without dormitory facilities. Many students did not reside in Salt Lake City, Utah, but lived in various parts of the state. Professor White was successful in establishing a home for Deaf children living outside the Salt Lake City area; however, this arrangement was not satisfactory for parents (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Professor White, a non-LDS member, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet about the newly established school. In his letter, he noted, "The organization of the school is peculiar, like all the methods of the Mormons" (Evans, 1999, p. 24). He observed that the school functioned more like a day school than a residential facility. Additionally, Professor White noticed that, unlike other residential schools, his students had to board with neighborhood families, attend classes from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM without a break, and have dinner at 2:00 or 3:00 PM (Evans, 1999).
Professor White, a non-LDS member, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet about the newly established school. In his letter, he noted, "The organization of the school is peculiar, like all the methods of the Mormons" (Evans, 1999, p. 24). He observed that the school functioned more like a day school than a residential facility. Additionally, Professor White noticed that, unlike other residential schools, his students had to board with neighborhood families, attend classes from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM without a break, and have dinner at 2:00 or 3:00 PM (Evans, 1999).
Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet. Source: Wikipedia
During the 1886 legislative session, Professor White presented two petitions. In his first petition, he requested an appropriation of $25,000 to permanently establish a school for Deaf children. He later amended his request, increasing the amount to $38,000. However, both petitions were ultimately rejected. Despite an increase in the annual appropriation from $2,000 to $3,000, funding was ultimately denied. Utah Governor Eli Houston Murray vetoed the entire appropriation bill for political reasons (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
Although the legislature did not provide funding support, it did not disrupt the school's operations. The university regents took on the financial responsibility of running the school until the legislature could assist (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
In 1886, Professor White funded students' boarding in his home. He also received reimbursement from parents, donations from individuals, and support from Salt Lake County to meet the children's educational needs (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). As the head of the school, Professor White took full responsibility for managing the department (Evans, 1999).
Although the legislature did not provide funding support, it did not disrupt the school's operations. The university regents took on the financial responsibility of running the school until the legislature could assist (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
In 1886, Professor White funded students' boarding in his home. He also received reimbursement from parents, donations from individuals, and support from Salt Lake County to meet the children's educational needs (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). As the head of the school, Professor White took full responsibility for managing the department (Evans, 1999).
The Utah School for the Deaf, part of the University of Deseret, was located at Professor Henry C. White's home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1886. Source: American School for the Deaf, 1817-1893
In 1887, the Utah School for the Deaf was relocated to the spacious mansion and beautiful grounds of Hooper Place, which had formerly been the residence of Captain W.H. Hooper in Salt Lake City, Utah. The school remained at Hooper Place for three years while it was still affiliated with the University of Deseret (American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, January 1888; American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, October 1889; Fay, 1893).
Enabling Act of the School
After four years of struggling to secure funding for the school, the Legislative Assembly officially established and maintained the deaf school as a branch of the University of Deseret in 1888 (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the Utah Territorial Legislature expanded the age range of Deaf students eligible for education, allowing those under the age of thirty who could not benefit from instruction in regular schools (Roberts, 1994). The legislature allocated annual funding of $5,000 to the school and an additional $20,000 to construct a building for the deaf. At that time, Eli Murray was no longer the governor, allowing the legislature the freedom to allocate funds for the school, as he had previously opposed funding for it (Evans, 1999).
The school was initially known as the Institute of Deaf Mutes. Later, it changed its name to the School for the Deaf and Dumb and finally became the Utah School for the Deaf. For eleven years, the Institution of Deaf Mutes was part of the University of Deseret, making it the only school for the deaf in the United States affiliated with a university at that time (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994).
Students at the school were taught subjects including reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, and geography (Evans, 1999).
The school was initially known as the Institute of Deaf Mutes. Later, it changed its name to the School for the Deaf and Dumb and finally became the Utah School for the Deaf. For eleven years, the Institution of Deaf Mutes was part of the University of Deseret, making it the only school for the deaf in the United States affiliated with a university at that time (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994).
Students at the school were taught subjects including reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, and geography (Evans, 1999).
Elizabeth Mary Wood can be seen standing on the second right at the top, surrounded by other Deaf students, at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1887. Henry C. White, the principal and teacher, appears to be standing behind Elizabeth and the other woman. Source: FamilySearch.org
Did You Know?
On October 10, 1889, a small paper named "The Deseret Eagle" published its first issue (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Replacing the Unpopular Principal
Henry C. White, a resilient figure, worked at the Utah School for the Deaf for five years before losing his job in 1890 due to the infamous Milan Congress of 1880, an impactful event in the history of Deaf education, which passed a resolution mandating the use of the oral method in education. This decision, which sparked the oral movement across the country, posed a direct threat and jeopardized Henry's job. It led to his eventual replacement as principal in 1889 by Frank W. Metcalf, a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf (Evans, 1999). This change was a stark reflection of the growing emphasis on oralism in Utah and its profound impact on Deaf education.
Frank W. Metcalf
As a Deaf person, Professor White did not gain much popularity during his tenure as principal (The Silent Worker, September 1897). His unclear speech likely contributed to this, despite being a versatile writer. The oral movement in Utah reflected Henry's replacement as principal in 1889 by a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf (Evans, 1999). He was eventually forced to resign from his position, which was then taken over by Frank Metcalf (American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, October 1889). However, it was clear that the students sincerely appreciated Professor White. On his 33rd birthday on December 18, 1889, his students presented him with a double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet, a gesture that brought him "unspeakable" happiness (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4).
The students held Professor White in high regard. On his 33rd birthday, December 18, 1889, they expressed their admiration with a thoughtful gift: a beautiful double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet. This gesture left him "unspeakably" happy (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4), showcasing the students' deep respect and appreciation for him.
The students held Professor White in high regard. On his 33rd birthday, December 18, 1889, they expressed their admiration with a thoughtful gift: a beautiful double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet. This gesture left him "unspeakably" happy (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4), showcasing the students' deep respect and appreciation for him.
Henry C. White. Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1922
Frank Metcalf took over as the school's principal in 1889, demoting Henry White to the position of head teacher. Frank supported oralism, which involved teaching Deaf students to speak and lipread, while Henry advocated using sign language in education. Their conflict, rooted in their differing educational philosophies, caused frequent disputes and intense animosity between them. The Board of Regents, caught in the middle of this tension, investigated and ultimately terminated Henry's employment with the school (The Utah Eagle, February 1922). Henry's ability to persevere in the face of adversity is a testament to his character and determination.
In February 1890, Henry completely disassociated himself from the school (White, 1890; Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946). In 1894, Henry C. White criticized the school administrators for failing to directly consult with Deaf adults, questioning, 'What about the Deaf themselves?' Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?' (Buchanan 1850-1950, p. 28). This bold criticism underscores his advocacy for the Deaf community.
Although Henry C. White did not establish the Utah School for the Deaf, he is credited with leading and maintaining it, which still exists today, as a leader and administrator despite limited financial resources and a lack of support from the hearing community. During Professor White's final year at the school, Frank M. Driggs, the boys' supervisor, teacher, and a 40-year superintendent, had the opportunity to get to know him. He found Professor White to be 'well-educated, bright, alert, and active.' Frank praised Henry's efforts to keep the school running during the early years, when it required both money and courage (The Utah Eagle, February 1922, p. 2). His bravery in the face of such challenges is truly commendable, and his work was of significant importance.
In 1894, a significant event took place in the Deaf community. Deaf leaders, including Henry C. White, opposed Alexander Graham Bell's mission to promote oral education. This mission aimed to ban sign language and advocate for oralism. They also fought against the spread of oral day schools throughout the United States, perceiving this movement as a danger to Deaf culture and education. Henry C. White stood out as one of the most forward-thinking Deaf activists. He believed Deaf teachers deserved teaching positions but realized that vigilant Deaf adults needed legal support and protection for such claims. While working at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry encouraged his colleagues to establish, coordinate, and defend a new set of rights. He said, "We must assert our right to justice, or we will never receive it" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 32). Henry White's forward-thinking approach was remarkable.
In February 1890, Henry completely disassociated himself from the school (White, 1890; Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946). In 1894, Henry C. White criticized the school administrators for failing to directly consult with Deaf adults, questioning, 'What about the Deaf themselves?' Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?' (Buchanan 1850-1950, p. 28). This bold criticism underscores his advocacy for the Deaf community.
Although Henry C. White did not establish the Utah School for the Deaf, he is credited with leading and maintaining it, which still exists today, as a leader and administrator despite limited financial resources and a lack of support from the hearing community. During Professor White's final year at the school, Frank M. Driggs, the boys' supervisor, teacher, and a 40-year superintendent, had the opportunity to get to know him. He found Professor White to be 'well-educated, bright, alert, and active.' Frank praised Henry's efforts to keep the school running during the early years, when it required both money and courage (The Utah Eagle, February 1922, p. 2). His bravery in the face of such challenges is truly commendable, and his work was of significant importance.
In 1894, a significant event took place in the Deaf community. Deaf leaders, including Henry C. White, opposed Alexander Graham Bell's mission to promote oral education. This mission aimed to ban sign language and advocate for oralism. They also fought against the spread of oral day schools throughout the United States, perceiving this movement as a danger to Deaf culture and education. Henry C. White stood out as one of the most forward-thinking Deaf activists. He believed Deaf teachers deserved teaching positions but realized that vigilant Deaf adults needed legal support and protection for such claims. While working at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry encouraged his colleagues to establish, coordinate, and defend a new set of rights. He said, "We must assert our right to justice, or we will never receive it" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 32). Henry White's forward-thinking approach was remarkable.
Henry C. White (center) at the first convention of the National Association of the Deaf in Cincinnati, Ohio, 1880. His wife, Mary E. Mann is standing behind him. Source: Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America
Henry C. White was not the only one facing this situation. Deaf men who set up state schools for the deaf also experienced similar challenges, losing their positions as principals simply because they were Deaf. They faced discrimination and prejudice from hearing individuals who wanted to take over the positions previously held by Deaf administrators. The Deaf Community acknowledged Professor White and three other Deaf principals—J.M. Koehler of Pennsylvania, A.R. Spear of North Dakota, and Mr. Long of the Indian Territory—as "shining lights in this particular," all men who had worked hard and made sacrifices, but told them to "get out" and make room for hearing men (The Silent Worker, March 1900, p. 101). At that time, the Deaf community regarded Professor White as one of the founders, and they were unaware of the involvement of two parents, John Beck and William Wood, in the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf. Nonetheless, the injustice Professor White and his peers endured serves as a stark reminder of the widespread discrimination during their era.
Henry C. White emerged as a key figure during the battle that Deaf leaders led against Alexander Graham Bell and the expansion of oral day schools across the United States in 1894. A gifted rhetorician, he criticized school administrators for their failure to consult directly with Deaf adults, asking, "What of the Deaf themselves? Do they have no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 28).
Henry White, one of the most visionary Deaf activists of his time, recognized that the Deaf community could not organize an effective national campaign without proper representation. Buchanan (1850-1950) noted that Henry C. White "believed that Deaf instructors had a moral claim to teaching positions, but he understood that such assertions were meaningless unless they were grounded in law and protected by vigilant Deaf adults" (p. 32).
While employed at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry urged his colleagues to define, organize, and defend a new set of rights for the Deaf community. He asserted, "One thing must be made plain: if we wish to combat this lingering prejudice and secure justice, we must assert our claims to justice, or we will never receive it" (p. 32). It was evident that Henry had not forgotten the challenges faced in Utah.
On September 15, 1894, Laron Pratt, an early leader in the Utah Deaf community and assistant superintendent of the Deaf Mute Sunday School in Salt Lake City, delivered a powerful sermon. He addressed his attentive audience about the divine providence that he perceived in his life, highlighting how what many considered an affliction was a blessing in his circumstances. "My apparent affliction is proving to be a blessing, removing the disguise to my own comprehension," he declared (Deseret News, September 15, 1894, p. 399). This bold declaration reflected his acceptance and even celebration of his deafness. Doug Stringham, a well-known researcher of Deaf LDS history, aptly remarked, "These sentences, considering the climate against manualist approaches at the time, represent some pretty brazen Deaf advocacy, 1894 style. It is significant that Laron Pratt stood before a large audience and said, 'Yeah, it's okay for me to be deaf; in fact, it's a blessing to be deaf. I didn't realize it earlier, but, yeah, it's good to be deaf" (Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011). Laron Pratt's courage and advocacy continue to inspire us today.
Henry C. White emerged as a key figure during the battle that Deaf leaders led against Alexander Graham Bell and the expansion of oral day schools across the United States in 1894. A gifted rhetorician, he criticized school administrators for their failure to consult directly with Deaf adults, asking, "What of the Deaf themselves? Do they have no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 28).
Henry White, one of the most visionary Deaf activists of his time, recognized that the Deaf community could not organize an effective national campaign without proper representation. Buchanan (1850-1950) noted that Henry C. White "believed that Deaf instructors had a moral claim to teaching positions, but he understood that such assertions were meaningless unless they were grounded in law and protected by vigilant Deaf adults" (p. 32).
While employed at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry urged his colleagues to define, organize, and defend a new set of rights for the Deaf community. He asserted, "One thing must be made plain: if we wish to combat this lingering prejudice and secure justice, we must assert our claims to justice, or we will never receive it" (p. 32). It was evident that Henry had not forgotten the challenges faced in Utah.
On September 15, 1894, Laron Pratt, an early leader in the Utah Deaf community and assistant superintendent of the Deaf Mute Sunday School in Salt Lake City, delivered a powerful sermon. He addressed his attentive audience about the divine providence that he perceived in his life, highlighting how what many considered an affliction was a blessing in his circumstances. "My apparent affliction is proving to be a blessing, removing the disguise to my own comprehension," he declared (Deseret News, September 15, 1894, p. 399). This bold declaration reflected his acceptance and even celebration of his deafness. Doug Stringham, a well-known researcher of Deaf LDS history, aptly remarked, "These sentences, considering the climate against manualist approaches at the time, represent some pretty brazen Deaf advocacy, 1894 style. It is significant that Laron Pratt stood before a large audience and said, 'Yeah, it's okay for me to be deaf; in fact, it's a blessing to be deaf. I didn't realize it earlier, but, yeah, it's good to be deaf" (Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011). Laron Pratt's courage and advocacy continue to inspire us today.
Loran Pratt. Source: God Made Me Deaf Accounts from Deaf Latter-day Saints, 1836-1916
Start of Speech Training
Under Frank Metcalf's direction, the school experienced significant growth and progress. Enrollment increased to thirty-seven students, and work commenced on a substantial new building with a budget of $50,000 (Chronology of USDB).
Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1900. Top L-R: Frances N. Eddy, Edward P. Clarke, Sarah Whalem, M. Frances Walker. Bottom L-R: Katherine King, Frank W. Metcalf, Florence Crandall Metcalf, and Frank M. Driggs
In 1891, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced speech training for its Deaf students, which was not common in most state schools for the deaf at that time. The school believed that teaching speech and lip-reading could benefit many students, and about two-thirds of the students received speech therapy. The school had one class that used speech and lipreading, while the other two classes used a 'combined system' that included both sign language and speech (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999, p. 29). Florence Crandall Metcalf, a Child of Deaf Adults, former teacher at the Kansas School for the Deaf, and wife of the first superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf, played a crucial role as an oral program teacher (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999). This method would later become a controversial part of Deaf education history.
Florence Crandall Metcalf
The Utah Eagle magazine published an article on February 15, 1893, discussing the relationship between three aspects of Deaf education for advocates and parents.
“Our method of instruction is known as the American or combined method, as distinguished from the oral method. The combined method includes every means, which it is possible to use to reach the mind and intelligence of the child. We use the sign language as a medium through which to teach written language to reach the understanding. We use the manual alphabet; teach by means of objects, actions, and pictures, anything to develop the child’s mind. We employ a special teacher to [teach] speech and speech reading. A class of our pupils is taught entirely by the oral method. Others are taught to speak and read lips…After our pupils have finished a course of instruction in our school, the college [Gallaudet] at Washington is open to them, where college courses can be pursued. A Deaf child can thus be lifted from mental darkness into full light of knowledge and understanding. But we do not educate the mind alone, but the hand as well. Three trade classes are in successful operation. A class in printing, one in carpentry, and one in shoemaking” (Roberts, 1994, p. 63).
“Our method of instruction is known as the American or combined method, as distinguished from the oral method. The combined method includes every means, which it is possible to use to reach the mind and intelligence of the child. We use the sign language as a medium through which to teach written language to reach the understanding. We use the manual alphabet; teach by means of objects, actions, and pictures, anything to develop the child’s mind. We employ a special teacher to [teach] speech and speech reading. A class of our pupils is taught entirely by the oral method. Others are taught to speak and read lips…After our pupils have finished a course of instruction in our school, the college [Gallaudet] at Washington is open to them, where college courses can be pursued. A Deaf child can thus be lifted from mental darkness into full light of knowledge and understanding. But we do not educate the mind alone, but the hand as well. Three trade classes are in successful operation. A class in printing, one in carpentry, and one in shoemaking” (Roberts, 1994, p. 63).
Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1894. L-R: Frank Milton Driggs, boys's supervisor; Earl Moore; Charles Thomas Stucki; Joseph Olorensaw; and Frank Walter Metcalf, superintendent at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: FamilySearch.org
In pursuit of their goals, many hearing parents insisted that their children learn to speak and read lips. However, Deaf individuals strongly opposed this approach (Robert, 1994). Since then, the debate over the use of oral methods versus sign language in Deaf education has continued for more than 150 years, and no completely satisfactory compromise has been reached to date.
During Superintendent Metcalf's administration in the late 1890s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed teachers trained in the oral method to help students improve their speaking and listening skills. Some of these teachers were also proficient in sign language. If a Deaf student had difficulty with speech or language development and couldn't communicate verbally, the oral teacher, who knew sign language, used it to bridge the gap and help the student communicate effectively (Roberts, 1994). This innovative approach, which focused on effective communication strategies, was highly successful, providing confidence in the methods' effectiveness.
During Superintendent Metcalf's administration in the late 1890s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed teachers trained in the oral method to help students improve their speaking and listening skills. Some of these teachers were also proficient in sign language. If a Deaf student had difficulty with speech or language development and couldn't communicate verbally, the oral teacher, who knew sign language, used it to bridge the gap and help the student communicate effectively (Roberts, 1994). This innovative approach, which focused on effective communication strategies, was highly successful, providing confidence in the methods' effectiveness.
The class at the Utah School for the Deaf took place in the 1890s. In a photo, Joseph Olorensaw is located behind the girl in the first row on the right, Earl Moore is behind Joseph, and Charles Thomas Stucki is behind Earl. Source: FamilySearch.org
Did You Know?
In 1894, the Utah State Legislature passed legislation to establish the Utah School for the Blind, which began operations two years later in 1896.
The class at the Utah School for the Deaf took place in the 1890s.
An Effort to Separate the
Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah
Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah
Initially affiliated with the University of Deseret, the Utah School for the Deaf became independent over time (Evans, 1999). The two institutions had little in common, making it appropriate to separate the school from the university (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999). Efforts to detach the school began at various points, with the first attempt occurring in 1890. A proposal was made to relocate the school to Fort Cameron, an abandoned military post in Beaver City, Utah, in the southern part of the territory (Fay, 1893). Although local press and civic leaders supported this plan, Superintendent Metcalf opposed it due to concerns about Fort Cameron's isolation and lack of necessary rail connections (Evans, 1999). As a result, this effort was unsuccessful (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999).
Under Superintendent Metcalf's leadership, vocational training programs were introduced at the school. The Utah School for the Deaf offered carpentry, printing, and shoemaking training to boys, and taught cooking, sewing, and household skills to girls (Evans, 1999).
Under Superintendent Metcalf's leadership, vocational training programs were introduced at the school. The Utah School for the Deaf offered carpentry, printing, and shoemaking training to boys, and taught cooking, sewing, and household skills to girls (Evans, 1999).
The Utah School for the Deaf at the University of Utah, West High Campus in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1898, Utah. Ole Pettit Photograph Collection. Source: Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
In 1890, the legislature allocated an additional $35,000 to complete a $50,000 building on the university campus, which had begun construction in 1889 (Fay, 1893). The building was officially occupied in December 1890. Before this, the school used rented buildings for dormitories and conducted classes on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
During the construction period, from June to December 1890, the school was temporarily located at 267 West Second South Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. On December 24 of that year, the school moved into the newly constructed facility on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
During the construction period, from June to December 1890, the school was temporarily located at 267 West Second South Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. On December 24 of that year, the school moved into the newly constructed facility on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
The Eaglet Staff. Back Row L-R: Matilda Lund, Reporter, Ezra T. Rollor, Business Manager, Chas Martin, Reporter. Second Row L-R: Jno W. Bradley, Blind Reporter, Frank M. Driggs, Censor, John H. Clark, Editor in Chief. Front Row L-R: Ole Peitit, Reporter and Lillie Swift, Associate Reporter. Source: FamilySearch.org
In 1892, a second attempt was made to separate the school from the University of Deseret and relocate it to the "Industrial Home," an unoccupied building in Salt Lake City, Utah, owned by the federal government. The territorial legislature asked the U.S. Congress to approve the use of this building as a Deaf school for a maximum of three years. While the House of Representatives approved the request, it ultimately failed to pass in the Senate (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Industrial Home located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: Deseret Eagle, March 1, 1892
During this time, the students were housed in a newly constructed building on the university campus. During the same year of 1892, the territorial legislature officially changed the name of the "University of Deseret" to the "University of Utah." Through the Board of Regents, the university continued to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The territorial legislature was considering the establishment of a new school for Deaf and Blind students in a different location. However, Deaf students living in rural areas faced unique challenges. John H. Clark, a 13-and-a-half-year-old rural resident who served as the editor of the Eaglet, expressed the students' gratitude for the legislature's plans in an article on February 15, 1894. He highlighted the students' concerns about the location of the new school, underscoring the need for a strategic decision. Clark's article stated,
"The legislature however was in doubt as to where they will have the school for the Deaf erected. There was constant conversation among the pupils about their preferred locations. Some of the pupils who lived in the north area preferred that the legislature would have the building erected at Logan. Others who also lived in the north area wished the legislature would have the school erected near Fort Douglas where there was plenty of ground for all kind of sports. Most of the pupils who lived in the southern part of the Utah Territory were in favor of having it erected in Provo. Those who lived in that area expressed concerns that it would cost much money to get to Logan. They recognized that there were many Deaf children living in the southern Utah, but their parents were too poor to afford to send their children to school in Salt Lake City. The concerns were expressed if the school is established in Logan, it will probably be far beyond the reach of the people in Southern Utah and it could lose some of the most promising pupils for their parents cannot afford to pay the expenses of such a long trip. They felt Provo would help reach the promising pupils to enroll at the school nearby" (Clark, 1894, p. 1-2).
The territorial legislature was considering the establishment of a new school for Deaf and Blind students in a different location. However, Deaf students living in rural areas faced unique challenges. John H. Clark, a 13-and-a-half-year-old rural resident who served as the editor of the Eaglet, expressed the students' gratitude for the legislature's plans in an article on February 15, 1894. He highlighted the students' concerns about the location of the new school, underscoring the need for a strategic decision. Clark's article stated,
"The legislature however was in doubt as to where they will have the school for the Deaf erected. There was constant conversation among the pupils about their preferred locations. Some of the pupils who lived in the north area preferred that the legislature would have the building erected at Logan. Others who also lived in the north area wished the legislature would have the school erected near Fort Douglas where there was plenty of ground for all kind of sports. Most of the pupils who lived in the southern part of the Utah Territory were in favor of having it erected in Provo. Those who lived in that area expressed concerns that it would cost much money to get to Logan. They recognized that there were many Deaf children living in the southern Utah, but their parents were too poor to afford to send their children to school in Salt Lake City. The concerns were expressed if the school is established in Logan, it will probably be far beyond the reach of the people in Southern Utah and it could lose some of the most promising pupils for their parents cannot afford to pay the expenses of such a long trip. They felt Provo would help reach the promising pupils to enroll at the school nearby" (Clark, 1894, p. 1-2).
John H. Clark
In 1895, the Utah Constitutional Convention successfully separated the Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah. The U.S. Congress facilitated this significant change by passing the Enabling Act and granting the school an endowment of 100,000 acres. This substantial financial support was crucial for the school's ability to operate independently from the university (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999). With over fifty students enrolled and the option to sell or generate income from the land, the school was well-prepared to establish its own identity (Evans, 1999).
In 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf officially achieved independence from the University of Utah, prompting discussions about its new location. Potential sites considered included Ogden, Ephraim, Fort Cameron, and Fillmore, with several efforts made to secure the school in Ogden (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Utah Constitutional Convention carefully evaluated several potential locations for the school and determined that Ogden, the second-largest city in the state, offered the most significant advantages. Voters subsequently approved the decision to establish the school in Ogden, Utah. Following this decision, the legislature acted on the provisions of the convention by occupying the former Territorial Reform School in Ogden (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the legislature decided to merge the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind into a single institution, establishing the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, also referred to as USDB (Chronology of USDB).
On September 15, 1896, following Utah's admission to the Union, the Utah School for the Deaf moved to the Territorial Reform School, taking up a 57-acre site in Ogden. The institution included a school for the blind for the first time. The USDB shared facilities in Ogden, Utah (Pace, 1946; Roberts, 1994; Evans, 1999).
In 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf officially achieved independence from the University of Utah, prompting discussions about its new location. Potential sites considered included Ogden, Ephraim, Fort Cameron, and Fillmore, with several efforts made to secure the school in Ogden (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Utah Constitutional Convention carefully evaluated several potential locations for the school and determined that Ogden, the second-largest city in the state, offered the most significant advantages. Voters subsequently approved the decision to establish the school in Ogden, Utah. Following this decision, the legislature acted on the provisions of the convention by occupying the former Territorial Reform School in Ogden (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the legislature decided to merge the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind into a single institution, establishing the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, also referred to as USDB (Chronology of USDB).
On September 15, 1896, following Utah's admission to the Union, the Utah School for the Deaf moved to the Territorial Reform School, taking up a 57-acre site in Ogden. The institution included a school for the blind for the first time. The USDB shared facilities in Ogden, Utah (Pace, 1946; Roberts, 1994; Evans, 1999).
The Territorial Reform School, Ogden, Utah
The changes were implemented to provide Superintendent Frank W. Metcalf and his staff with more space and improved facilities (The Silent Worker, October 1896). During this time, a board of five trustees was established to oversee both the Deaf and Blind schools, which were managed by the same superintendent.
Martha Hughes Cannon, a significant figure in our history, held a unique position as a board member. She was not only a doctor, suffragist, and public health advocate but also America's first female state senator in Utah. Her contributions as both a senator and a trustee of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind were remarkable, and her efforts had lasting and meaningful impacts.
Martha Hughes Cannon, a significant figure in our history, held a unique position as a board member. She was not only a doctor, suffragist, and public health advocate but also America's first female state senator in Utah. Her contributions as both a senator and a trustee of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind were remarkable, and her efforts had lasting and meaningful impacts.
Martha Hughes Cannon. Source: Utah State Historical Society, Deseret News Archives
As a state senator, Martha had a significant impact on education and healthcare by successfully passing legislation that benefited the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. One of her key achievements was the "Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens of 1896." This law mandated that Deaf and Blind students attend the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah. As a result, this legislation greatly improved the lives of these students, ensuring they received the education they deserved.
In 1896, during Martha's tenure on the Board of Trustees, she worked diligently to address the absence of a law requiring Deaf and Blind children to attend the state institution. Martha and her fellow board members wrote a letter to the Utah governor and legislature, urging them to provide education for these children at the state institution rather than in public schools. Their collaborative efforts specifically called for a legislative mandate for these children's attendance at the state institution, highlighting the transformative impact of specialized education. The report from the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind in 1896, detailed in the section below, offers a clearer understanding of the content of this letter and its effects (Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896).
In 1896, during Martha's tenure on the Board of Trustees, she worked diligently to address the absence of a law requiring Deaf and Blind children to attend the state institution. Martha and her fellow board members wrote a letter to the Utah governor and legislature, urging them to provide education for these children at the state institution rather than in public schools. Their collaborative efforts specifically called for a legislative mandate for these children's attendance at the state institution, highlighting the transformative impact of specialized education. The report from the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind in 1896, detailed in the section below, offers a clearer understanding of the content of this letter and its effects (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
|
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
Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon's advocacy for healthcare extended beyond her time as a senator. She persisted in her efforts to establish a new hospital on the campus of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind by spearheading a healthcare bill. Her steadfast determination paid off when the "Act of Authorizing the Erection of a Hospital Building for the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb" was successfully passed in 1898. This legislation led to the construction of a hospital building on the school campus, which was completed in 1900. The photos below reflects her commitment to improving healthcare for the students (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946; Martha Hughes Cannon, Utah Division of Archives and Records Services, April 9, 2020; Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Notably, much of the woodwork in the building was completed by students from the carpentry class (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946). If you have ever received care at the infirmary during your illness, you owe her a great deal of gratitude for her significant contributions to healthcare!
The hospital building is at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903–1904
The Utah School for the Deaf is located in Ogden, Utah. The hospital is on the left, the Industrial Building is in the center, and the Main Building is on the right.
The classroom at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1899
Utah Governor Heber Wells acknowledged Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon's significant contributions by endorsing the first mandatory school bill. He appointed her to the Board of Trustees for the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, which inspired her to sponsor a second bill to establish a hospital at that institution. Even after leaving politics after serving one term, Martha remained dedicated to her work by serving two additional terms on the board of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, leaving behind a lasting legacy (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024).
Heber Wells. Source: Wikipedia
Another significant member of the Board of Trustees for the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind was Maud May Babcock. She was a trailblazer, being the first female professor at the University of Utah, where she taught speech and physical education. Maud's dedication was evident in her twenty-two years of service on the board, including twelve years as its president (Toone, Deseret News, May 7, 2014). At the Utah Association of the Deaf Convention in 1915, she shared her unique and enlightening experiences from visiting Deaf schools in France and Germany, which offered a global perspective to the Utah Deaf community (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Maud May Babcock. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf. Fred W. Chambers, Vice-President; E.F. Corey, Secretary; Maud May Babcock, President (center); Chas J. Ross and Rev. Peter A. Simpkin. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1905-1906
Ogden City was an ideal location for the Utah School for the Deaf. All railway lines in Utah and neighboring states converged there, allowing easy access from nearly every point in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and other adjacent states without the need to change trains. This was particularly important for Deaf and Blind children. At that time, Ogden had a population of around 20,000 residents, and the churches, schools, and businesses in the area were of high quality. Additionally, electric streetcar lines connected all parts of the city, with one line passing within two blocks of the school's main entrance (Pace, 1946).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Ogden, Utah, 1896: Source: APH Callahan Museum
The Utah School for the Deaf was on a 57-acre property with a garden, fruit orchard, pasture, and agricultural areas (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
On the right side of the barn, there is a long chicken coop in front of it. Behind it lies a large pigpen. This barn produced meat, milk, and eggs at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. These buildings were demolished sometime around 1955
The lowing herd at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
The students and staff eventually moved into their permanent facility, which consisted of two buildings. The main building was a three-story structure made of brick and stone (Pace, 1947; Evans, 1999). It measured 142 feet in width and rose three stories above a basement. The first two floors were designated for classrooms and offices, while the upper floors housed dormitory rooms (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah
The smaller two-story building, known as the Annex Building, is located behind the Main Building. It includes a dining hall, an assembly room, and a chapel. The second floor was originally designated for industrial classes but was later converted into classrooms and dormitory space for blind students. Additionally, the Annex houses a kitchen, pantries, and a small dining area (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Main Building is located on the front of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. The Annex Building is behind the Main Building. Ogden, Utah, in the 1800s. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Students under the age of thirty had the opportunity to graduate, and the school also offered vocational arts instruction (Evans, 1999).
Deaf and Blind students at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah, in 1896. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Did You Know?
With the establishment of statehood, the Utah School for the Deaf inherited 100,000 acres of land, while the Utah School for the Blind received a comparable amount. Since the constitution stipulated that both schools would be managed together, the combined institution had a total of 200,000 acres of land—more than half the land area of the state of Rhode Island (The Silent Worker, March 1896).
Female students at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1896
Fire Escape Cylinder
Rodney W. Walker, a 1933 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, recounts in his book "My Life Story" that students enjoyed sliding down a tall, dark fire escape cylinder located next to the Annex Building and behind the Main Building. Attached to the second and third floors, this structure featured a metal spiral slide that quickly allowed students to exit through a door at the bottom. The design aimed to expedite evacuation in the event of a fire (Walker, 2006, p. 27).
Rodney W. Walker. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Rodney observed that the fire escape cylinder was much taller than the slides found in public playgrounds. Students would climb the slide to reach the second, third, or even fourth floors and then slide down. They learned to stand up while sliding and to hold onto the center pole as they spiraled down. Occasionally, a mischievous student would notice someone climbing up the slide. They would wait for a moment and then pour some water from the third-floor level onto the slide. As a result, the boy would slip and slide down the slick surface as quickly as possible, landing at the base of the cylinder with his pants soaked (Walker, 2006, p. 27).
The Annex Building of the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Rodney W. Walker's My Life Story book
The fire escape stairs inspired many wild stories. For example, a common question among the students was, "What is the round tower behind the Blind building?"
Smokestack?
Devil's Pit?
Devil's Stove?
Don't Know? (USD Alumni Reunion, 2009).
Many students fondly remembered sliding down the fire escape and sharing stories about it.
Smokestack?
Devil's Pit?
Devil's Stove?
Don't Know? (USD Alumni Reunion, 2009).
Many students fondly remembered sliding down the fire escape and sharing stories about it.
A New Change in Superintendent
And Its Impact on Enrollment
And Its Impact on Enrollment
Frank W. Metcalf, who served as the superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and later the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind for over twelve years, resigned on April 12, 1901. His tenure saw significant growth, transforming the school from a department of the University of Utah with three teachers, a principal, and forty-one students, to an independent institution with a superintendent, eight teachers, and an enrollment of 76 students (Pace, 1946).
Dr. Frank M. Driggs became the second superintendent on June 15, 1901, succeeding Metcalf. He held this position for forty years until his retirement in March 1941 (Pace, 1946). As a newly appointed superintendent, he faced significant challenges with enrollment, as the early state law governing the school allowed any student up to the age of thirty to enroll at the USDB. This policy presented numerous difficulties for the institution (Evans, 1999).
Dr. Frank M. Driggs became the second superintendent on June 15, 1901, succeeding Metcalf. He held this position for forty years until his retirement in March 1941 (Pace, 1946). As a newly appointed superintendent, he faced significant challenges with enrollment, as the early state law governing the school allowed any student up to the age of thirty to enroll at the USDB. This policy presented numerous difficulties for the institution (Evans, 1999).
Frank M. Driggs. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Around 1890, the age range of students at the Utah School for the Deaf began to decline significantly as younger students enrolled and older students gradually returned home. When Frank Driggs became superintendent, he established a new age limit for enrollment, setting it between six and twenty-one years old. This change marked a reversal from 1884 when only five out of fourteen students enrolled before the age of fifteen (Roberts, 1994).
First and second year students at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-1902
Class of 1902 of the Utah School for the Deaf. L-R: Elmo V. Kemp, Peter G. Slot, Elgin Jacobson, and Joseph Cameron, Jr. Source: The Utah Eagle, June 3, 1902 & Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-1902
Superintendent Driggs aimed to provide every Deaf child with a quality education and to prepare those who expressed a desire for higher education and demonstrated sufficient academic ability for admission to Gallaudet College (Driggs, 1905). He noted that in the early years of the Utah School for the Deaf, children aged six and older could enroll. The school's objective was to offer a comprehensive education, which included subjects such as writing, reading, arithmetic, geography, grammar, history, physiology, civics, physics, and more. The school also offered courses in manual training, physical training, and domestic science (Driggs, 1901).
Standing at left is Frank M. Driggs, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
In its early years, the school admitted many students with additional disabilities, which posed significant challenges for the staff due to their lack of expertise in addressing these needs. Consequently, the school sent several students home within weeks due to their inability to learn effectively or their disruptive behavior. Others remained for a year or longer without showing any signs of progress (Roberts, 1994).
Teachers, instructors and supervisors at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
One case involved a twenty-two-year-old English female student who was sent home for being "unable to perform at a second-grade level. She showed no desire to improve, and her influence on the younger girls was detrimental" (Evans, 1999, p. 47). Clara Viola Eddy, a Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, shared another example of a thirty-two-year-old female student named Rebecca, who "had a violent temper" and once chased a peer with a knife, as follows:
"At that time students at the school ranged from six to thirty two years old of age. One girl named Rebecca was thirty two…Several of these students were in their twenties. These older students were often the most difficult to manage….Elmo Kemp, one of the star athletes, loved to tease and [he] began teasing her. Rebecca had a violent temper when aroused, [and] she chased Elmo around the table with [a] knife…
After everyone left the room I went to her to talk to her for a few minutes [sic]. Finally she accompanied me to her room and I was in her good graces" (Roberts, 1999, p. 44)."
"At that time students at the school ranged from six to thirty two years old of age. One girl named Rebecca was thirty two…Several of these students were in their twenties. These older students were often the most difficult to manage….Elmo Kemp, one of the star athletes, loved to tease and [he] began teasing her. Rebecca had a violent temper when aroused, [and] she chased Elmo around the table with [a] knife…
After everyone left the room I went to her to talk to her for a few minutes [sic]. Finally she accompanied me to her room and I was in her good graces" (Roberts, 1999, p. 44)."
Clara Viola Eddy in 1904. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Due to various challenges, some parents chose to transfer their children to specialized schools or mental health institutions outside the state (Roberts, 1994).
Most parents lacked the education, experience, or resources to effectively support their children. They felt uncertain about what to do, so they enrolled their children at the Utah School for the Deaf for services, regardless of their age or additional disabilities. Meanwhile, the school struggled to differentiate between students who were Deaf, had language deprivation, had mental health issues, or were autistic (Roberts, 1994).
Staff members pushed for the creation of a separate institution specifically for Deaf students with additional disabilities amid these enrollment issues.
In response, Superintendent Driggs approached the legislature to emphasize the urgent need for a new, dedicated facility. In his report, he stated:
"Every year, we receive a number of applications for admission to our institution of feeble-minded children. These unfortunate boys and girls range in feeble-mindedness from slightly below the normal child to the idiotic, imbecile, and insane. Almost all the applicants are dumb, or partly so, and usually have perfect hearing…Nearly every dumb child with perfect hearing is feeble-minded" (Roberts, 1994, p. 44).
Despite Dr. Driggs' lobbying efforts, the legislature did not take action to establish a separate school for students with multiple disabilities until years later. It wasn't until 1907 that the state of Utah finally established the State Training School in American Fork, Utah. Following this, the number of students with additional disabilities admitted to the Utah School for the Deaf gradually decreased (Roberts, 1994).
Most parents lacked the education, experience, or resources to effectively support their children. They felt uncertain about what to do, so they enrolled their children at the Utah School for the Deaf for services, regardless of their age or additional disabilities. Meanwhile, the school struggled to differentiate between students who were Deaf, had language deprivation, had mental health issues, or were autistic (Roberts, 1994).
Staff members pushed for the creation of a separate institution specifically for Deaf students with additional disabilities amid these enrollment issues.
In response, Superintendent Driggs approached the legislature to emphasize the urgent need for a new, dedicated facility. In his report, he stated:
"Every year, we receive a number of applications for admission to our institution of feeble-minded children. These unfortunate boys and girls range in feeble-mindedness from slightly below the normal child to the idiotic, imbecile, and insane. Almost all the applicants are dumb, or partly so, and usually have perfect hearing…Nearly every dumb child with perfect hearing is feeble-minded" (Roberts, 1994, p. 44).
Despite Dr. Driggs' lobbying efforts, the legislature did not take action to establish a separate school for students with multiple disabilities until years later. It wasn't until 1907 that the state of Utah finally established the State Training School in American Fork, Utah. Following this, the number of students with additional disabilities admitted to the Utah School for the Deaf gradually decreased (Roberts, 1994).
Beginner class for deaf at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
Advanced class for the deaf at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
The library at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
In 1905, Superintendent Driggs also renamed the institution. In the Biennial Report for 1905-06, he made the following statement:
"From the fact that all dumb children who are not Deaf are feebleminded and are, therefore, not eligible for admission to the Utah School or the Deaf and Dumb, and because of the fact that we have no dumb children in the school, I would recommend that the Legislature be requested to eliminate the word "Dumb" from the name of the school making it be Utah School for the Deaf. This will be the correct name and meet public sentiment approval in this direction" (The Utah Eagle, June 6, 1905).
The legislative session of 1907 approved Superintendent Driggs' recommendation to change the school's name. The official name became the Utah State School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946).
It seems that Gallaudet College influenced Superintendent Driggs's views on the education of Deaf students. He recognized that Deaf individuals, regardless of the clarity of their speech, could be just as intelligent and capable as hearing individuals.
"From the fact that all dumb children who are not Deaf are feebleminded and are, therefore, not eligible for admission to the Utah School or the Deaf and Dumb, and because of the fact that we have no dumb children in the school, I would recommend that the Legislature be requested to eliminate the word "Dumb" from the name of the school making it be Utah School for the Deaf. This will be the correct name and meet public sentiment approval in this direction" (The Utah Eagle, June 6, 1905).
The legislative session of 1907 approved Superintendent Driggs' recommendation to change the school's name. The official name became the Utah State School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946).
It seems that Gallaudet College influenced Superintendent Driggs's views on the education of Deaf students. He recognized that Deaf individuals, regardless of the clarity of their speech, could be just as intelligent and capable as hearing individuals.
1907 Graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. Willie Aicbol (Blind), Carol Bind (Blind), Ruin McDonald (Blind), Bernhard Uverson (Blind), Ivy Griggs (Deaf), Elsie Christiansen (Deaf), Lizzie Egginton (Deaf), Fred Low (Deaf), Mary Woolslayer (Deaf), Emma Emmertson, Rufus E. Briggs (Deaf). Source: The Utah Eagle, 1907
Did You Know?
According to the Kansas Star, Frank W. Metcalf, the superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, was replaced by Frank M. Driggs, a teacher at the school. The reason given for this change was that Metcalf was not a Mormon, while Driggs was (The Silent Worker, May 1901, p. 139).
During Superintendent Frank M. Driggs' administration, four new buildings were added to the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind campus: the Infirmary, Primary Hall, Driggs Hall (the girls' dormitory), and Woodbury Hall (the boys' dormitory) (Chronology of USDB).
During Superintendent Frank M. Driggs' administration, four new buildings were added to the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind campus: the Infirmary, Primary Hall, Driggs Hall (the girls' dormitory), and Woodbury Hall (the boys' dormitory) (Chronology of USDB).
The dining hall at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah, in 1903. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
An Introduction of Combined System
In 1901, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, under the leadership of Superintendent Frank M. Driggs, who replaced Frank W. Metcalf, adopted a teaching method known as the combined method. To help Deaf students learn, this approach incorporated manual alphabet, sign language, speech, and speech reading. State schools for the deaf across America widely used this method at the time (Robert, 1994).
"Combined System" at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-02
The appointment of Frank M. Driggs as superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1901 initiated a significant chapter in Deaf education. The school entrusted him with the task of identifying the most effective teaching methods for Deaf children and formulating policies that would benefit both the children and their parents. With unwavering commitment and a calm demeanor, he reassured parents, who, in their emotional state, would often ask, "Will my child be able to speak and read lips?" while pointing to their young Deaf child. His deep empathy and understanding of their concerns were evident, providing a sense of reassurance to the parents.
The classroom at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah, in 1903
Under the administration of Superintendent Driggs, the school published a statement about its teaching methods in 1902, explaining that the combined method was not just a method but the most effective way to educate students. Teachers believed education, including English acquisition, was more important than teaching speech and lip reading. When a child faced difficulties learning speech, educators used the manual method, which involved sign language. They viewed all the different communication approaches, such as speech, manual alphabet, writing, and sign language, as tools to help the student learn and succeed (Roberts, 1994, p. 61-62).
The alphabet in American Sign Language created by John Barrick. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind: 1897-1898
As the superintendent, Frank Driggs, who knew sign language, had to make a difficult decision. He had to choose between oralism and the combined system, a long-standing point of debate in Deaf education. This decision was crucial not only to the Utah School for the Deaf but to the entire field of Deaf education. With the best interests of the students and the future of Deaf education in mind, including parents, Frank Driggs was responsible for this critical decision (UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Superintendent Driggs, a supporter of teaching Deaf children to speak, was well aware of the complex conflict between the rigid oral approach, which excluded signing. He was determined to navigate this significant challenge, deeply rooted in the history of Deaf education. The alums remembered their painful and unpleasant experiences with the slow lessons in lip-reading and speech. However, they were able to communicate with Superintendent Driggs in sign language when visiting the school after graduation. Despite disagreeing with his methods and philosophies, they acknowledged that he had the best interests of Deaf education at heart during the forty years he dedicated to the field. The alums expressed profound gratitude to Frank M. Driggs for providing them with valuable job opportunities, especially in vocational education programs. While receiving oral instructions at school, they observed clear evidence of the success of the combined teaching method (UAD Bulletin, April 1959, p. 1).
Superintendent Driggs, a supporter of teaching Deaf children to speak, was well aware of the complex conflict between the rigid oral approach, which excluded signing. He was determined to navigate this significant challenge, deeply rooted in the history of Deaf education. The alums remembered their painful and unpleasant experiences with the slow lessons in lip-reading and speech. However, they were able to communicate with Superintendent Driggs in sign language when visiting the school after graduation. Despite disagreeing with his methods and philosophies, they acknowledged that he had the best interests of Deaf education at heart during the forty years he dedicated to the field. The alums expressed profound gratitude to Frank M. Driggs for providing them with valuable job opportunities, especially in vocational education programs. While receiving oral instructions at school, they observed clear evidence of the success of the combined teaching method (UAD Bulletin, April 1959, p. 1).
1912 graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf. Cora Hitesman, Eric Kingsbury, Naomi Wright, Leo Richey, George Preece (center), Maud Hall, Maree Hunter, Kenneth Olsen, Arthur Henkel. Source: The Utah Eagle, 1912
Did You Know?
Superintendent Frank M. Driggs of the Utah School for the Deaf is quoted below:
“I love the sign language. I know how to use it well. It was a great boon to the Deaf. They loved it dearly, too dearly sometimes. I wished every Deaf child could be taught to speak well and read the lips well. These things were wonderful accomplishments and much to be desired” (The Silent Worker, June 1927, p. 335).
“I love the sign language. I know how to use it well. It was a great boon to the Deaf. They loved it dearly, too dearly sometimes. I wished every Deaf child could be taught to speak well and read the lips well. These things were wonderful accomplishments and much to be desired” (The Silent Worker, June 1927, p. 335).
Deaf Employees at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the 1890s and early 1900s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed four Deaf teachers. They were Clara Viola Eddy, Luella Stiffler, Elizabeth DeLong, and Nephi Larsen. Clara, the sister of schoolteacher Frances Eddy, served as an art teacher and girls' supervisor. Luella taught for only a few years at the school in Salt Lake City, Utah. Elizabeth DeLong, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and later of Gallaudet in 1902, was the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf. She likely taught 'oral failures,' while Nephi taught carpentry (Evans, 1999).
Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org
In 1911, the administration released Elizabeth DeLong as a teacher to pursue business opportunities. Elsie Christiansen, a 1907 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, succeeded her as a domestic arts and science teacher. Later, the school rehired Elizabeth to teach sewing and dressmaking while Elsie continued to teach domestic arts and science (Fay, 1911; Evans, 1999). Elizabeth taught domestic arts and science at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1902 to 1917, while Nephi Larsen taught carpentry from 1900 to 1917.
By the end of the 1910s, neither Elizabeth DeLong nor Nephi Larsen taught at the Utah School for the Deaf. This effectively ended the Deaf presence among the faculty, possibly due to increased advocacy of the oral method or a perception that Deaf people could not assume "important" positions as teachers. By 1920, there were one or two Deaf teachers, possibly more. For the Deaf students, the world was completely hearing due to "oral movement," a term used to describe the increasing emphasis on oral methods of communication and a lack of adult role models (Evan, 1999).
By the end of the 1910s, neither Elizabeth DeLong nor Nephi Larsen taught at the Utah School for the Deaf. This effectively ended the Deaf presence among the faculty, possibly due to increased advocacy of the oral method or a perception that Deaf people could not assume "important" positions as teachers. By 1920, there were one or two Deaf teachers, possibly more. For the Deaf students, the world was completely hearing due to "oral movement," a term used to describe the increasing emphasis on oral methods of communication and a lack of adult role models (Evan, 1999).
Nephi Larsen. Source: FamilySearch.org
Over time, there was a growing preference among hearing parents not to teach their children sign language. Many parents encouraged their children to focus on speaking, lip-reading, and communicating primarily through their residual hearing (Robert, 1994). In response to evolving needs, the Utah School for the Deaf established an oral program in 1943. This program focused on lip-reading, as well as spoken and written language (Pace, 1946), marking a significant shift in the history of Deaf education. Nonetheless, the students were allowed to utilize sign language in non-classroom settings such as recess, cafeteria, clubs, activities, and sports.
Fourth grade oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1919
In 1934, Kenneth C. Burdett, a graduate of the 1929 Utah School for the Deaf and the 1934 Gallaudet College, returned to his alma mater to become a teacher. He served at the school for four decades, holding the record as the longest-serving Deaf teacher in its history. Alongside him, Deaf teachers Donald Jensen, Dora B. Laramie, and Jerry Taylor joined the board. Following the implementation of a segregation policy in 1962, these Deaf teachers, like Elizabeth DeLong before them, faced challenges related to 'oral failure.' This policy prohibited interaction between students using oral language and those using sign language on school campuses. It also mandated the use of oral methods over sign language, significantly impacting teaching methods and the future of Deaf education, as detailed in the "Controversies Surrounding Communication and Educational Methods and the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah" section below.
Kenneth C. Burdett
Controversies Surrounding Communication and Educational Methods and the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
Part III
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Part III
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Communication Methods of
Instruction at the Utah School for the Deaf
Instruction at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Deaf students encountered significant challenges due to the introduction of an oral education program. Teachers primarily used the oral method for instruction, which prohibited the use of sign language until the ninth grade. Despite this ban, students displayed a strong commitment to communication by using sign language after school and in their dormitories, even at the risk of physical punishment in the classroom. Teachers often disciplined students for signing by hitting them with erasers or yardsticks (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). Nevertheless, these students demonstrated resourcefulness and determination to use sign language in the face of adversity.
In the 1880s, Henry C. White was a lone advocate for sign language in Utah. By the 1950s, graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a strong, united community that actively supported sign language and residential school. They emerged as influential leaders within the Utah Deaf community, making a significant impact on the deaf educational system. They actively advocated for better education for Deaf children and expressed their concerns about the harmful effects of oral instruction. Their steadfast commitment to highlighting how these teaching methods undermined educational standards marked a significant historical moment. Through the Utah Association of the Deaf, they engaged with academic issues, gained a platform to express their concerns, advocated for change, and became more involved in the organization, which played a crucial role in the field of Deaf education.
Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf, played a pivotal role in shaping teaching methods at the school. During this period, Robert Sanderson became a staunch advocate for the use of sign language in Deaf education. Drawing on their personal experiences with the manual method, the oral method, and the combined system, many members of the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed a preference for the combined method of instruction. Their influence was so significant that in 1955, the National Association of the Deaf reaffirmed its support for this combined approach during its convention (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This important endorsement further solidified the impact of their work.
In the 1880s, Henry C. White was a lone advocate for sign language in Utah. By the 1950s, graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a strong, united community that actively supported sign language and residential school. They emerged as influential leaders within the Utah Deaf community, making a significant impact on the deaf educational system. They actively advocated for better education for Deaf children and expressed their concerns about the harmful effects of oral instruction. Their steadfast commitment to highlighting how these teaching methods undermined educational standards marked a significant historical moment. Through the Utah Association of the Deaf, they engaged with academic issues, gained a platform to express their concerns, advocated for change, and became more involved in the organization, which played a crucial role in the field of Deaf education.
Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf, played a pivotal role in shaping teaching methods at the school. During this period, Robert Sanderson became a staunch advocate for the use of sign language in Deaf education. Drawing on their personal experiences with the manual method, the oral method, and the combined system, many members of the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed a preference for the combined method of instruction. Their influence was so significant that in 1955, the National Association of the Deaf reaffirmed its support for this combined approach during its convention (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This important endorsement further solidified the impact of their work.
Robert G. Sanderson
Between 1955 and 1956, the Utah School for the Deaf announced that it would adopt an oral method to teach elementary classrooms under the administration of Superintendent Harold W. Green. Following this, a gradual transition to a combined teaching method was planned for the intermediate grades.
In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, spearheaded a strong campaign against the inclusion of speech instruction in Deaf education. The other officers of the UAD supported him, firmly believing that the combined method of instruction used at the Utah School for the Deaf was the most beneficial aspect of education for Deaf students.
In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, spearheaded a strong campaign against the inclusion of speech instruction in Deaf education. The other officers of the UAD supported him, firmly believing that the combined method of instruction used at the Utah School for the Deaf was the most beneficial aspect of education for Deaf students.
Joseph B. Burnett. Source: FamilySearch.org
As a result of this controversy, the Utah Association of the Deaf opposed Superintendent Green's plan, arguing that early speech training for Deaf children presented inherent disadvantages. They also contended that the oral philosophy violated the right to equal education for each deaf child and hindered their academic progress (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This controversy had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, underscoring the urgent need to address the issue.
Harold W. Green. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
Around the same time, the Utah State Board of Education established a committee of eighteen members to examine the teaching methods used at the Utah School for the Deaf. Elmer H. Brown from Salt Lake City was appointed as the chairman of the committee. Among the members was Ray G. Wenger, a 1913 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf. He was recognized as Utah's most prominent advocate for the Deaf and was the first Deaf representative to serve on the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, having been a member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind since 1945. The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) welcomed Ray's appointment because he strongly supported the combined method in educational settings (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). Additionally, Ray was the first Deaf member of the advisory committee.
Ray G. Wenger
The UAD pledged its support for the investigation, provided it was conducted honestly, fairly, and impartially. However, the Utah Deaf community, whose input was crucial in this matter, expressed concerns about the investigation (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
To prevent bias or prejudice from influencing the outcome of an investigation, the Utah Association of the Deaf, a strong advocate for Deaf education, requested an impartial consideration of all perspectives. The investigating committee, whose role was to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, listened to the Utah Association of the Deaf, which is primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, to understand their views on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions also welcomed input from educators, parents, and the general public.
During the investigation, Deaf adults emphasized to the committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, the state's official residential school for the Deaf, offers the best possible education for Deaf students. This school provides an excellent vocational education program for Deaf students as they reach adolescence, giving them an advantage over hearing peers when preparing for future employment. Most Deaf students who participated in this program secured jobs shortly after graduation. Deaf leaders also noted that a residential school fosters a better social life for Deaf children. They expressed that parents should understand that relying solely on the oral method is often insufficient for effectively teaching their Deaf child in many areas, based on their own experiences of being enrolled in inadequate oral programs (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
To prevent bias or prejudice from influencing the outcome of an investigation, the Utah Association of the Deaf, a strong advocate for Deaf education, requested an impartial consideration of all perspectives. The investigating committee, whose role was to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, listened to the Utah Association of the Deaf, which is primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, to understand their views on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions also welcomed input from educators, parents, and the general public.
During the investigation, Deaf adults emphasized to the committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, the state's official residential school for the Deaf, offers the best possible education for Deaf students. This school provides an excellent vocational education program for Deaf students as they reach adolescence, giving them an advantage over hearing peers when preparing for future employment. Most Deaf students who participated in this program secured jobs shortly after graduation. Deaf leaders also noted that a residential school fosters a better social life for Deaf children. They expressed that parents should understand that relying solely on the oral method is often insufficient for effectively teaching their Deaf child in many areas, based on their own experiences of being enrolled in inadequate oral programs (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
The Utah School for the Deaf Printing Department. Source: The Utah Eagle, March 1955
The graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf were firmly committed to improving the academic skills of Deaf children in reading, writing, and mathematics. Their dedication to this cause is evident, and their efforts have significantly contributed to providing quality education for Deaf children. They emphasized that mastering these fundamental subjects is essential for acquiring important social skills, such as lip-reading and speech.
However, the group expressed urgent concerns about the lack of a clear direction for the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They believe the school must establish concrete goals for students regarding college preparedness. Many Deaf high school students were unprepared for college and unaware of the benefits of pursuing higher education. Deaf adults have suggested that the school should start college preparation in the first year of high school and design the entire high school curriculum around the criteria for college entry (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
However, the group expressed urgent concerns about the lack of a clear direction for the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They believe the school must establish concrete goals for students regarding college preparedness. Many Deaf high school students were unprepared for college and unaware of the benefits of pursuing higher education. Deaf adults have suggested that the school should start college preparation in the first year of high school and design the entire high school curriculum around the criteria for college entry (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
Jerry Taylor, teacher and his class. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The officers of the Utah Association of the Deaf and graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf were committed to demonstrating to the hearing community that Deaf students are fully capable of receiving academic instruction and accessing a comprehensive education. During the investigative committee's discussions, the Deaf adults emphasized that they believed education was more important than speech. They reiterated this belief by stating, "Education is our priority."
"EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE DEAF
THAN THE MERE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND
READ LIPS! And the most efficient and quickest
way to educate Deaf children is competent
application of the Combined Method."
(Burnett & Sanderson,
The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956, p. 3).
THAN THE MERE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND
READ LIPS! And the most efficient and quickest
way to educate Deaf children is competent
application of the Combined Method."
(Burnett & Sanderson,
The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956, p. 3).
When the investigation concluded, the results remained unknown. After substantial time and effort spent by Deaf adults and leaders in the Utah Deaf community presenting their invaluable insights to the educators and the committee, nothing changed. The Deaf leaders were taken back. In the aftermath, they observed that the Utah School for the Deaf was gradually shifting to offer two communication methodology programs at the school: an oral program and a simultaneous communication program, which involves using both voice and sign simultaneously. No one was listening to the Utah Deaf community or taking their suggestions seriously (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
Kenneth C. Burdett in Algebra class, 1954. Left to right: Kenneth Kinner, Kay Kinner, Donna Mae Dekker, Shanna Christiansen, Carol McFee and Clara Bosshardt
Despite the study outcome, the Utah Association of the Deaf continued to advocate for Deaf education. On March 19, 1959, the UAD Committee on Deaf Education, consisting of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf—including Ned C. Wheeler, G. Leon Curtis, Gladys Burnham Wenger, Arthur W. Wenger, and Robert G. Sanderson—visited the school to discuss its programs with the administration. The committee, formed to ensure the quality of education for Deaf children, faced challenges in evaluating the school’s various teaching methods. They could not determine whether these methods were effective or if the education being provided to Deaf children was adequate. Nevertheless, as alumni, the committee members believed they had the right to request that the administration keep them updated on the academic and professional achievements of the students.
Although the small oral day schools were expanding and raising some concerns for the Utah Association of the Deaf, particularly regarding their focus on speech and lip-reading over sign language, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf remained the best option for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and develop the necessary vocational skills to become a contributing member of the community (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Although the small oral day schools were expanding and raising some concerns for the Utah Association of the Deaf, particularly regarding their focus on speech and lip-reading over sign language, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf remained the best option for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and develop the necessary vocational skills to become a contributing member of the community (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Ray G. Wenger Addresses Congressional Committee
Henry C. White, a forward-thinking former teacher and principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, observed in 1885 that Deaf individuals should be given teaching positions. However, he also recognized the necessity for legal support and protection for Deaf adults seeking these opportunities. Ray and Arthur Wenger, graduates of the 1913 Utah School for the Deaf and known as "Utah's Famous Twin Team," showed remarkable determination in tackling this issue. They traveled to Los Angeles, California, on July 16, 1960, at their own expense to attend an important meeting. Ray was scheduled to speak before a U.S. House of Representatives committee about a federal bill to provide training for Deaf education teachers. However, the original bill did not include provisions to prevent discrimination against Deaf teachers seeking employment, and the proposed advisory committee could potentially oppose the combined system. Ray and Arthur arrived to prevent such discrimination.
The Utah Association of Deaf Officers lobbied to amend the bill, and Ray's testimony, with its powerful and effective presentation, added to the combined method's defense. Ray's testimony had a profound impact, leaving a lasting impression on the House Committee members, as evidenced by including his remarks in the congressional hearing report (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960). Ray's words resonated with the association, influencing their decisions and shaping the future of Deaf education.
The Utah Association of Deaf Officers lobbied to amend the bill, and Ray's testimony, with its powerful and effective presentation, added to the combined method's defense. Ray's testimony had a profound impact, leaving a lasting impression on the House Committee members, as evidenced by including his remarks in the congressional hearing report (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960). Ray's words resonated with the association, influencing their decisions and shaping the future of Deaf education.
Arthur W. Wenger & Ray G. Wenger
Did You Know?
In January 1921, Arthur W. Wenger wrote for The Silent Worker magazine:
At one time, the education of individuals who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing faced significant obstacles due to a belief that they did not require education. However, a change occurred as our boys and girls began to realize they were adrift on a raft without a paddle. In recent years, students have recognized the importance of higher education and have started enrolling in public high schools, colleges, and state universities, eager to be on the same social and business level as hearing individuals.
In June 1920, three of our students graduated from public high schools; one graduated from the high school at the School for the Deaf, and another completed his second year at the university. This year, we welcomed one senior from a public high school, the principal's office assistant, three students at the Utah Agricultural College, and one at the university. Last summer, three students attended the university's summer school. Next year, we anticipate at least three new entrants at the university and five at other institutions.
While classroom lectures in public schools often hold little meaning for Deaf students, our motivated learners have managed to keep up and succeed by diligently reading books and asking questions. This effort compensates for their disadvantage of being unable to read the lips of rapid speakers (Wenger, The Silent Worker, January 1921).
At one time, the education of individuals who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing faced significant obstacles due to a belief that they did not require education. However, a change occurred as our boys and girls began to realize they were adrift on a raft without a paddle. In recent years, students have recognized the importance of higher education and have started enrolling in public high schools, colleges, and state universities, eager to be on the same social and business level as hearing individuals.
In June 1920, three of our students graduated from public high schools; one graduated from the high school at the School for the Deaf, and another completed his second year at the university. This year, we welcomed one senior from a public high school, the principal's office assistant, three students at the Utah Agricultural College, and one at the university. Last summer, three students attended the university's summer school. Next year, we anticipate at least three new entrants at the university and five at other institutions.
While classroom lectures in public schools often hold little meaning for Deaf students, our motivated learners have managed to keep up and succeed by diligently reading books and asking questions. This effort compensates for their disadvantage of being unable to read the lips of rapid speakers (Wenger, The Silent Worker, January 1921).
Ray G. Wenger
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, '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.
Elizabeth H. Spear. 'The Case for Oral Education of the Deaf.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1959
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 Utah School for the Deaf was excellently developing happy, self-sufficient Deaf adults (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 1959).
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
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 Utah School for the Deaf's Oral Extension Program is located at 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, in conjunction with the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School. 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).
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 is giving speech training to a student. 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's 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).
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's 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
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 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 Utah School for the Deaf's 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).
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 of the oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Program in Salt Lake City, Utah. 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, 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's Oral Teacher Preparation Program for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1973
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: The Salina Sun, May 21, 1970
Dr. Bitter taught the Teacher Training Program within the Special Education Department at the University of Utah for nineteen years, starting in 1968, focusing on oral education. His ambition to promote oral and mainstreaming sparked a heated controversy between oral and sign language, particularly with the Utah Association for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's unwavering commitment also had a huge impact on the oral philosophy movement at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the integration of Deaf education into mainstream society.
'Interest in Sign Language on the Rise.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964
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
Did You Know?
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote his Summary Report for Tenure on March 15, 1985, for the Tenure Review Committee at the University of Utah. In his summary, he shared his experiences navigating the social, religious, and educational systems in search of the best options for his Deaf daughter.
Dr. Bitter explained that his daughter, Colleen, was born on November 5, 1954, with profound hearing loss. She was the fourth of nine children in the family. At the time of her birth, Dr. Bitter had transitioned from his role as an English teacher and assistant administrator in a junior high school to become an instructor in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' religious education system. When Colleen was 2½ years old, her hearing loss was detected. Dr. Bitter and his wife began searching urgently for answers and assistance. Thirty years ago, there was limited professional and family support available. They realized that they would need to create and build meaningful educational and social programs for Deaf children and sought to connect with other professionals and parents facing similar challenges.
Dr. Bitter became a passionate advocate for parents and families, promoting their rights and available options. His family's experiences motivated him to deliver presentations, publish materials, and conduct workshops.
His philosophy of advocacy emphasized the rights of Deaf individuals to live productively, free from intimidation and discrimination in educational programming, the job market, and social and religious environments. He believed his expertise in Deaf education enhanced his effectiveness in conferences, workshops, and classes.
Dr. Bitter expressed his frustration with the inadequate intervention strategies and inappropriate educational placements of that time. He and his wife were acutely aware of the human shortcomings in addressing disabilities. He reflected on how, at that time, institutionalizing Deaf children was still the most commonly recommended approach, which meant placement in a Deaf school that, in his view, confined children to a restrictive environment.
Dr. Bitter noted that, since the founding of the first Deaf school in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817, Deaf individuals had been isolated from dynamic learning environments and left 'deaf and mute' in a silent world. He recognized the efforts of the National Association of the Deaf in advocating for sign language and state residential schools for the Deaf. He noted that sign language users and advocates formed a strong alliance against proponents of spoken language, who created private schools to develop their programs without interference.
Some advisors suggested that he and his wife teach their daughter sign language, arguing that attempting to teach Colleen to speak was impossible and would deny her identity as a Deaf person. Although this advice nearly swayed them towards using sign language, they ultimately decided against relying solely on the Deaf community and its advocates.
Despite recognizing their novice status and uncertainty, they continued searching for solutions. Colleen came from a large, talkative family, and her parents wanted her to benefit from spoken language. They understood that providing Colleen with appropriate educational programming would require more than just time and energy.
They were unconvinced that institutional placement in a Deaf school would be in her best interest, feeling no motivation to immerse her in a "Deaf world." They did not seek answers from the Deaf community and were disheartened by the lack of professional support for parents during such a critical time. The harsh judgments of certain professionals, seemingly equipped with all the answers, shocked them. Additionally, they found the passivity of some religious leaders and teachers disheartening, as they often attributed disabilities to supernatural causes, suggesting that these conditions were given for a special reason by a kind and loving God. Unfortunately, such attitudes did little to improve their daughter's life (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Bitter explained that his daughter, Colleen, was born on November 5, 1954, with profound hearing loss. She was the fourth of nine children in the family. At the time of her birth, Dr. Bitter had transitioned from his role as an English teacher and assistant administrator in a junior high school to become an instructor in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' religious education system. When Colleen was 2½ years old, her hearing loss was detected. Dr. Bitter and his wife began searching urgently for answers and assistance. Thirty years ago, there was limited professional and family support available. They realized that they would need to create and build meaningful educational and social programs for Deaf children and sought to connect with other professionals and parents facing similar challenges.
Dr. Bitter became a passionate advocate for parents and families, promoting their rights and available options. His family's experiences motivated him to deliver presentations, publish materials, and conduct workshops.
His philosophy of advocacy emphasized the rights of Deaf individuals to live productively, free from intimidation and discrimination in educational programming, the job market, and social and religious environments. He believed his expertise in Deaf education enhanced his effectiveness in conferences, workshops, and classes.
Dr. Bitter expressed his frustration with the inadequate intervention strategies and inappropriate educational placements of that time. He and his wife were acutely aware of the human shortcomings in addressing disabilities. He reflected on how, at that time, institutionalizing Deaf children was still the most commonly recommended approach, which meant placement in a Deaf school that, in his view, confined children to a restrictive environment.
Dr. Bitter noted that, since the founding of the first Deaf school in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817, Deaf individuals had been isolated from dynamic learning environments and left 'deaf and mute' in a silent world. He recognized the efforts of the National Association of the Deaf in advocating for sign language and state residential schools for the Deaf. He noted that sign language users and advocates formed a strong alliance against proponents of spoken language, who created private schools to develop their programs without interference.
Some advisors suggested that he and his wife teach their daughter sign language, arguing that attempting to teach Colleen to speak was impossible and would deny her identity as a Deaf person. Although this advice nearly swayed them towards using sign language, they ultimately decided against relying solely on the Deaf community and its advocates.
Despite recognizing their novice status and uncertainty, they continued searching for solutions. Colleen came from a large, talkative family, and her parents wanted her to benefit from spoken language. They understood that providing Colleen with appropriate educational programming would require more than just time and energy.
They were unconvinced that institutional placement in a Deaf school would be in her best interest, feeling no motivation to immerse her in a "Deaf world." They did not seek answers from the Deaf community and were disheartened by the lack of professional support for parents during such a critical time. The harsh judgments of certain professionals, seemingly equipped with all the answers, shocked them. Additionally, they found the passivity of some religious leaders and teachers disheartening, as they often attributed disabilities to supernatural causes, suggesting that these conditions were given for a special reason by a kind and loving God. Unfortunately, such attitudes did little to improve their daughter's life (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming
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 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' which made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 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).
Colleen Bitter Addie. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune Obituary, July 24, 2003
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 an impactful 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 had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Utah and initially worked as a religious education teacher. From 1950 to 1958, he taught the seminary class for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Following this, he received a scholarship to the Lexington School for the Deaf, affiliated with Columbia University in New York City, where he earned a master's degree and a special education certificate while interning at the school from 1961 to 1962. After completing his master's degree, he returned to Utah. 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 from 1962 to 1964 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
After completing his doctorate in audiology, rehabilitation, and educational administration with a focus on special education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer of 1967, Dr. Bitter returned to Utah following three years of study. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). He resigned from this position in 1969 due to increasing job demands (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968). In addition to his leading role, Dr. Bitter held part-time positions as the Coordinator for the Seminary program for Deaf high school students with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as the Director of the oral-only component of the Teacher Training Program under the Department of Speech and Audiology at the University of Utah, which was established in 1962 (University of Utah, November 28, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). This oral-only component aimed to teach Deaf individuals to communicate using spoken language, reflecting Dr. Bitter's belief in oralism.
After completing his doctorate in audiology, rehabilitation, and educational administration with a focus on special education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer of 1967, Dr. Bitter returned to Utah following three years of study. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). He resigned from this position in 1969 due to increasing job demands (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968). In addition to his leading role, Dr. Bitter held part-time positions as the Coordinator for the Seminary program for Deaf high school students with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as the Director of the oral-only component of the Teacher Training Program under the Department of Speech and Audiology at the University of Utah, which was established in 1962 (University of Utah, November 28, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). This oral-only component aimed to teach Deaf individuals to communicate using spoken language, reflecting Dr. Bitter's belief in oralism.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Deseret News, March 18, 1974
In 1968, Dr. Bitter's passion for oral Deaf education led him to become the director and professor of the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. He focused primarily on oral education and held this position until 1987, a year after the program was closed. Additionally, Dr. Bitter served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000).
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 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).
'New Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1969
Dr. Bitter was also a prominent lobbyist on Utah Capitol Hill, effectively collaborating with legislators. He continuously emphasized the importance of adequately preparing Deaf and hard-of-hearing people for life in an English-speaking environment. Dr. Bitter said teaching Deaf people the skills necessary to live a 'normal' life was crucial. His influence in Utah during the 1900s was comparable to that of an early pioneer of oralism, Alexander Graham Bell, who had an impact on Deaf education in the United States during the 1800s. Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the full integration of Deaf people into mainstream society was unwavering, and he saw speech as the means to achieve this (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Bitter's impact on oral Deaf education is undeniable. His nationwide public appearances, which include workshops for oral interpreters at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Utah, highlight his dedication to advancing the field. From 1974 to 1978, he held leadership roles in the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, serving as the chairperson of the Governmental Relations Committee and leading the International Parents' Organization. These positions underscore his influence and contributions. Additionally, his collaboration with the Utah Congressional Team, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, who was the Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, further exemplifies his reach and impact (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
As a parent of nine children, Dr. Bitter's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in oral Deaf education.
Dr. Bitter's impact on oral Deaf education is undeniable. His nationwide public appearances, which include workshops for oral interpreters at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Utah, highlight his dedication to advancing the field. From 1974 to 1978, he held leadership roles in the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, serving as the chairperson of the Governmental Relations Committee and leading the International Parents' Organization. These positions underscore his influence and contributions. Additionally, his collaboration with the Utah Congressional Team, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, who was the Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, further exemplifies his reach and impact (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
As a parent of nine children, Dr. Bitter's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in oral Deaf education.
Alexander Graham Bell. Source: Wikipedia
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.
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.
Did You Know?
The Osmond family, renowned in the entertainment industry from Utah, whose parents, George and Olive Osmond, had two oldest sons: George Virl Jr., commonly known as "Virl," and Thomas Rulon, referred to as "Tom." Both sons are deaf, and their parents actively supported the oral method of communication for Deaf individuals.
Olive Osmond homeschooling her son, Thomas (left), and George Virl (right). Source: The Osmond Station Network
*****
Lisa Richards' Artwork
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Lisa Richards, born in 1959, is seen in photographs practicing her speech in the oral program at Lafayette Elementary School in 1964. In 2022, she reflected on her formative years during the Bitter era through her drawings, emphasizing its impact on Utah's Deaf educational system. Her experience as a student at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s embodies themes of personal growth and resilience.
In 1964, Lisa Richards read the group news to the rest of the faculty at the oral class for the Utah School for the Deaf at Lafayette Elementary School
On February 24, 2020, Lisa courageously shared a video recounting her experiences in the oral program of the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Division. This program was established during a time when Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a dedicated advocate for oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, allowing Deaf children to learn to speak and attend classes closer to home.
Drawn by Lisa Richards in 2022, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
Drawn by Lisa Richards, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
Although Lisa faced numerous challenges under Dr. Bitter's influence, her decision to share her story demonstrates the incredible healing power of storytelling. It serves as a vital reminder of the importance of preserving the history of Deaf education in Utah, ensuring that the experiences of the Deaf community are not forgotten.
*****
SECTION I:
The Beginning of the Dark Chapter
in Deaf Education in Utah
The Beginning of the Dark Chapter
in Deaf Education in Utah
The Implementation of the Dual-Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Commonly Known as "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the fall of 1962, the Utah Deaf community was taken aback by the revolutionary changes at the Utah School for the Deaf. The introduction of the dual-track program, commonly known as the 'Y' system, took many by surprise and reverberated throughout the community. This unexpected change had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, evoking a strong sense of empathy within the community. The Utah Association of the Deaf, which advocated for sign language, was unaware that the Utah Council for the Deaf had spearheaded the change, advocating for speech-based instruction and successfully pushing for its implementation at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). It is believed that Dr. Bitter was a member of this council. The dual-track program provided an oral program in one department and a simultaneous communication program in another department, which was later replaced by a combined system. However, the dual-track policy mandated that all Deaf children begin with the oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Gannon, 1981). The Utah State Board of Education, a key player in educational policy, approved this policy reform on June 14, 1962, with endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The newly hired superintendent, Robert W. Tegeder, accepted the parents' proposals and initiated changes to the school system (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). This new program not only affected the lives of Deaf children but also placed significant burdens on their families.
Two-Way Program to be Instituted this fall at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962
The 'Y' system, part of the dual-track program, imposed significant restrictions and challenges on students and their families. This system separated learning into two distinct channels: the oral department, which focused on speech, lipreading, amplified sound, and reading, and the simultaneous communication department, which emphasized instruction through the manual alphabet, signs, speech, and reading. Initially, all Deaf children were required to enroll in the oral program for the first six years of their schooling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Following this period, a committee would assess each child's progress and determine their placement (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). The 'Y' system favored the oral mechanism over the sign language approach, severely limiting families' choices in the school system. The school's preference for the oral mechanism was based on the belief that speech was crucial for Deaf children's integration into the hearing world, a philosophy that was prevalent in the oral educational community at the time. Parents and Deaf students were left with no freedom to choose the program until the child entered 6th or 7th grade, at which point they could either continue in the oral department or transition to the simultaneous communication department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Paper, 1970s; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
The placement of transferred students in the signing program labeled them as 'oral failures' (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). There was a discussion about the age at which students can transfer to a simultaneous communication program. According to the 'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Program Book, 1976,' this would be when they were 10–12 years old or entered sixth grade. However, according to the Utah Eagle's February 1968 issue, students must remain in the oral program for the first six years of school, which may be in the 6th or 7th grade. So, I am using between the 6th and 7th grades, rather than based on their age. Their birth date, progression, and other factors could determine their placement. This system had profound and lasting effects on the academic and social development of Deaf students, which should be considered in any evaluation of its impact.
The placement of transferred students in the signing program labeled them as 'oral failures' (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). There was a discussion about the age at which students can transfer to a simultaneous communication program. According to the 'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Program Book, 1976,' this would be when they were 10–12 years old or entered sixth grade. However, according to the Utah Eagle's February 1968 issue, students must remain in the oral program for the first six years of school, which may be in the 6th or 7th grade. So, I am using between the 6th and 7th grades, rather than based on their age. Their birth date, progression, and other factors could determine their placement. This system had profound and lasting effects on the academic and social development of Deaf students, which should be considered in any evaluation of its impact.
The "Y" System of the Dual-Track Program Starting in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
The implementation of the 'Y' system had a profound impact on the Utah School for the Deaf, leading to significant changes. The school had to hire more oral teachers and establish speech as the primary mode of communication, marking a significant shift in the school's approach. The dual-track program initially placed all elementary school students in the oral department, transferring them to the simultaneous communication department only if they failed in the oral program. This approach was based on the belief that early development of oral skills was crucial for Deaf students, with sign language learning considered a secondary focus. The change in focus and the increased hiring of oral teachers had a significant impact on the school's learning environment, altering its dynamics and atmosphere (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
The Utah School for the Deaf has utilized a combined method in its classrooms since 1902. This method included a mix of manual signing, speech, and listening until the 1950s. The establishment of more extension classrooms highlighted parents' desire for their children to enhance their speaking and listening skills. As a result, signing was prohibited in oral classes. This restriction applied to Deaf students until the ninth grade, but they were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Elementary school students received basic instruction in speaking skills from hearing teachers, while Deaf high school students received instruction exclusively from Deaf teachers (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
The dual-track program shifted its approach for prospective teachers from sign language to the oral method, prioritizing speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
The Utah School for the Deaf has utilized a combined method in its classrooms since 1902. This method included a mix of manual signing, speech, and listening until the 1950s. The establishment of more extension classrooms highlighted parents' desire for their children to enhance their speaking and listening skills. As a result, signing was prohibited in oral classes. This restriction applied to Deaf students until the ninth grade, but they were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Elementary school students received basic instruction in speaking skills from hearing teachers, while Deaf high school students received instruction exclusively from Deaf teachers (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
The dual-track program shifted its approach for prospective teachers from sign language to the oral method, prioritizing speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
Speech training at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The 'Y' system, used as a decision-making tool, played a crucial role in determining a student's educational placement in the dual-track program. Its influence on Deaf education was profound. For instance, in the oral department, a Deaf student would progress from preschool to sixth grade. After that, a committee would evaluate the student's speaking ability, school performance, test results, and family environment to decide whether to continue in the oral program or transfer to the simultaneous communication program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Regardless of whether they studied on the Ogden campus or in the Extension Division classrooms, established in 1959 to promote mainstreaming for Deaf children, the program expected all Deaf children to enroll in the entire oral department (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970; The Utah Eagle, February 1968). As a result, the Salt Lake Extension Program became almost as big as Ogden's residential school. Unfortunately, these regulatory changes had a detrimental impact on Ogden's residential school for many years, raising concerns about the future of Deaf education.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 24, 1974
At the time, teachers were required to obtain a bachelor's degree in Deaf education from an accredited teacher center and receive certification. Teachers who taught simultaneous communication also needed to be proficient in sign language (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The new 'Y' policy at the Utah School for the Deaf resulted in a sudden shortage of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962). To fill this gap, the Utah School for the Deaf employed the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, an 'army of oral teachers.' Gallaudet College guided teachers in the simultaneous communication department, whereas the University of Utah assisted teachers in the oral department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Dr. Bitter is likely to get the idea for the new policy from his internship at the Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school in New York, during his master's degree studies (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The shortage of oral teachers and the subsequent employment of the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program significantly altered the school's teaching staff and methods, reflecting the broader changes in the school's approach to Deaf education. This adaptability of the training programs reassured the educational community about the resilience of the system in the face of challenges.
The new 'Y' policy at the Utah School for the Deaf resulted in a sudden shortage of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962). To fill this gap, the Utah School for the Deaf employed the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, an 'army of oral teachers.' Gallaudet College guided teachers in the simultaneous communication department, whereas the University of Utah assisted teachers in the oral department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Dr. Bitter is likely to get the idea for the new policy from his internship at the Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school in New York, during his master's degree studies (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The shortage of oral teachers and the subsequent employment of the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program significantly altered the school's teaching staff and methods, reflecting the broader changes in the school's approach to Deaf education. This adaptability of the training programs reassured the educational community about the resilience of the system in the face of challenges.
The Effects of the Dual-Track and
Two-Track Programs on the Kinner Family
Two-Track Programs on the Kinner Family
This section describes Kenneth L. Kinner's experiences as a 1954 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and how it affected the family. Kenneth had a Deaf daughter named Deanne, who was born in 1961, a year before the implementation of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Kenneth's firsthand experience with the new dual-track program, which began in the fall of 1962, required his daughter to start the oral program at four and a half in 1965, despite her first language being American Sign Language (ASL). This program aimed solely at teaching speech skills, which forced parents like Kenneth and his wife, Ilene Coles, a 1959 graduate who preferred sign language, to enroll their children in it. Students who were unable to learn how to speak were eventually enrolled in the simultaneous communication department, a part of the dual-track program that focused on teaching both sign language and speech. However, in the "Y" system channel, a policy mandated that parents wait until their child completed their first six years of education or was 12 years old to enroll in sign language education in the simultaneous communication department, preventing Deanne from switching to the program she wanted until she turned 12. The oral program's goal was to enable all students to excel in their oral abilities, marking the start of a new war against the system (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Deanne shared that she had wanted to switch to the simultaneous communication program during her childhood, but due to the "Y" policy, her father kept telling her that he could not transfer her until she turned 12. Only after reaching this age could she finally switch to the program she desired (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
One incident in the oral program was that while a substitute oral teacher was writing on the blackboard and talking, Deanne, who was seven, was reading from the textbook. She could hear constant sounds with her hearing aid, but she couldn't read lips from the back of the teacher's head. Often, Deanne would read from the book and then answer the teacher's questions. However, this time, the teacher kept calling her name while she was looking down and reading. Typically, she couldn't identify the caller due to the continuous background noise. After repeatedly calling her name, the teacher hit her with a stick and asked, "Why didn't you hear me when I called your name?" Deanne was stunned, but she remained calm until recess. Once outside, she hurriedly walked to her father's workplace, showing her arm to him while crying. His boss saw her crying and instructed her father to take her to school, where Ken reported the incident. The school apologized (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024). This incident nonetheless prompted a need for change.
One incident in the oral program was that while a substitute oral teacher was writing on the blackboard and talking, Deanne, who was seven, was reading from the textbook. She could hear constant sounds with her hearing aid, but she couldn't read lips from the back of the teacher's head. Often, Deanne would read from the book and then answer the teacher's questions. However, this time, the teacher kept calling her name while she was looking down and reading. Typically, she couldn't identify the caller due to the continuous background noise. After repeatedly calling her name, the teacher hit her with a stick and asked, "Why didn't you hear me when I called your name?" Deanne was stunned, but she remained calm until recess. Once outside, she hurriedly walked to her father's workplace, showing her arm to him while crying. His boss saw her crying and instructed her father to take her to school, where Ken reported the incident. The school apologized (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024). This incident nonetheless prompted a need for change.
Deanne, Kenneth, Illene, and Duane (center) Kinner, 1976
After nearly ten years of battle, the newly formed "two-track program" replaced the dual-track system in 1970, thereby eliminating the "Y" system. The two-track system allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf child aged between 2½ and 21. This new two-track approach allowed their Deaf son, Duane, who was 11 years younger than Deanne, to enter the total communication program at the age of three in 1975 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
When Deanne was ten years old, her parents quickly removed her from the oral program in the fall of 1971, under the new two-track system, and placed her in the total communication program. This change in the educational system was considered a big step forward. Testing revealed that Deanne, who had grown up with language access at home, was at or above the academic level. Despite being placed with middle-and-high-school-aged kids who were performing below academic level, she persevered. Her friends, who had hearing parents, remained in the oral program. Deanne, the youngest student in the total communication program, found herself placed with the 15, 16, and 17 year-old students who had been deprived of language in the oral program. This environment had a profound impact on her emotional, social, and educational growth. She was exposed to inappropriate information for her age and was forced to mature and persevere quickly in the two-track program, a challenge that she faced with remarkable strength.
Although Duane grew up with total communication and was free to communicate in ASL, the trend toward mainstreaming grew, and enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf declined. With Deanne's encouragement, using her trauma from childhood experiences as evidence, she helped convince her parents to transfer Duane to the Idaho School for the Deaf in 1987. Duane thrived in this new environment, benefiting from a better education and access to peers who were his age. Furthermore, several of his age group classmates from the Utah School for the Deaf transferred out of state to attend residential schools across the United States, where they were able to get better education, social opportunities, extracurricular activities, and so on (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
It is important to acknowledge the challenges that Deaf students and their families encounter when advocating for their right to access educational opportunities that meet their academic and social needs. These challenges often involve navigating complex educational systems, promoting the use of effective communication methods, and ensuring access to suitable learning environments. More details about the two-track program and the challenges it presented can be found further down the webpage.
When Deanne was ten years old, her parents quickly removed her from the oral program in the fall of 1971, under the new two-track system, and placed her in the total communication program. This change in the educational system was considered a big step forward. Testing revealed that Deanne, who had grown up with language access at home, was at or above the academic level. Despite being placed with middle-and-high-school-aged kids who were performing below academic level, she persevered. Her friends, who had hearing parents, remained in the oral program. Deanne, the youngest student in the total communication program, found herself placed with the 15, 16, and 17 year-old students who had been deprived of language in the oral program. This environment had a profound impact on her emotional, social, and educational growth. She was exposed to inappropriate information for her age and was forced to mature and persevere quickly in the two-track program, a challenge that she faced with remarkable strength.
Although Duane grew up with total communication and was free to communicate in ASL, the trend toward mainstreaming grew, and enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf declined. With Deanne's encouragement, using her trauma from childhood experiences as evidence, she helped convince her parents to transfer Duane to the Idaho School for the Deaf in 1987. Duane thrived in this new environment, benefiting from a better education and access to peers who were his age. Furthermore, several of his age group classmates from the Utah School for the Deaf transferred out of state to attend residential schools across the United States, where they were able to get better education, social opportunities, extracurricular activities, and so on (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
It is important to acknowledge the challenges that Deaf students and their families encounter when advocating for their right to access educational opportunities that meet their academic and social needs. These challenges often involve navigating complex educational systems, promoting the use of effective communication methods, and ensuring access to suitable learning environments. More details about the two-track program and the challenges it presented can be found further down the webpage.
The Main Building
of the Utah School for the Deaf
of the Utah School for the Deaf
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the dual-track program in the Main Building, known as the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the oral and simultaneous communication departments in separate wings. As shown in the picture above, the oral department was on the left, while the simultaneous communication department was on the right. Sources: Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the
dual-track program in the Main Building, known as
the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main
Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the
oral and simultaneous communication departments
in separate wings. As shown in the picture above,
the oral department was on the left, while the
simultaneous communication department was on the right (Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
dual-track program in the Main Building, known as
the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main
Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the
oral and simultaneous communication departments
in separate wings. As shown in the picture above,
the oral department was on the left, while the
simultaneous communication department was on the right (Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The Student Protest of 1962 at the Utah School for the Deaf
On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the implementation of a dual-track program, which resulted in the division of the Ogden campus into two distinct departments during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). This dual-track program was designed to offer a more customized education for Deaf students, with one track emphasizing oral communication and the other focused on sign language. It also divided Ogden's residential campus into an oral department and a simultaneous communication department, each with its own classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities. The school prohibited interaction between oral and sign language students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). However, due to low student enrollment in competitive sports, the athletic program combined both departments. The team had oral and sign language coaches to communicate with their respective students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This unique situation highlights the challenges and complexities of implementing the dual-track program.
During the 1962–63 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented changes without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were shocked to discover these changes. The dual-track program at Ogden's residential campus introduced drawbacks due to the strict social segregation environment. The oral program prohibited Deaf students from interacting with their peers in the signing department, resulting in significantly limited social interaction. Consequently, friends in different programs were unable to see one another during class or recess. One notable example of the program's damaging effects was the school's decision to separate a high school couple, causing profound emotional trauma for the students involved. The new social segregation policy under the dual-track program caused profound emotional and mental trauma for many students, highlighting the human cost of the policy.
These changes also caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).
The dual-track program's 'Y' segregation system, which separated students who used spoken language from those who used sign language, led to significant dissatisfaction and prompted protests. High school students voiced their concerns about this system, but the administration dismissed their objections. Students organized strikes in 1962 and again in 1969 to oppose the new dual-track policy. Their passionate protests highlighted their belief that the system created a 'wall' preventing interaction between oral and sign language students, a belief that underscored their strong sense of injustice. Despite the intensity of their arguments, the school administration continued the dual-track policy, ignoring the students' concerns.
During the 1962–63 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented changes without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were shocked to discover these changes. The dual-track program at Ogden's residential campus introduced drawbacks due to the strict social segregation environment. The oral program prohibited Deaf students from interacting with their peers in the signing department, resulting in significantly limited social interaction. Consequently, friends in different programs were unable to see one another during class or recess. One notable example of the program's damaging effects was the school's decision to separate a high school couple, causing profound emotional trauma for the students involved. The new social segregation policy under the dual-track program caused profound emotional and mental trauma for many students, highlighting the human cost of the policy.
These changes also caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).
The dual-track program's 'Y' segregation system, which separated students who used spoken language from those who used sign language, led to significant dissatisfaction and prompted protests. High school students voiced their concerns about this system, but the administration dismissed their objections. Students organized strikes in 1962 and again in 1969 to oppose the new dual-track policy. Their passionate protests highlighted their belief that the system created a 'wall' preventing interaction between oral and sign language students, a belief that underscored their strong sense of injustice. Despite the intensity of their arguments, the school administration continued the dual-track policy, ignoring the students' concerns.
Barbara Schell Bass. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Over half of the high school students staged a strike on the third Friday of September 14, 1962, a significant date in the history of the Utah School for the Deaf, over the social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus. Johnny P. Murray, a senior, was the leader protesting against the segregation policy. He recalled a strange visit from Tony Christopulos, who was the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, an oral advocate, and one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter, a key figure in the implementation of the dual-track program, was a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf at the time. Tony visited Johnny's home just before the start of the school year and asked his parents if they wanted their son to join the oral program. After Tony left, Johnny's parents asked him whether he wanted to enroll in the oral program. Johnny replied with a clear 'No' (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny finally understood the reason behind the odd visit on the first day of school. The school administration had recently introduced a new policy called 'Y,' which allowed parents of older students attending the Utah School for the Deaf to choose their child's placement. The administration contacted all parents to learn about their placement preferences. However, the 'Y' policy, which seemingly offered a choice, was actually a tool for the administration to push more students into the oral program, thereby promoting social segregation. This was a significant concern for the students, as it could potentially lead to the loss of their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny finally understood the reason behind the odd visit on the first day of school. The school administration had recently introduced a new policy called 'Y,' which allowed parents of older students attending the Utah School for the Deaf to choose their child's placement. The administration contacted all parents to learn about their placement preferences. However, the 'Y' policy, which seemingly offered a choice, was actually a tool for the administration to push more students into the oral program, thereby promoting social segregation. This was a significant concern for the students, as it could potentially lead to the loss of their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny P. Murray
The students were worried about the dual-track program and its potential effects. They were especially concerned about possibly losing their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers. These teachers included Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett, father of Ronald Burdett, sophomore, and Dora B. Laramie, mother of Celia May "C.M." Laramie Baldwin, also sophomore (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Deaf teachers of the Utah School for the Deaf
Johnny P. Murray, a senior, president of the Student Council, and strike leader, organized a protest against the policy of segregating oral and sign language. He rallied twenty-five high school students from the simultaneous communication program to join this cause. They dedicated a week to preparation, creating posters with messages such as "Strike," "Unfair," and "Listen to Us," using shoe polish on wooden sticks (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024).
On the morning of Friday, September 14, 1962, after attending a seminary class taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and key figure in the Utah Deaf community (who was unaware of their protest plans), the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their signs. At 8:30 a.m., they marched through the hallways of the Main Building, demonstrating their unity and determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The Deaf teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were taken by surprise by the protest (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024). Ronald C. Burdett noticed his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiling subtly during the protest, indicating his understanding of the demonstration's purpose. However, Kenneth was hesitant to fully support the protest due to concerns about its potential impact on his job (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
On the morning of Friday, September 14, 1962, after attending a seminary class taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and key figure in the Utah Deaf community (who was unaware of their protest plans), the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their signs. At 8:30 a.m., they marched through the hallways of the Main Building, demonstrating their unity and determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The Deaf teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were taken by surprise by the protest (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024). Ronald C. Burdett noticed his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiling subtly during the protest, indicating his understanding of the demonstration's purpose. However, Kenneth was hesitant to fully support the protest due to concerns about its potential impact on his job (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
Kenneth C. Burdett
|
Ronald C. Burdett
|
The hearing teachers were particularly shocked and dismayed by the students' decision to strike in support of their cause, creating a tense atmosphere. They believed the students were being foolish for going on strike. Thomas Van Drimmelen, one of the teachers, was particularly unsettled. In a moment of frustration, he lunged forward, attempting to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. Just as tensions escalated, Celia's mother, Dora Bonoit Laramie, intervened and shouted, "Don't touch C.M.!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). This moment highlighted the students' bravery and commitment to their beliefs, inspiring everyone around them.
Dora Bonoit Laramie
|
Celia May Laramie Baldwin
|
Thomas Van Drimmelen
The Ogden Standard-Examiner reported that by noon on September 14, 1962, the whereabouts of some students were unknown. While marching from the Utah School for the Deaf campus to Lorin Farr Park, two teachers searched for them. The students had hidden behind trees as the teachers' car passed by to avoid being discovered. They discussed going to a movie theater but found it was closed at 10 a.m. Instead, they went to Ronald Burdett's backyard to relax and hang out. Feeling hungry, they pooled their money and sent someone to the nearby grocery store at 26th and Quincy Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their lunch (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
When Kenneth Burdett returned home from work, he was surprised to find the students there. Concerned for their safety and worried about the potential loss of his job, he quickly took them back to the Utah School for the Deaf. After that, the students returned to their homes for the weekend (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
When Kenneth Burdett returned home from work, he was surprised to find the students there. Concerned for their safety and worried about the potential loss of his job, he quickly took them back to the Utah School for the Deaf. After that, the students returned to their homes for the weekend (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
Seniors
Juniors
Sophomores
'Students of the Utah School for the Deaf on strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962
Tony Christopoulos, the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, suggested in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the recent student protest was initiated by unhappy parents. He stated that these parents had influenced their children's decision to strike. Furthermore, Tony clarified that only the Deaf students in the simultaneous communication department were dissatisfied with the changes, while the fifty-two Deaf students in the oral department did not participate in the protest (Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962). The simultaneous communication students protested independently to express their wish to stay united as they had been before the changes.
Tony Christopulos. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
'Dissatisfied students of the Utah School for the Deaf ended the strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 15, 1962
On Monday, September 17, 1962, Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder arranged a meeting with students to discuss the strike. During the meeting, Superintendent Tegeder, torn between his duty and personal beliefs, asked the students why they went on strike. The students, with a courage that would inspire generations to come, questioned the existence of two departments on campus and the disparity in the number of students enrolled in each department, as quoted: "Why do we have two departments on campus?" and "Why does the oral department have more students than the simultaneous communication department?" Despite his disagreement with the changes, he had to support the new policy. He couldn't think of any other response except saying, "Oh well!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder highlighted in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the walkout of twenty-five students at the Utah School for the Deaf was not only an act of defiance but also a strong statement of their needs. The students, who felt limited in their social interactions and dissatisfied with the school's separate facilities, decided to take matters into their own hands. Their bravery in standing up for their rights is truly inspiring. They yearned for more social interaction with the fifty-two other students in the oral program and expressed unhappiness with the separation of the classrooms, dormitory rooms, and playground areas. Superintendent Tegeder shared their feelings and admitted, "I'm dissatisfied with many of these myself." He further explained that some students had been living in dorms together for eight years, and the new teaching program forced them to separate from their old friends, which had taken an emotional toll on them (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder highlighted in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the walkout of twenty-five students at the Utah School for the Deaf was not only an act of defiance but also a strong statement of their needs. The students, who felt limited in their social interactions and dissatisfied with the school's separate facilities, decided to take matters into their own hands. Their bravery in standing up for their rights is truly inspiring. They yearned for more social interaction with the fifty-two other students in the oral program and expressed unhappiness with the separation of the classrooms, dormitory rooms, and playground areas. Superintendent Tegeder shared their feelings and admitted, "I'm dissatisfied with many of these myself." He further explained that some students had been living in dorms together for eight years, and the new teaching program forced them to separate from their old friends, which had taken an emotional toll on them (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
Nellie Sausedo
Nellie Sausedo, a junior and one of the protestors, recalled when she and some students protested against the school's policy of segregating them into dormitories, dining rooms, and classes such as physical education, cooking, sewing, printing, and school events. The students disliked this separation and longed for the days when everyone could be in the same room. Their determination to fight against the signing restrictions and the unacceptable segregation system was unwavering. Nellie, one of the protesters, expressed that "No one listened" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). Despite the students' intervention efforts, the school administration continued to implement the dual-track policy.
Regardless of the circumstances, Johnny P. Murray made significant contributions during his time at the school. He had the courage to lead a united student strike challenging the segregation policy between oral and sign language. We appreciate his bravery and the difference he made. After his passing in 2024, his life has left an indelible mark on our community.
After implementing the dual-track program and concluding a student protest, Tony Christopulos asked high school Deaf students from the simultaneous communication program to promote unity and acceptance in light of the new 'Y' system changes. The 'Y' system changes refer to a shift in educational approach, encouraging students to integrate into the hearing world. During the meeting, Tony used a chalkboard to illustrate the concepts of the 'Deaf World' and the 'Hearing World.' He warned students against isolating themselves in the Deaf World, which he marked with an X. Instead, he emphasized the importance of integrating into the Hearing World, which he circled (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Tony's college education, which focused heavily on oral instruction, shaped his perspective on integrating Deaf students into the hearing world.
Following the 1962 protest against social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a steadfast advocate for oral and mainstream education, and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education conducted an investigation but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). In the face of societal segregation, the simultaneous communication students demonstrated their unwavering determination and courage by staging their protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The implementation of the dual-track program marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Regardless of the circumstances, Johnny P. Murray made significant contributions during his time at the school. He had the courage to lead a united student strike challenging the segregation policy between oral and sign language. We appreciate his bravery and the difference he made. After his passing in 2024, his life has left an indelible mark on our community.
After implementing the dual-track program and concluding a student protest, Tony Christopulos asked high school Deaf students from the simultaneous communication program to promote unity and acceptance in light of the new 'Y' system changes. The 'Y' system changes refer to a shift in educational approach, encouraging students to integrate into the hearing world. During the meeting, Tony used a chalkboard to illustrate the concepts of the 'Deaf World' and the 'Hearing World.' He warned students against isolating themselves in the Deaf World, which he marked with an X. Instead, he emphasized the importance of integrating into the Hearing World, which he circled (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Tony's college education, which focused heavily on oral instruction, shaped his perspective on integrating Deaf students into the hearing world.
Following the 1962 protest against social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a steadfast advocate for oral and mainstream education, and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education conducted an investigation but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). In the face of societal segregation, the simultaneous communication students demonstrated their unwavering determination and courage by staging their protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The implementation of the dual-track program marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Did You Know?
In 1959, 97% of the teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (Christopulos, The Utah Eagle, November 1960).
Utah Association of the Deaf Meets Wilburn N. Ball,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
During a student protest and a change in policy at the Utah School for the Deaf, a group of officers and members from the Utah Association of the Deaf, each with their own unique expertise, became concerned about the urgent need to address the implementation of an oral philosophy in classrooms. The group, which included Robert G. Sanderson, G. Leon Curtis, Ned C. Wheeler, Robert L. Welsh, W. David Mortensen, Joseph B. Burnett, Kenneth L. Kinner, and Gladys Burnham Wenger, who was hard-of-hearing and served as an interpreter, believed it was important to address these concerns with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. They requested that the changes already taking place in the Utah School for the Deaf be reconsidered and emphatically stressed the importance of sign language for Deaf children.
Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. Source: Utahn, 1961
The group expressed their dissatisfaction with the dual-track program, which began with all children participating in the oral program. They disagreed with this approach and remained committed to maintaining a signing atmosphere on campus, as it is crucial for preserving Deaf culture. They wanted to convey their concerns to Dr. Wilburn.
In response, Dr. Wilburn presented a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He randomly selected one and began reading it aloud. The letter from the parent expressed a desire to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program. Although the UAD officers were surprised by this perspective, they remained steadfast in their goal of preserving the signing atmosphere.
It was later revealed that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf had encouraged parents to write letters to State Superintendent Wilburn, expressing their support for the new 'Y' system policy. Administrators who favored oral education strongly defended the changes made at Ogden's residential campus. Unfortunately, the Utah Association of the Deaf found itself in a challenging position, as parents overwhelmingly preferred oral education for their Deaf children (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Despite this, the Utah Association of the Deaf remained steadfast, demonstrating their commitment to advocating for the best education for Deaf children and reassuring all stakeholders about the future of Deaf education.
In response, Dr. Wilburn presented a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He randomly selected one and began reading it aloud. The letter from the parent expressed a desire to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program. Although the UAD officers were surprised by this perspective, they remained steadfast in their goal of preserving the signing atmosphere.
It was later revealed that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf had encouraged parents to write letters to State Superintendent Wilburn, expressing their support for the new 'Y' system policy. Administrators who favored oral education strongly defended the changes made at Ogden's residential campus. Unfortunately, the Utah Association of the Deaf found itself in a challenging position, as parents overwhelmingly preferred oral education for their Deaf children (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Despite this, the Utah Association of the Deaf remained steadfast, demonstrating their commitment to advocating for the best education for Deaf children and reassuring all stakeholders about the future of Deaf education.
Officers & Members
of the Utah Association of the Deaf
of the Utah Association of the Deaf
Robert G. Sanderson
|
Ned C. Wheeler
|
Joseph B. Burnett
|
W. David Mortensen
|
G. Leon Curtis
|
Robert L. Welsh
|
Kenneth L. Kinner
|
Gladys Burnham Wenger
|
Limited Educational Choices
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The educational journey for Deaf children in the Salt Lake area was challenging. Oral day schools were available for those who wanted their children to learn to speak and use hearing aids. However, families who preferred simultaneous communication had limited options. All children were placed in the oral program until 6th or 7th grade, regardless of their speaking and hearing ability or limitation. After that, parents could enroll their children in the residential school in Ogden for the simultaneous communication program, regardless of their location. This often meant that the child had to live away from home, which was distressing for many parents. The only alternative was to withdraw the children from their current school and enroll them in a public school. However, this decision often resulted in the denial of requests for a sign language interpreter. This limited choice, particularly the lack of sign language interpreters, significantly affected the children's education and overall well-being (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The educators who worked with Deaf students in the 1960s were deeply dedicated to their cause. They believed that English proficiency was crucial for success in a hearing world. With the best intentions, they advocated for an oral approach focused on training students' speech and listening skills. However, they overlooked the potential of sign language as a tool for teaching English to Deaf students. Additionally, their methods were not always practical or effective, and they did not realize their approach could be oppressive or discriminatory. This oversight also led to an increasing number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities taking over Ogden's residential school to meet their needs (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
During this time, oral day schools often accepted Deaf students with average abilities to assess their potential for oral skills. These schools believed that early training in these skills was crucial. However, the lengthy process of evaluating their oral abilities, which took around eight years, led to identifying some students who struggled with speaking much later, typically in 6th or 7th grade. This struggle with speaking, a fundamental skill for communication, was a significant challenge for these students. By this time, they had already been labeled as 'oral failures' before being placed in a signing program. Unfortunately, the advocates of the 'Y' System, a dual-track program that aimed to teach oral and sign language separately, did not consider the lost time, which resulted in students missing out on critical early years of language learning essential for brain development. When these students entered middle school, their lack of exposure to sign language left them language-deprived, placing them at a significant disadvantage that impacted their overall educational experience. This unintended consequence of the 'Y' System's approach underscores the systemic issues present in Deaf education and the urgent need for change.
The educators who worked with Deaf students in the 1960s were deeply dedicated to their cause. They believed that English proficiency was crucial for success in a hearing world. With the best intentions, they advocated for an oral approach focused on training students' speech and listening skills. However, they overlooked the potential of sign language as a tool for teaching English to Deaf students. Additionally, their methods were not always practical or effective, and they did not realize their approach could be oppressive or discriminatory. This oversight also led to an increasing number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities taking over Ogden's residential school to meet their needs (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
During this time, oral day schools often accepted Deaf students with average abilities to assess their potential for oral skills. These schools believed that early training in these skills was crucial. However, the lengthy process of evaluating their oral abilities, which took around eight years, led to identifying some students who struggled with speaking much later, typically in 6th or 7th grade. This struggle with speaking, a fundamental skill for communication, was a significant challenge for these students. By this time, they had already been labeled as 'oral failures' before being placed in a signing program. Unfortunately, the advocates of the 'Y' System, a dual-track program that aimed to teach oral and sign language separately, did not consider the lost time, which resulted in students missing out on critical early years of language learning essential for brain development. When these students entered middle school, their lack of exposure to sign language left them language-deprived, placing them at a significant disadvantage that impacted their overall educational experience. This unintended consequence of the 'Y' System's approach underscores the systemic issues present in Deaf education and the urgent need for change.
J. Boyd Nielson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1969
Oral educators believed it was never too late for a Deaf teenager to learn sign language. They assumed these teenagers could quickly pick it up in middle school after transferring out of the oral program. However, this assumption proved to be incorrect. Oral advocates promoted this view to maintain a positive public image. Unfortunately, Deaf students had limited opportunities to achieve true linguistic proficiency. By postponing sign language instruction until middle school, those labeled as "oral failures" were required to learn an oral-spoken language first. As a result, their natural language—sign language—was neglected, hindering their ability to reach their academic potential.
The most tragic aspect is that no one sought to understand the reasons behind their academic struggles. The prevailing assumption was that Deaf students lacked intelligence, but the educational system's flawed approach led to their failure. The personal stories of Deaf students highlight the human impact of this misguided system—a tragedy that must be addressed.
The most tragic aspect is that no one sought to understand the reasons behind their academic struggles. The prevailing assumption was that Deaf students lacked intelligence, but the educational system's flawed approach led to their failure. The personal stories of Deaf students highlight the human impact of this misguided system—a tragedy that must be addressed.
Kenneth C. Burdett teaching math, 1960
Principal Tony Christopulos, a key figure in the educational system, played a pivotal role in shaping the educational system. He appointed Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 Utah School for the Deaf graduate and a respected member of the Utah Deaf community, as the curriculum coordinator for the simultaneous communication department. Another key figure, J. Boyd Nielsen, who advocated for oral education, held a similar position in the oral department and was one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter himself was a significant figure in Deaf education and played a vital role in shaping the educational framework of that era.
Kenneth identified a flaw in the 'Y' educational system, which consisted of a dual-track program designed to teach oral and sign language separately. This system allowed students to choose their preferred mode of communication after completing either 6th or 7th grade. However, this approach had unintended consequences. After the implementation of the 'Y' system, Kenneth found himself unable to assist the most promising students in achieving their academic goals. Instead, he ended up focusing on helping those who had struggled and failed in the oral program. Unfortunately, the Deaf students, who were already below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate, needed his support the most. These students faced significant challenges in communicating in both English and sign language due to their limited proficiency in either language (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009). This situation suggested that the structure of the school's 'Y' system was fundamentally detrimental to the students' success.
Kenneth identified a flaw in the 'Y' educational system, which consisted of a dual-track program designed to teach oral and sign language separately. This system allowed students to choose their preferred mode of communication after completing either 6th or 7th grade. However, this approach had unintended consequences. After the implementation of the 'Y' system, Kenneth found himself unable to assist the most promising students in achieving their academic goals. Instead, he ended up focusing on helping those who had struggled and failed in the oral program. Unfortunately, the Deaf students, who were already below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate, needed his support the most. These students faced significant challenges in communicating in both English and sign language due to their limited proficiency in either language (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009). This situation suggested that the structure of the school's 'Y' system was fundamentally detrimental to the students' success.
Did You Know?
In 2005, the Utah School for the Deaf held its reunion at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. During the event, Ronald "Ron" Burdett and Celia May Laramie Baldwin discussed the 1962 student strike, a significant event that had a profound and lasting impact on the school's history. They shared their experiences with the alums in attendance. At the time of the strike, the teachers were unaware of Johnny P. Murray's role as the leader, as the students had chosen not to reveal their identities. Duane Harrison, a retired hearing teacher from the Utah School for the Deaf, learned about Ron's announcement during the reunion and remarked, "Now I know who started the strike" (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, September 2007).
Duane Harrison
*****
The Videos of the
1962 Student Protest
1962 Student Protest
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program policy that prohibited students who communicated orally from interacting with those who used sign language. We have included videos of former students from the school who protested against this segregation system on the Ogden's residential campus. It's important to acknowledge that participants' memories may vary due to the passage of time. They shared their stories as they remember them, which has helped us understand and appreciate their compelling experiences.
Your story has the power to inspire and educate others. We would love to hear from you if you were a protester in 1962 or 1969. If you have any videos of yourself from that time, please email them to me at [email protected]. Additionally, I would be happy to record a video of you recounting your experience as a protester. Thank you for considering sharing your impactful story with us.
Your story has the power to inspire and educate others. We would love to hear from you if you were a protester in 1962 or 1969. If you have any videos of yourself from that time, please email them to me at [email protected]. Additionally, I would be happy to record a video of you recounting your experience as a protester. Thank you for considering sharing your impactful story with us.
In 1962, Ronald C. Burdett, a 1965 graduate,
participated in a student strike with other high school
students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
participated in a student strike with other high school
students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
Standing is Wallace Bruce, an oral teacher with students, Ronald C. Burdett (left) and Thomas Rulon Osmond (right), listening to the music, 1959
Celia May Laramie Baldwin, a 1965 graduate
of the Utah School for the Deaf, participated in a
student strike with other high school students in 1962.
of the Utah School for the Deaf, participated in a
student strike with other high school students in 1962.
Celia May Laramie Baldwin, age 4 in 1951. 'U' Workshop Brings Hopes. Source: Newspaper unknown
Nelle Sausedo, a 1967 graduate of the
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.
Nellie Sausedo. Source: The Utah Eagle, November 1977
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Nellie Sausedo, a remarkable individual who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1967. Her contribution to this webpage is truly invaluable, as she shared her personal experience of the 1962 student strike at the school. Her story gave us a unique perspective on establishing the dual-track program, which divided the oral and sign language departments. Nellie was known for having an "elephant mind," and her enthusiasm for sharing stories about the school and its impact on students like herself is truly inspiring. If it weren't for her, this webpage would not have happened. Nellie, we are immensely grateful to you for playing a significant role in preserving and sharing this important story. Thank you so much, Nellie!
Did You Know?
When the Utah School for the Deaf split its educational program into two groups—oral and simultaneous communication—it resulted in traumatic experiences for students like Rosa Marie Flores Rathbun. Rosa Marie Flores Rathbun was not the only one to experience separation from her classmates and friends. The students were confused about the school's decision. Rosa believed that the division was based on how skilled or inept the children were perceived to be.
Rosa became a Deaf Mentor in October 1993. As an adult reflecting on her past, she wished that the Deaf Mentor Program had existed earlier. She believed that such a program would have alleviated the pain and frustration caused by the program's division.
Through her work mentoring hearing parents, Rosa realized how much guidance and support these parents need to feel comfortable with their Deaf children. Deaf Mentors play a crucial role in teaching parents how to communicate with their children from a very young age (Rathbun, UAD Bulletin, December 1994).
Rosa became a Deaf Mentor in October 1993. As an adult reflecting on her past, she wished that the Deaf Mentor Program had existed earlier. She believed that such a program would have alleviated the pain and frustration caused by the program's division.
Through her work mentoring hearing parents, Rosa realized how much guidance and support these parents need to feel comfortable with their Deaf children. Deaf Mentors play a crucial role in teaching parents how to communicate with their children from a very young age (Rathbun, UAD Bulletin, December 1994).
Rosa Marie Flores Rathbum
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing information about the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the impact of the "Y" system. As the father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, his first-hand experience within the system was a valuable source of information. While documenting historical events, I became fascinated by the segregation programs at Ogden's residential campus and explored them further; however, I could not find any documents that validated the existence of the "Y" system that Ken had mentioned. My search led me to Dr. Grant B. Bitter's papers that he donated to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His paper played a crucial role in validating the existence of the "Y" system, shedding light on a previously unknown aspect of Deaf education history. One of his papers stated, "Thus there would be a true dual system rather than the present 'Y' system that forces all parents to place their children under oral programs until the 6th grade or 7th grade year." The date on which Dr. Bitter wrote his paper about this program is unknown. It appears that Dr. Bitter penned his paper in the early 1970s to prepare for the meeting that followed the replacement of the dual-track program with a two-track program, which eliminated the "Y" system in 1970. So, I'm grateful to Ken for telling me about the "Y" system and how it affected many families. Otherwise, we would not have known about it or understood what "Y" means when we ran across Dr. Bitter's paper.
Kenneth L. Kinner
When Steven W. Noyce became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in 2009, his support for oral and mainstream education raised concerns within the Utah Deaf community. As a parent of Deaf children, I was worried that Superintendent Noyce would carry on Dr. Grant B. Bitter's legacy by promoting oral education and mainstreaming all Deaf children in Utah. I raised this issue with Steven Noyce and Associate Superintendent Jennifer Howell in a letter on November 3, 2009. I knew that Steven, a former student of Dr. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and a longtime employee at the Utah School for the Deaf, was well aware of the controversy between the oral and sign language approaches. To protect the ASL/English bilingual program, I detailed Dr. Grant B. Bitter's controversial history of oral and mainstreaming advocacy, as well as the profound impact of the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. I recommended providing an equal balance between the Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English bilingual options for families of Deaf children, emphasizing the importance of this balanced approach in ensuring the best education for our children. I also requested preventive measures to avoid similar issues resurfacing. Steven acknowledged the accuracy of the information and said, "This is the most accurate paper I have ever read." This acknowledgment of the paper's credibility underscores the importance of our advocacy efforts. I owe a debt of gratitude to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing this crucial history with me. His insights and knowledge have proven invaluable in our advocacy efforts for Deaf education. Without his help, we would not have been able to oppose the oral agenda. Thank you, Ken!
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's paper. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah
*****
Students' Successes Among Those Who Used Sign Language
During a time of significant change, Celia May Laramie and Ronald C. Burdett were finishing their junior year at the Utah School for the Deaf. Both Celia May and Ronald were curious about Gallaudet College, so they attended its 100th reunion in 1964. Gallaudet is the only liberal arts university for the Deaf in the United States. After their visit, they were enthusiastic about the prospect of attending college (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). They enrolled in a college preparatory course at Gallaudet to prepare for college-level work the following year. After successfully passing their entrance exams, they traveled to Washington, D.C., and Gallaudet in the summer of 1965 (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966). Their parents encouraged them to "take the plunge."
Both graduated from Gallaudet in 1970 and went on to earn master's degrees at various universities across the country. They enjoyed successful careers:
Ronald Burdett became a professor and dean of Deaf Studies and Special Services at Ohlone College in Fremont, California. He later served as the coordinator of the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in St. George, Utah. Eventually, he became the Vice President of Community Relations at Sorenson Communications in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Both graduated from Gallaudet in 1970 and went on to earn master's degrees at various universities across the country. They enjoyed successful careers:
Ronald Burdett became a professor and dean of Deaf Studies and Special Services at Ohlone College in Fremont, California. He later served as the coordinator of the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in St. George, Utah. Eventually, he became the Vice President of Community Relations at Sorenson Communications in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ronald C. Burdett. Photo in courtesy of Sorenson Communications Inc
Celia May Laramie Baldwin worked as a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf before becoming a teacher, principal, and dean of Student Life at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California. She also served as the interim chairperson of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees.
Ron and Celia May show how Deaf students can thrive when they use sign language. They are great examples of how successful signers can go to college and inspire young Deaf people, proving what they can achieve with access to a sign language!
Ron and Celia May show how Deaf students can thrive when they use sign language. They are great examples of how successful signers can go to college and inspire young Deaf people, proving what they can achieve with access to a sign language!
Celia May Laramie Baldwin. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1969
The Impact of Oral Education
on the Utah School for the Deaf
on the Utah School for the Deaf
In 1962, the University of Utah established an oral training program within the Special Education Department as part of the implementation of the dual-track program. The Utah School for the Deaf utilized this program to expand its oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This program, often referred to as an "army of oral teachers," created employment opportunities at the school. Ogden's residential campus and all extension classrooms also adopted the oral education approach. However, the surplus of orally trained teachers led to a shift away from sign language and non-academic training, raising concerns among Deaf education professionals and families who advocated for the use of sign language.
The Utah School for the Deaf fully embraced the philosophy and teaching methods of oral education, emphasizing the importance of early exposure to speaking and listening for effective communication and for the development of listening skills in children. In 1963, the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf commended the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). The University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department received this recognition during a period when oral education dominated Deaf education, both in Utah and nationwide.
The Utah School for the Deaf fully embraced the philosophy and teaching methods of oral education, emphasizing the importance of early exposure to speaking and listening for effective communication and for the development of listening skills in children. In 1963, the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf commended the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). The University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department received this recognition during a period when oral education dominated Deaf education, both in Utah and nationwide.
Did You Know?
In 1985, Dr. Grant B. Bitter reported in his Summary of Tenure Report that his teacher training program at the University of Utah was highly respected both nationally and internationally. Since its inception in 1962, approximately 145 graduates have entered the job market. Although the program was relatively small compared to others, Dr. Bitter believed in its quality, with an average of 5 to 7 graduates per year.
Dr. Bitter further noted that about one-third of the teaching and supervisory staff at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as many educators in various Utah school districts, were graduates of his program. These individuals were employed across approximately 25 states and had taught or were teaching in countries such as Africa, Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and Mexico (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Bitter further noted that about one-third of the teaching and supervisory staff at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as many educators in various Utah school districts, were graduates of his program. These individuals were employed across approximately 25 states and had taught or were teaching in countries such as Africa, Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and Mexico (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Attack on a Different Front
In October 1962, parents who supported sign language informed the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) about a letter advocating and endorsing the implementation of oral education at the Utah School for the Deaf. This letter was addressed to the parents of Deaf children enrolled in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its extension classrooms. The UAD published the entire letter on page 3 of the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin. It remains unclear who wrote the 'Open Letter' to parents or who served on the council that promoted it.
The UAD Bulletin
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 Utah Council for the Deaf.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
The Utah Association of the Deaf
Responds to the Utah Council for the Deaf
Responds to the Utah Council for the Deaf
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) expressed concerns regarding a letter published by the Utah Council for the Deaf. They feared it could negatively impact the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as its administrators, teachers, students, and Deaf adults. Since both the Utah State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction received copies of the letter, the UAD deemed it unnecessary to dispute its contents.
However, to reassure parents and clarify the situation, the UAD chose to respond to the Utah Council for the Deaf's open letter by publishing an article titled "Who's For the Deaf?" in the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of The UAD Bulletin. This article provided a Deaf perspective in response to the Council's letter. The UAD felt that members of the Council, who had firsthand experience in the Deaf school system, might better understand the UAD's viewpoints on the matter.
According to the UAD, the Utah Council for the Deaf lacked an understanding of what it is like to live with hearing loss, as there were no Deaf members to share their experiences. While the Council established goals for all Deaf individuals, the UAD believed their focus was primarily on undermining educational approaches that did not align with their views.
The UAD emphasized that, as an organization representing Deaf and hard-of-hearing adults, it advocated for a fair assessment of the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program, including an evaluation of the oral program. They criticized the strict prohibition against signing in front of oral students, which led to their complete isolation. This segregation also affected religious activities, hindered athletic programs, and placed significant pressure on oral students to refrain from using sign language both inside and outside of the classroom. The Utah Council of the Deaf labeled Deaf students who opposed this segregated environment as "troublemakers," a characterization that the UAD found insensitive and disrespectful.
Furthermore, the UAD rejected the accusation that Deaf adults were aggressively trying to conceal the issues at hand. They argued that Deaf adults with college degrees were providing guidance to parents who struggled to understand the implications of their decisions regarding their children's education.
The Utah Council of the Deaf described the Deaf community as "antagonistic" and referred to hearing parents who disagreed with them as "disgruntled," which the UAD considered defamatory. This negative characterization of those who opposed their views raised questions about the Council's willingness to consider the perspectives of the Utah Association of the Deaf, the Deaf community, or signing parents. It appeared that they had little interest in collaborating to find solutions.
The Utah Council of the Deaf claimed that an attack occurred against Riley Elementary School's oral day school program; however, this assertion was both unexpected and false. The UAD clarified that they do not oppose the Riley School's Deaf Day program or any effective programs that train Deaf education teachers. Instead, the UAD expressed opposition to Deaf day schools that lack qualified staff, provide insufficient grade advancement, and fail to offer vocational training opportunities and social activities.
The UAD raised concerns about various oral programs in Utah day schools that employ untrained staff and hoped these issues would not affect Riley. Unfortunately, the Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's Oral Program, which misrepresented the facts. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
In response to the Utah Council of the Deaf's statement that "Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subject to constant harassment, personal attacks, and degradation," the UAD acknowledged the persecution faced by some sign language teachers but had not been informed about any issues regarding oral language teachers. They urged parents to "demand that deaf adults cease their efforts to control and oversee our children's education program entirely." This response reflects the UAD's longstanding policy advocating for the quality of Deaf education, particularly regarding sign language. The UAD believed that Deaf students in their schools deserve the best possible education to become self-sufficient and valued members of the community.
The UAD felt it was their duty and right as citizens to educate the public about Deaf concerns and provide progressive information regarding Deaf education. They would rather not see graduates from Utah schools become welfare recipients. Deaf adults in the community recognized the potential for better outcomes for young Deaf individuals. They were eager to share their insights with the State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf.
The UAD agreed with the Utah Council for the Deaf that the Utah State Board of Education should oversee and supervise the Deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was responsible for its implementation. The UAD clarified that Deaf individuals did not have control over or operate the educational program, as it was assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
However, to reassure parents and clarify the situation, the UAD chose to respond to the Utah Council for the Deaf's open letter by publishing an article titled "Who's For the Deaf?" in the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of The UAD Bulletin. This article provided a Deaf perspective in response to the Council's letter. The UAD felt that members of the Council, who had firsthand experience in the Deaf school system, might better understand the UAD's viewpoints on the matter.
According to the UAD, the Utah Council for the Deaf lacked an understanding of what it is like to live with hearing loss, as there were no Deaf members to share their experiences. While the Council established goals for all Deaf individuals, the UAD believed their focus was primarily on undermining educational approaches that did not align with their views.
The UAD emphasized that, as an organization representing Deaf and hard-of-hearing adults, it advocated for a fair assessment of the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program, including an evaluation of the oral program. They criticized the strict prohibition against signing in front of oral students, which led to their complete isolation. This segregation also affected religious activities, hindered athletic programs, and placed significant pressure on oral students to refrain from using sign language both inside and outside of the classroom. The Utah Council of the Deaf labeled Deaf students who opposed this segregated environment as "troublemakers," a characterization that the UAD found insensitive and disrespectful.
Furthermore, the UAD rejected the accusation that Deaf adults were aggressively trying to conceal the issues at hand. They argued that Deaf adults with college degrees were providing guidance to parents who struggled to understand the implications of their decisions regarding their children's education.
The Utah Council of the Deaf described the Deaf community as "antagonistic" and referred to hearing parents who disagreed with them as "disgruntled," which the UAD considered defamatory. This negative characterization of those who opposed their views raised questions about the Council's willingness to consider the perspectives of the Utah Association of the Deaf, the Deaf community, or signing parents. It appeared that they had little interest in collaborating to find solutions.
The Utah Council of the Deaf claimed that an attack occurred against Riley Elementary School's oral day school program; however, this assertion was both unexpected and false. The UAD clarified that they do not oppose the Riley School's Deaf Day program or any effective programs that train Deaf education teachers. Instead, the UAD expressed opposition to Deaf day schools that lack qualified staff, provide insufficient grade advancement, and fail to offer vocational training opportunities and social activities.
The UAD raised concerns about various oral programs in Utah day schools that employ untrained staff and hoped these issues would not affect Riley. Unfortunately, the Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's Oral Program, which misrepresented the facts. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
In response to the Utah Council of the Deaf's statement that "Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subject to constant harassment, personal attacks, and degradation," the UAD acknowledged the persecution faced by some sign language teachers but had not been informed about any issues regarding oral language teachers. They urged parents to "demand that deaf adults cease their efforts to control and oversee our children's education program entirely." This response reflects the UAD's longstanding policy advocating for the quality of Deaf education, particularly regarding sign language. The UAD believed that Deaf students in their schools deserve the best possible education to become self-sufficient and valued members of the community.
The UAD felt it was their duty and right as citizens to educate the public about Deaf concerns and provide progressive information regarding Deaf education. They would rather not see graduates from Utah schools become welfare recipients. Deaf adults in the community recognized the potential for better outcomes for young Deaf individuals. They were eager to share their insights with the State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf.
The UAD agreed with the Utah Council for the Deaf that the Utah State Board of Education should oversee and supervise the Deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was responsible for its implementation. The UAD clarified that Deaf individuals did not have control over or operate the educational program, as it was assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
An Oral Advocate Parent Wrote a Letter to Robert G. Sanderson,
President of the Utah Association for the Deaf
President of the Utah Association for the Deaf
Despite the Utah Association for the Deaf's response in the fall-winter of 1962, which clarified the harmful effects of the Utah Council for the Deaf's Open Letter on the Utah School for the Deaf and the broader Utah Deaf community, one parent remained misinformed. On April 25, 1963, D'On Reese, the mother of a Deaf son named Norman, who was enrolled in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, expressed her concerns in a letter to Robert G. Sanderson. She believed that the Utah Association for the Deaf was still working to undermine oralism. Her letter, along with Robert's response, was published in the UAD Bulletin during the summer of 1963. The letters are included below.
Robert G. Sanderson, UAD President. Source: 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)
'D'On Reese.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2
'D'On Reese.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Utah Association for the Deaf President Robert G. Sanderson
Responds to a Parent's Letter
Responds to a Parent's Letter
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)
Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
Did You Know?
When Deaf visitors from out of state learned about the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, they often expressed disbelief. They questioned why the state school for the deaf oversees the oral program instead of the public schools. After all, they believed that if parents wanted their children to be fully integrated into the hearing world, Deaf children should attend public schools without needing additional support from the state school (UAD Bulletin, February 1996). This skepticism highlighted a broader debate about the most effective educational approaches for Deaf children and the role of specialized institutions. Many advocates argued that programs at dedicated schools were essential for providing tailored support that public schools often could not offer.
The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf
Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah
Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah
The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (AGB) is dedicated to supporting and empowering individuals affected by hearing loss. Its mission is to enhance the educational, vocational, and social opportunities of Deaf children and adults in a hearing world. To achieve this, the organization assists with speech therapy, lip-reading instruction, and amplification for those with residual hearing.
During the biennial meeting of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf in June 1964, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, a new component was inaugurated specifically for orally trained Deaf adults. The aim was for Deaf adults educated in the oral method to share their experiences and provide advice to parents of children attending any of the state's oral programs. This initiative was a unique concept for the national AGB Association, making Utah the first state to implement it.
Notably, the new component included Deaf adults from outside of Utah, including Dr. H. Latham Breunig, who was elected chairman of the Oral Deaf Adult Section; Dr. James C. Marsters, the keynote speaker; Dr. Richard Thompson; and H. William Bernstein. This new section of the AGB provided a platform for adults who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing and choose to communicate in spoken language, speech reading, or hearing amplification to share their experiences.
During a panel discussion at the AGB convention, six oral Deaf adults shared their personal stories and discussed their challenges with a large audience. Parents of Deaf children who attended the event had the opportunity to engage with orally trained Deaf adults during luncheons.
G. Leon Curtis, the president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, also participated in this meeting. He was the younger brother of Afton Curtis, the wife of Kenneth C. Burdett. Other UAD members, including Eugene W. Petersen, Robert G. Sanderson, and Ray G. Wenger, spoke with the founders of the oral Deaf community: Breunig, Marsters, Thompson, and Bernstein. Each of these individuals credited their career success to their oral education. However, the Utah Deaf leaders were concerned that these oral Deaf adults might unduly influence parents to support the oral methodology.
During the biennial meeting of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf in June 1964, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, a new component was inaugurated specifically for orally trained Deaf adults. The aim was for Deaf adults educated in the oral method to share their experiences and provide advice to parents of children attending any of the state's oral programs. This initiative was a unique concept for the national AGB Association, making Utah the first state to implement it.
Notably, the new component included Deaf adults from outside of Utah, including Dr. H. Latham Breunig, who was elected chairman of the Oral Deaf Adult Section; Dr. James C. Marsters, the keynote speaker; Dr. Richard Thompson; and H. William Bernstein. This new section of the AGB provided a platform for adults who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing and choose to communicate in spoken language, speech reading, or hearing amplification to share their experiences.
During a panel discussion at the AGB convention, six oral Deaf adults shared their personal stories and discussed their challenges with a large audience. Parents of Deaf children who attended the event had the opportunity to engage with orally trained Deaf adults during luncheons.
G. Leon Curtis, the president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, also participated in this meeting. He was the younger brother of Afton Curtis, the wife of Kenneth C. Burdett. Other UAD members, including Eugene W. Petersen, Robert G. Sanderson, and Ray G. Wenger, spoke with the founders of the oral Deaf community: Breunig, Marsters, Thompson, and Bernstein. Each of these individuals credited their career success to their oral education. However, the Utah Deaf leaders were concerned that these oral Deaf adults might unduly influence parents to support the oral methodology.
G. Leon Curtis. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Winter, 1964
Moreover, UAD leaders were surprised to discover that the oral Deaf adults believed that UAD members were trying to hold back Deaf children's education by teaching them sign language. The UAD representatives clarified that this impression was inaccurate. President Curtis pointed out that many successful Deaf individuals received their education through a combined method that includes both oral instruction and the use of fingerspelling and signs. He explained that while the UAD did not object to the oral method when a Deaf child was making satisfactory progress, issues arose when a child struggled with it. In such cases, a prompt and honest reassessment of the child's educational placement was necessary, a situation the UAD felt was not being adequately addressed at the University of Utah. They believed that timely intervention was crucial to avoid wasting educational years on ineffective oral-based instruction (The Utah Bulletin, Summer 1964, p. 2).
Eugene W. Petersen. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Controversy at the Parent Teacher Association Functions
During the 1969–1970 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) faced tensions and divisions. Deaf parents gathered in Ogden, Utah, for regular PTA meetings, using sign language to communicate and participate. However, the parents who favored rigorous spoken communication felt uncomfortable watching them sign. This situation sparked conflict between PTA President Linda C. Harrop, a parent of a Deaf child named Troy, who favored oral instruction, and PTA Vice President Kenneth L. Kinner, a parent of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, who supported the simultaneous communication philosophy.
There were also disagreements regarding communication philosophy and the structure of the meetings. The front row of seating was reserved for hearing parents, while Deaf parents were asked to sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to avoid distracting young oral children from seeing sign language. In an attempt to shield their children from exposure to sign language, some parents went so far as to cover them with their coats.
As a result of these dynamics, Deaf parents who advocated for sign language felt unable to express their concerns about educational matters. This sense of oppression negatively impacted students caught in the middle of the conflict between the two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
There were also disagreements regarding communication philosophy and the structure of the meetings. The front row of seating was reserved for hearing parents, while Deaf parents were asked to sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to avoid distracting young oral children from seeing sign language. In an attempt to shield their children from exposure to sign language, some parents went so far as to cover them with their coats.
As a result of these dynamics, Deaf parents who advocated for sign language felt unable to express their concerns about educational matters. This sense of oppression negatively impacted students caught in the middle of the conflict between the two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Did You Know?
Marjorie Parkin Winegar was a key advocate for enhancing oral education for the deaf in Utah. Appointed by Governor Cal Rampton, she served on the Board of Education for the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where she helped develop and integrate oral curricula for Deaf students in public schools. Additionally, she was the first president of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Divisions in Salt Lake City, Utah. Marjorie lived in Bountiful, Utah. (Obituary: Marjorie Parkin Winegar, Deseret News, October 21, 2001).
The Walkout Strike of 1969 at the Utah School for the Deaf
Since 1962, the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf has become increasingly complicated. The school maintained separate classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities for students enrolled in oral and sign language programs. A report in the February 1968 issue of The Utah Eagle described the dual-track program as demanding and challenging, with extended hours of work. The school emphasized that parents, teachers, and administrators must not only cooperate but also fully collaborate for the program to succeed.
One of the biggest challenges was scheduling classes and activities to ensure that all students, regardless of their division, could actively participate in separate classrooms and extracurricular activities that fostered their communicative skills and academic achievement. Additionally, facilities for two separate twenty-four-hour programs were necessary for the dual-track approach to be successful. Collaboration among parents and staff was essential for achieving these goals (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
One of the biggest challenges was scheduling classes and activities to ensure that all students, regardless of their division, could actively participate in separate classrooms and extracurricular activities that fostered their communicative skills and academic achievement. Additionally, facilities for two separate twenty-four-hour programs were necessary for the dual-track approach to be successful. Collaboration among parents and staff was essential for achieving these goals (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
Oral Senior Student Council members, from left to right, are Laura Fisher, Pete Mazza, Kathleen Allen, Miss Starr, Advisor, Paul Arthur, Mr. Andersen, Advisor, Rebecca Call, and Tedi Ann Ercanbrack. Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1969
In February 1968, The Utah Eagle reported that the school continued to provide separate facilities for students who either used oral methods or sign language. The objective was to help all students develop their communication skills to their fullest potential. While extracurricular activities were generally divided between the two groups, the athletic program uniquely combined student-athletes from both programs, as there were not enough students in each group to form complete teams (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011). After a failed protest in 1962, students at Ogden's residential school demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of logistical challenges. However, dissatisfaction with the ongoing social segregation of the dual-track program grew, ultimately sparking the protest in 1969.
For six years, the dual-track program had prohibited interaction between oral and signing students on campus. Many students from both programs were tired of the restrictive "no signing" rule imposed by the oral method and the resulting social divide and decided to take action. Between 1966 and 1968, a group of these students met with Principal Tony Christopulos, an advocate for oral education, to propose combining the two departments into one. They felt that the segregation was unnecessary and burdensome. Although Tony listened to the students' concerns and requests, he did not take any action to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It is not surprising that the students eventually chose to protest.
In May 1969, Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the oral department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the simultaneous communication department, planned a walkout protest. Inspired by the infamous 1962 student strike, the two leaders collaborated with other students to develop a protest strategy. This strike became a significant event in the history of student activism, demonstrating students' collective voice and their ability to effect change. Many participants in the 1969 protest had witnessed the 1962 strike as children, which motivated their own efforts (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). Arthur and Briseno were the key figures leading the walkout.
For six years, the dual-track program had prohibited interaction between oral and signing students on campus. Many students from both programs were tired of the restrictive "no signing" rule imposed by the oral method and the resulting social divide and decided to take action. Between 1966 and 1968, a group of these students met with Principal Tony Christopulos, an advocate for oral education, to propose combining the two departments into one. They felt that the segregation was unnecessary and burdensome. Although Tony listened to the students' concerns and requests, he did not take any action to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It is not surprising that the students eventually chose to protest.
In May 1969, Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the oral department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the simultaneous communication department, planned a walkout protest. Inspired by the infamous 1962 student strike, the two leaders collaborated with other students to develop a protest strategy. This strike became a significant event in the history of student activism, demonstrating students' collective voice and their ability to effect change. Many participants in the 1969 protest had witnessed the 1962 strike as children, which motivated their own efforts (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). Arthur and Briseno were the key figures leading the walkout.
Paul Arthur, Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1968
Three weeks before their high school graduation, students from the oral and simultaneous communication program, fueled by determination, secretly created posters in their dorm rooms. After an early morning seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over 100 middle and high school students courageously walked off campus to protest in the flag area outside the Main Building on the Ogden campus. This protest attracted more oral communication students than the 1962 protest, demonstrating their unwavering commitment.
However, Principal Christopulos, who opposed ending the campus's social separation for oral advocacy reasons, was displeased with the students' walkout. He issued an order threatening to revoke the seniors' diplomas if they continued. The seniors were terrified because they needed their diplomas to continue their studies or enter the workforce. The principal's stance created a one-sided dialogue, as he was adamant about maintaining social separation on campus. The situation escalated when Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder canceled the seniors' graduation banquet and refused to listen to student appeals to end social segregation. Fearing punishment and jeopardizing their graduation, the seniors ultimately decided to call off the strike (Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011).
Simultaneous Student Council Officers, left to right, Dora Laramie, Advisor; Bridget Laramie, Treasurer; Smiley Briseno, President; Maria Garcia, Secretary; Thomas Van Drimmenlen, Advisor, and Henry Armijo, Vice President, discuss Christmas decorations for the Simultaneous wing of the school building. Source: The Utah Eagle, December 1968
On the Ogden Campus, a walkout took place at the flag area outside the Main Building, as shown in the picture below.
The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah
*****
The Video of the
1969 Student Walkout
1969 Student Walkout
Paul Arthur, a 1969 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf,
was part of the student strike in 1969.
was part of the student strike in 1969.
*****
Raymond Monson’s
Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Raymond Monson, a 1971 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, was only 11 years old when he witnessed the student strike at the school in Ogden, Utah, in 1962. He has a deeply personal story to share. After graduating from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1971, he worked at Don Glen's construction company during the summer of 1969. Recently, he formed a friendship with Jonathon Hodson, a Deaf individual who participated in the oral program in the Salt Lake area and also worked for Don Glen. Their shared experiences have brought them closer. During a conversation, they discussed the recent student walkout protest and its failure, as well as the negative impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter had on Deaf education in Utah.
Raymond vividly remembered Dr. Bitter and his influence on the oral and sign language segregation policy at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's impact extended beyond the school, affecting the Deaf Seminary Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His support for the policy of segregating the oral and simultaneous communication departments angered Raymond and profoundly affected the signing students, highlighting the injustice of the situation. According to Raymond, Dr. Bitter and the school's oral teachers held a negative attitude toward students who used sign language. The dual-track program also had a ripple effect on the Ogden Branch for the Deaf, located just two blocks away from the residential campus and the seminary class.
Raymond vividly remembered Dr. Bitter and his influence on the oral and sign language segregation policy at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's impact extended beyond the school, affecting the Deaf Seminary Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His support for the policy of segregating the oral and simultaneous communication departments angered Raymond and profoundly affected the signing students, highlighting the injustice of the situation. According to Raymond, Dr. Bitter and the school's oral teachers held a negative attitude toward students who used sign language. The dual-track program also had a ripple effect on the Ogden Branch for the Deaf, located just two blocks away from the residential campus and the seminary class.
Raymond Monson, Source: Utahn, 1971
Raymond compared Dr. Bitter to the wall that separated West Berlin from East Berlin during the Cold War. He felt that Dr. Bitter failed to recognize the challenges faced by Deaf students in the oral system, particularly those who could not speak and were prohibited from using sign language. Raymond likened the strict restrictions of oral Deaf education to the oppressive nature of East Germany's communism, equating Deaf students' freedom to communicate in sign language with the freedom experienced by West Germans in a democratic society. He firmly believed that Dr. Bitter did not have the authority to force Deaf students into the oral system, which ultimately led to divisions among Deaf adults.
Raymond's memories of school are marred by the way teachers treated students who used sign language. Instead of including them, the oral teachers separated them from their peers, which made their experience more challenging. He compares this unfair treatment to racial injustice, emphasizing how wrong it was.
In August 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program, leading to Raymond's transfer to the oral program. This initiative aimed to integrate Deaf students into mainstream society but faced opposition from the Utah Deaf community. Raymond felt devastated by his placement and could not understand why it was happening. He missed his classmates who communicated using sign language and desperately wanted to interact with them. Later, Raymond's mother, Marjorie, who was also deaf, discovered that Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate and the school principal, had contacted Raymond's hearing father, Fred, to ask if he wanted Raymond to enroll in the oral program. Without consulting Marjorie, Fred made the decision and allowed the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the challenging oral program and was unhappy with the curriculum. Although he did not fully understand the barriers to his communication, his mother persuaded him to continue in the program for his father's sake, adding emotional weight to his story. The image of 11-year-old Raymond and other oral students watching out the school window during the 1962 student strike deepened his emotional journey.
As Raymond grew older, he learned that many other Deaf individuals shared his negative feelings about Dr. Grant Bitter. To cope with their frustration, they often made jokes at his expense. One of his friends, C. Roy Cochran, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1961 and was the father of two Deaf children, Don and Lisa, found a humorous way to diffuse his anger toward Dr. Bitter. Roy proposed renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, to "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department," a suggestion that quickly became a community joke. Raymond found the idea so funny that Roy "commanded" him to rename Dr. Bitter as "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department." Despite the ongoing conflicts with Dr. Bitter, this humorous approach served as a powerful tool for unity and hope within the Utah Deaf community, inspiring them to stand together in the face of adversity.
Raymond's memories of school are marred by the way teachers treated students who used sign language. Instead of including them, the oral teachers separated them from their peers, which made their experience more challenging. He compares this unfair treatment to racial injustice, emphasizing how wrong it was.
In August 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program, leading to Raymond's transfer to the oral program. This initiative aimed to integrate Deaf students into mainstream society but faced opposition from the Utah Deaf community. Raymond felt devastated by his placement and could not understand why it was happening. He missed his classmates who communicated using sign language and desperately wanted to interact with them. Later, Raymond's mother, Marjorie, who was also deaf, discovered that Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate and the school principal, had contacted Raymond's hearing father, Fred, to ask if he wanted Raymond to enroll in the oral program. Without consulting Marjorie, Fred made the decision and allowed the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the challenging oral program and was unhappy with the curriculum. Although he did not fully understand the barriers to his communication, his mother persuaded him to continue in the program for his father's sake, adding emotional weight to his story. The image of 11-year-old Raymond and other oral students watching out the school window during the 1962 student strike deepened his emotional journey.
As Raymond grew older, he learned that many other Deaf individuals shared his negative feelings about Dr. Grant Bitter. To cope with their frustration, they often made jokes at his expense. One of his friends, C. Roy Cochran, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1961 and was the father of two Deaf children, Don and Lisa, found a humorous way to diffuse his anger toward Dr. Bitter. Roy proposed renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, to "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department," a suggestion that quickly became a community joke. Raymond found the idea so funny that Roy "commanded" him to rename Dr. Bitter as "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department." Despite the ongoing conflicts with Dr. Bitter, this humorous approach served as a powerful tool for unity and hope within the Utah Deaf community, inspiring them to stand together in the face of adversity.
C. Roy Cochran. Source: Utahn, 1960
In the summer of 1969, after completing his sophomore year, Raymond created a cartoon of Dr. Bitter to express his frustration with the oral program. He shared the drawing with his mother and his hard-of-hearing brother, Brian, both of whom found it amusing. The next day, Raymond showed the cartoon to Jonathon Hodson at work, and he also found it funny. Following this, Raymond expressed his intention to mail the picture to Dr. Bitter's home. Although his mother was concerned that he might get into trouble since he was still in high school, Raymond felt compelled to share his feelings through humor. His mother ultimately supported his decision, and they agreed that he would not sign his name on the picture.
With remarkable courage for his age, Raymond typed a letter to accompany the drawing, and his mother helped him correct his grammar. He mailed it to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book to find the address.
With remarkable courage for his age, Raymond typed a letter to accompany the drawing, and his mother helped him correct his grammar. He mailed it to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book to find the address.
Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
A week later, Jonathon Hodson informed Raymond that a copy of his drawing was on his family's dinner table, though he promised to keep it a secret. Dr. Bitter became interested in identifying the artist and wanted to distribute copies as part of his effort to track down the person responsible for the artwork. Raymond's mother cautioned him not to boast about his creation.
When school resumed in the fall of 1969, leaders of the Utah Association for the Deaf announced that Dr. Bitter was upset about a picture created by an anonymous artist, which depicted him humorously. Dr. Bitter blamed the Deaf leaders for the drawing and called a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah to identify the artist.
When school resumed in the fall of 1969, leaders of the Utah Association for the Deaf announced that Dr. Bitter was upset about a picture created by an anonymous artist, which depicted him humorously. Dr. Bitter blamed the Deaf leaders for the drawing and called a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah to identify the artist.
Jonathon Hudson
Raymond later reported that, despite Dr. Bitter's efforts, they were unable to identify the individual who drew the picture. W. David Mortensen, a prominent leader of the Utah Association for the Deaf, advised Dr. Bitter to drop the matter altogether.
Dr. Bitter's generous donation fortunately led me to Raymond's drawing in the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library. The mystery surrounding the artist's identity piqued my interest, prompting me to explore humor as a coping mechanism within the Utah Deaf community. During my research, Jon, who is Deanne and Duane Kinner's third cousin, provided me with valuable information, which led me to reach out to Raymond to understand the inspiration behind the drawing, as detailed on this webpage.
Dr. Bitter's generous donation fortunately led me to Raymond's drawing in the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library. The mystery surrounding the artist's identity piqued my interest, prompting me to explore humor as a coping mechanism within the Utah Deaf community. During my research, Jon, who is Deanne and Duane Kinner's third cousin, provided me with valuable information, which led me to reach out to Raymond to understand the inspiration behind the drawing, as detailed on this webpage.
W. David Mortensen. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Views of the Deaf Community
In 1970, Dr. Grant B. Bitter elaborated on his philosophy of keeping Deaf individuals who use sign language separate from those who communicate orally. He recommended genetic counseling for Deaf parents and suggested counseling for the Deaf community to help them develop appropriate behaviors, attitudes, and expectations (Grant B. Bitter Papers, personal communication, 1970). In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf sent him an anonymous note, disparaging him for allegedly establishing the Oral Deaf Association of Utah—a group advocating for oralism—solely for financial gain.
Under the leadership of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, the Utah Association for the Deaf took a proactive approach to demonstrate their support for Total Communication, which was replacing the term Simultaneous Communication. In January or February of 1970, Dr. Sanderson wrote to Dr. Bitter, expressing concern about the lack of guidance counseling for Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and addressing the "history and problems of deafness" (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, 1970). Dr. Bitter replied with an offer to work with Bob to provide opportunities for him to deliver meaningful presentations to university students (Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, March 3, 1970). However, in his response, Dr. Bitter did not mention that Total Communication could be included in these presentations.
It was clear that Dr. Sanderson was deeply concerned about students in the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, which emphasized oral communication. These students were being taught that the Deaf signing community was a divergent group with various problems that required counseling. Dr. Sanderson aimed to clarify to Dr. Bitter that Deaf parents did not need genetic counseling and that Deaf individuals should not have to conform to the expectations of the hearing majority. He may have offered to present to university students to correct these misconceptions (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Under the leadership of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, the Utah Association for the Deaf took a proactive approach to demonstrate their support for Total Communication, which was replacing the term Simultaneous Communication. In January or February of 1970, Dr. Sanderson wrote to Dr. Bitter, expressing concern about the lack of guidance counseling for Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and addressing the "history and problems of deafness" (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, 1970). Dr. Bitter replied with an offer to work with Bob to provide opportunities for him to deliver meaningful presentations to university students (Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, March 3, 1970). However, in his response, Dr. Bitter did not mention that Total Communication could be included in these presentations.
It was clear that Dr. Sanderson was deeply concerned about students in the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, which emphasized oral communication. These students were being taught that the Deaf signing community was a divergent group with various problems that required counseling. Dr. Sanderson aimed to clarify to Dr. Bitter that Deaf parents did not need genetic counseling and that Deaf individuals should not have to conform to the expectations of the hearing majority. He may have offered to present to university students to correct these misconceptions (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Did You Know?
On September 1, 1970, Dr. Grant B. Bitter addressed the Utah Association for the Deaf community. He criticized the association's philosophy regarding Deaf education.
"You [say] that 'education is a thousand times more important to us [the deaf] than the mere ability to speak." My friends, the ability to manipulate the mother tongue wisely and effectively in service to one's fellow men is an integral part of education.
[Speaking] is basic to the development of competencies and saleable skills whereby individuals may find meaning and purpose in life. Therefore, may we do nothing that would prevent and/or limit any child's opportunity to give to the world that which only he can give as a person, worthy to take his place at the side of his fellowmen. Let us not relegate [a deaf child] to second class citizenship through isolation, causing him to become unnecessarily apprehensive, fearful, jealous, insecure and unproductive. Rather may we inspire excellence in living – allowing him to give to the world something which only he can give in his uniqueness as a worthy person" (Grant B. Bitter Papers, September 1, 1970).
"You [say] that 'education is a thousand times more important to us [the deaf] than the mere ability to speak." My friends, the ability to manipulate the mother tongue wisely and effectively in service to one's fellow men is an integral part of education.
[Speaking] is basic to the development of competencies and saleable skills whereby individuals may find meaning and purpose in life. Therefore, may we do nothing that would prevent and/or limit any child's opportunity to give to the world that which only he can give as a person, worthy to take his place at the side of his fellowmen. Let us not relegate [a deaf child] to second class citizenship through isolation, causing him to become unnecessarily apprehensive, fearful, jealous, insecure and unproductive. Rather may we inspire excellence in living – allowing him to give to the world something which only he can give in his uniqueness as a worthy person" (Grant B. Bitter Papers, September 1, 1970).
The Parent Teacher Association Divides
During a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting in the spring of 1970, a group of parents, Deaf representatives, and faculty from the Utah School for the Deaf discussed the possibility of visiting Deaf schools in other states. They recommended either Missouri or California. Proponents of oral education favored visiting the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton and the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis. In contrast, supporters of Simultaneous Communication preferred the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf, and the Buena Park Program for the Deaf in Orange County. Unable to reach a consensus, the group sought advice from Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, who ultimately decided that they would travel to California due to its proximity to Utah and lower costs.
Among those selected for the trip were Deaf individuals W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two employees from the Utah School for the Deaf: Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator. Although parents were also part of the group, PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
During their visit to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the group toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association of the Deaf. The Simultaneous Communication group hoped the oral education supporters would remain open-minded and appreciate the value of sign language. When the oral parents asked Dr. Newman about the enrollment of students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One student disclosed that, despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, he felt he did not receive the education he needed. He expressed that he found greater happiness and a better education at the California School for the Deaf.
Among those selected for the trip were Deaf individuals W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two employees from the Utah School for the Deaf: Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator. Although parents were also part of the group, PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
During their visit to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the group toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association of the Deaf. The Simultaneous Communication group hoped the oral education supporters would remain open-minded and appreciate the value of sign language. When the oral parents asked Dr. Newman about the enrollment of students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One student disclosed that, despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, he felt he did not receive the education he needed. He expressed that he found greater happiness and a better education at the California School for the Deaf.
Dr. Lawrence R. Newman. Source: Iowa Association of the Deaf website
After the tour, the Utah Oral Education supporters returned home. At the same time, the Simultaneous Communication advocates, fueled by their dedication, chose to stay an additional day for an unofficial tour of the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in the Santa Ana Unified School District. This program had initially utilized an oral method from 1948 until September 19, 1968, when it transitioned to the Total Communication approach during the Total Communication Movement. This shift occurred due to the shortcomings of the oral program (Educating Deaf Children by Total Communication, 1970). Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, known as the "Father of Total Communication," led the visit. The curriculum left a lasting impression on the group, and they were particularly disappointed that the oral group was absent, as they wanted to observe the academic achievements associated with the total communication method and familiarize themselves with every aspect of the program.
Upon returning to Utah, both groups gathered to share their insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, remarked, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded his statement. However, from the perspective of the sign language advocates, Boyd's comment implied that the oral supporters were uninterested in the experiences they had observed at the California School for the Deaf. It was evident to them that the oral approach had already dictated how to teach Deaf children before the trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Grant B. Bitter criticized the total communication movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign language and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research. He expressed disappointment that Deaf education, including in California, had adopted a total communication system despite the existence of exemplary oral programs. He provided a brief history of the use of sign language in most Deaf residential schools, except in Utah. In the 1960s, many state schools began adopting a simultaneous communication approach. However, Dr. Bitter, with the approval of the Utah State Board of Education, advocated for preserving parental rights and options in Deaf education, supporting total communication, sign language, or auditory/oral approaches.
When Robert W. Tegeder became superintendent in 1959, he shifted the focus from a complete sign language system to teaching oral communication at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter believed this change was beneficial, as other state schools for the deaf did not provide such options, making Utah unique. Nonetheless, the Utah Association for the Deaf opposed these changes, leading to years of controversy between Dr. Bitter and the association, stemming from differing views on the most effective methods of Deaf education and parents' rights to choose them (Bluhm, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Upon returning to Utah, both groups gathered to share their insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, remarked, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded his statement. However, from the perspective of the sign language advocates, Boyd's comment implied that the oral supporters were uninterested in the experiences they had observed at the California School for the Deaf. It was evident to them that the oral approach had already dictated how to teach Deaf children before the trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Grant B. Bitter criticized the total communication movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign language and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research. He expressed disappointment that Deaf education, including in California, had adopted a total communication system despite the existence of exemplary oral programs. He provided a brief history of the use of sign language in most Deaf residential schools, except in Utah. In the 1960s, many state schools began adopting a simultaneous communication approach. However, Dr. Bitter, with the approval of the Utah State Board of Education, advocated for preserving parental rights and options in Deaf education, supporting total communication, sign language, or auditory/oral approaches.
When Robert W. Tegeder became superintendent in 1959, he shifted the focus from a complete sign language system to teaching oral communication at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter believed this change was beneficial, as other state schools for the deaf did not provide such options, making Utah unique. Nonetheless, the Utah Association for the Deaf opposed these changes, leading to years of controversy between Dr. Bitter and the association, stemming from differing views on the most effective methods of Deaf education and parents' rights to choose them (Bluhm, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Another Powerful Advocate Is Added
May 1970 was a turning point in W. David "Dave" Mortensen's life, as it was the year he became active in the Utah Association for the Deaf. His growing interest in politics and advocacy led him to play a pivotal role in transforming Utah's Deaf education system, with ongoing effects on the community.
One day in early May, Dave Mortensen and Helen Foy were picking up their Deaf daughters, Kristi Lee Mortensen and Claudia Foy, outside the extension classroom at Dilworth Elementary School. Dave caught part of the girls' conversation and, concerned by their expressions, decided to take action. He asked them to repeat what they were discussing because he sensed they were upset. Finally, Kristi Lee and Claudia began sharing troubling stories of physical abuse that had been occurring in their classroom for several years. Behind closed doors, the oral teachers were treating the students unjustly.
When Helen asked Dave if he was going to do something about it, he replied, "Oh, definitely, I am." After Helen took the girls home, Dave rushed to the Utah State Office of Education. He enlisted Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as his interpreter and stormed into the office of Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who supervised the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Fearlessly, he confronted Dr. Campbell, making him aware of the abuse happening behind closed doors in the classrooms (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
One day in early May, Dave Mortensen and Helen Foy were picking up their Deaf daughters, Kristi Lee Mortensen and Claudia Foy, outside the extension classroom at Dilworth Elementary School. Dave caught part of the girls' conversation and, concerned by their expressions, decided to take action. He asked them to repeat what they were discussing because he sensed they were upset. Finally, Kristi Lee and Claudia began sharing troubling stories of physical abuse that had been occurring in their classroom for several years. Behind closed doors, the oral teachers were treating the students unjustly.
When Helen asked Dave if he was going to do something about it, he replied, "Oh, definitely, I am." After Helen took the girls home, Dave rushed to the Utah State Office of Education. He enlisted Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as his interpreter and stormed into the office of Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who supervised the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Fearlessly, he confronted Dr. Campbell, making him aware of the abuse happening behind closed doors in the classrooms (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
W. David Mortensen
That day's events brought back troubling memories of a previous visit the Mortensens had with four Utah School for the Deaf employees, including Kate Fenton, an oral teacher, and Mr. Nielsen, the school's audiologist. The group was intent on convincing Dave and his wife, Shanna, to enroll Kristi Lee at the Ogden campus, even though she was already attending the Riley Elementary School Oral Extension Classroom in Salt Lake City. When Dave asked why Kristi Lee should be sent to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, they said she would be an excellent example of what a Deaf child could achieve for the entire state of Utah. Dave and Shanna flatly refused; they did not want their daughter to experience the social, language, and communication segregation occurring on campus.
Kate Fenton. The Utah Eagle, 1965
Dave's unwavering determination—the same energy he displayed in May 1970—was channeled into his new role as president of the Utah Association for the Deaf in October 1971 (UAD Bulletin, October 1971). Resolute in his mission to reform Utah's Deaf education system, he believed the Deaf community in Utah was missing out on many opportunities. This belief fueled his activities with the Utah State Legislature and elevated his leadership to a new level. He was determined to address social, language, and communication segregation at the Ogden's residential campus and the prohibition of sign language use in the extension classrooms in Salt Lake City (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
W. David Mortensen and a Group of Parents Make a Plea
From 1962 to 1970, both oral and simultaneous communication methods were used in the elementary grades at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, while only the oral method was employed in all grades at the Salt Lake City Extension Division, located at 1415 California Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah. The Extension Division served high school students (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
On May 18, 1970, Dave Mortensen, along with eight parents of Deaf children, submitted a petition advocating a shift away from the exclusive oral teaching method used in the Salt Lake City extension classroom. These parents sought a teaching approach they believed would more effectively address their children's academic and personal needs—the simultaneous communication method. In their letter to the Governor's Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, they articulated their concerns, emphasizing that the oral method used in the extension classroom fell short in meeting their children's educational and individual requirements (Deseret News, May 19, 1970; The Salt Lake Tribune, May 19, 1970). Their plea highlighted a pressing need for reform. Moreover, the parents expressed their discontent regarding the segregation of students at the Ogden's residential campus (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
On May 18, 1970, Dave Mortensen, along with eight parents of Deaf children, submitted a petition advocating a shift away from the exclusive oral teaching method used in the Salt Lake City extension classroom. These parents sought a teaching approach they believed would more effectively address their children's academic and personal needs—the simultaneous communication method. In their letter to the Governor's Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, they articulated their concerns, emphasizing that the oral method used in the extension classroom fell short in meeting their children's educational and individual requirements (Deseret News, May 19, 1970; The Salt Lake Tribune, May 19, 1970). Their plea highlighted a pressing need for reform. Moreover, the parents expressed their discontent regarding the segregation of students at the Ogden's residential campus (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
Establishment of Legislative Subcommittee #4
to Explore the Utah School for the Deaf
to Explore the Utah School for the Deaf
In June 1970, following concerns regarding the State Superintendent's office, Dave Mortensen organized a meeting with Utah Association for the Deaf leaders and State Representative Della Loveridge, the State Representative for the 8th District and a close friend of his mother. Notable attendees included Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins, who sought to address issues arising from incidents involving Kristi Lee and Claudia and to examine challenges within Utah's Deaf education system. With Madeline Burton Perkins as their interpreter, the meeting set the stage for substantial discussions about the Deaf education landscape (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970; W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
Consequently, Rep. Loveridge established a Subcommittee on Education of the Deaf, which received the endorsement of the Utah State Board of Education. The committee was formed by individuals deeply committed to the cause, such as Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, a passionate Deaf Advocate; Dr. Robert Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah; Dave Mortensen, another Deaf Advocate; and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education.
This development marked the inception of a political struggle over oralism in the education of Deaf children. Both Bob and Ned had long sought transformative changes within the Deaf education system, but they needed support from a parent of a Deaf child. Dave Mortensen, being deaf himself and a father to a Deaf child, emerged as a crucial advocate for their cause (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
During that busy summer, the Utah Association for the Deaf—primarily composed of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf—actively informed the Utah State Legislature about the lack of total communication pedagogy in the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program at the University of Utah (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970). Their advocacy highlighted a significant gap in educational practices, demonstrating the power of collective action in influencing policy.
The Subcommittee received diverse letters reflecting various opinions on teaching methods. While Dr. Bitter sought supportive letters from legislative leaders for oral programs, the Utah Association of the Deaf found support from Dr. Britt M. Hargraves, Director of the Teacher Training Program at Western Maryland College, who advocated for the simultaneous communication approach. Dr. Hargraves' findings highlighted the shortcomings of the Utah School for the Deaf's oral program, particularly its failure to prepare high school graduates for higher education (Britt M. Hargraves, personal communication, August 17, 1970), intensifying the ongoing debate.
Interestingly, the Utah affiliate of the AFL-CIO initially backed the establishment of a Total Communication Teacher's program at the University of Utah. However, three months later, it retracted that support, opting for a neutral stance to allow members to fully comprehend the complexities of the issue, adding another layer to the surrounding controversy.
The Subcommittee also discussed establishing a Total Communication program at Utah State University. However, Dr. Robert Erdman opposed this idea, and his motion received support. This opposition ultimately influenced the ongoing debate within the Deaf education community (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Consequently, Rep. Loveridge established a Subcommittee on Education of the Deaf, which received the endorsement of the Utah State Board of Education. The committee was formed by individuals deeply committed to the cause, such as Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, a passionate Deaf Advocate; Dr. Robert Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah; Dave Mortensen, another Deaf Advocate; and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education.
This development marked the inception of a political struggle over oralism in the education of Deaf children. Both Bob and Ned had long sought transformative changes within the Deaf education system, but they needed support from a parent of a Deaf child. Dave Mortensen, being deaf himself and a father to a Deaf child, emerged as a crucial advocate for their cause (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
During that busy summer, the Utah Association for the Deaf—primarily composed of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf—actively informed the Utah State Legislature about the lack of total communication pedagogy in the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program at the University of Utah (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970). Their advocacy highlighted a significant gap in educational practices, demonstrating the power of collective action in influencing policy.
The Subcommittee received diverse letters reflecting various opinions on teaching methods. While Dr. Bitter sought supportive letters from legislative leaders for oral programs, the Utah Association of the Deaf found support from Dr. Britt M. Hargraves, Director of the Teacher Training Program at Western Maryland College, who advocated for the simultaneous communication approach. Dr. Hargraves' findings highlighted the shortcomings of the Utah School for the Deaf's oral program, particularly its failure to prepare high school graduates for higher education (Britt M. Hargraves, personal communication, August 17, 1970), intensifying the ongoing debate.
Interestingly, the Utah affiliate of the AFL-CIO initially backed the establishment of a Total Communication Teacher's program at the University of Utah. However, three months later, it retracted that support, opting for a neutral stance to allow members to fully comprehend the complexities of the issue, adding another layer to the surrounding controversy.
The Subcommittee also discussed establishing a Total Communication program at Utah State University. However, Dr. Robert Erdman opposed this idea, and his motion received support. This opposition ultimately influenced the ongoing debate within the Deaf education community (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Della L. Loveridge. Source: Utah Department of Cultural & Community Engagement
Defense of the Oral Methodology
On June 15, 1970, around 250 people gathered in one of the meeting rooms at Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. They came together for a general meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, founded by Dr. Grant B. Bitter.
The Utah School for the Deaf faced criticism. Accusations surfaced claiming that the school favored the oral methodology for placing Deaf students and made it difficult for students to transition to sign language methodologies.
Parent petitions highlighted several serious concerns, including instances of physical abuse by oral teachers against students who used sign language, the failure of oral teachers to effectively educate Deaf students, a lack of vocational preparation for oral students, and the failure to teach oral students the difference between right and wrong properly. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the Deaf Education Program at the University of Utah. These petitions were submitted to the state government and educational officials (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
In response, Dr. Bitter denied all accusations, asserting that they were “unfounded and unwarranted.” He stated in a printed handout:
“In my judgment, the accusations made against the educational system and the teacher education program at the University of Utah are completely unjustified” (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Tensions escalated when proponents of total communication suggested merging the oral method with simultaneous communication. Dr. Bitter responded by stating, “Any meeting of the oral method with the manual alphabet and the system of signs as proposed by some would be totally incompatible with oral education; in fact, it would cease to be oral education” (Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
The Utah School for the Deaf faced criticism. Accusations surfaced claiming that the school favored the oral methodology for placing Deaf students and made it difficult for students to transition to sign language methodologies.
Parent petitions highlighted several serious concerns, including instances of physical abuse by oral teachers against students who used sign language, the failure of oral teachers to effectively educate Deaf students, a lack of vocational preparation for oral students, and the failure to teach oral students the difference between right and wrong properly. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the Deaf Education Program at the University of Utah. These petitions were submitted to the state government and educational officials (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
In response, Dr. Bitter denied all accusations, asserting that they were “unfounded and unwarranted.” He stated in a printed handout:
“In my judgment, the accusations made against the educational system and the teacher education program at the University of Utah are completely unjustified” (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Tensions escalated when proponents of total communication suggested merging the oral method with simultaneous communication. Dr. Bitter responded by stating, “Any meeting of the oral method with the manual alphabet and the system of signs as proposed by some would be totally incompatible with oral education; in fact, it would cease to be oral education” (Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Public Controversy Continues in the Summer of 1970
In June 1970, the controversy over communication methods continued to spark discussion at various meetings. State governmental agencies received more petitions, and the press received more letters. Notably, 400 parents and supporters, underscoring the widespread support, signed a petition endorsing the oral education system. Below is an excerpt from the petition:
"The best hope for a hearing-impaired child to learn to communicate adequately and compete successfully in the modern world is through early and continued oral education. Since the inception of the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf, instruction has been purely oral. As a result of employing the oral method, students in the Extension Division have learned to communicate in a normal environment with the result that integration in classes of normal students start at or complete at the high school level.
Now therefore, be it resolved by parents and friends of the Extension Division, School for the Deaf, that the oral method offers the best hope for hearing-impaired children to adjust to a normal environment and to compete successfully in society.
Be it further resolved that the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf is commended for its progressive and successful program and is urged to continue teaching by the oral method" (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 20, 1970).
Margaret Heinrich, a parent of a Deaf child and an educator at the Utah School for the Deaf, expressed in her Letter to the Editor that while most parents understood there was a small minority in the Salt Lake City area with differing opinions, they hoped the Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would recognize the wishes of the majority who wanted to maintain the current approach at the deaf school (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970).
Five months later, the same debate returned, showing how persistent the issue was. This time, students in the oral program at the Ogden campus questioned whether they could socialize with students taught using the simultaneous method of instruction (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Dr. Bitter maintained his position, arguing against any free association among USD students. He insisted that allowing sign language would undermine the integrity of the oral method.
"The best hope for a hearing-impaired child to learn to communicate adequately and compete successfully in the modern world is through early and continued oral education. Since the inception of the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf, instruction has been purely oral. As a result of employing the oral method, students in the Extension Division have learned to communicate in a normal environment with the result that integration in classes of normal students start at or complete at the high school level.
Now therefore, be it resolved by parents and friends of the Extension Division, School for the Deaf, that the oral method offers the best hope for hearing-impaired children to adjust to a normal environment and to compete successfully in society.
Be it further resolved that the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf is commended for its progressive and successful program and is urged to continue teaching by the oral method" (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 20, 1970).
Margaret Heinrich, a parent of a Deaf child and an educator at the Utah School for the Deaf, expressed in her Letter to the Editor that while most parents understood there was a small minority in the Salt Lake City area with differing opinions, they hoped the Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would recognize the wishes of the majority who wanted to maintain the current approach at the deaf school (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970).
Five months later, the same debate returned, showing how persistent the issue was. This time, students in the oral program at the Ogden campus questioned whether they could socialize with students taught using the simultaneous method of instruction (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Dr. Bitter maintained his position, arguing against any free association among USD students. He insisted that allowing sign language would undermine the integrity of the oral method.
Parents of Deaf Students Form a
Separate Parent Teacher Association
Separate Parent Teacher Association
At the Utah School for the Deaf, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) faced challenges discussing ways for parents to become more involved in school activities because of ongoing disagreements over communication methods. A group of parents who supported the use of sign language met with Representative Della L. Loveridge to express their concerns about these challenges. Della, a trusted advisor and close friend of Lila Bjorklund, the state PTA president, encouraged them to establish their own PTA (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
On May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the conflicts within the PTA, highlighting deep divisions among parents. The report indicated that parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of exclusion from decision-making processes at PTA meetings, both on the Ogden campus and in Salt Lake City (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
One Deaf parent expressed, "We are not opposed to teaching our children to speak; we are opposed to the Salt Lake extension schools refusing to teach sign language." Another father described the difficulties he encountered when trying to transition his child from the oral program to the simultaneous communication program during the later years of elementary school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
Following Representative Loveridge's advice, a separate PTA group was established on June 25, 1970, consisting of more than 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community. This group was formed in response to philosophical disagreements regarding education. This historic event took place in Ogden, Utah. The newly formed PTA became the third associated with the Utah School for the Deaf, following the Total Communication PTA in Ogden, which advocated for a comprehensive approach to communication that included sign language, and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, which focused on oralism. The original USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA upon the establishment of the third PTA (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
The new organization was named the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). Jack W. Hendrickson was elected as the first president, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was appointed treasurer, Karen Williams took on the role of historian, and Harriet Hendrickson was named secretary. The PTSA included Deaf parents, USD teachers, students, and supportive friends, encompassing both Deaf and hearing individuals committed to addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The PTSA quickly made a significant impact by advocating against the dual-track program and pushing for educational reform. They were strong supporters of parents' choices between oral and simultaneous communication methods for their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with supportive parents, had opposed the "Y" system—a controversial educational approach that separated Deaf signing students from their oral peers—for nearly ten years prior to taking this position. More information is detailed below.
On May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the conflicts within the PTA, highlighting deep divisions among parents. The report indicated that parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of exclusion from decision-making processes at PTA meetings, both on the Ogden campus and in Salt Lake City (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
One Deaf parent expressed, "We are not opposed to teaching our children to speak; we are opposed to the Salt Lake extension schools refusing to teach sign language." Another father described the difficulties he encountered when trying to transition his child from the oral program to the simultaneous communication program during the later years of elementary school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
Following Representative Loveridge's advice, a separate PTA group was established on June 25, 1970, consisting of more than 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community. This group was formed in response to philosophical disagreements regarding education. This historic event took place in Ogden, Utah. The newly formed PTA became the third associated with the Utah School for the Deaf, following the Total Communication PTA in Ogden, which advocated for a comprehensive approach to communication that included sign language, and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, which focused on oralism. The original USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA upon the establishment of the third PTA (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
The new organization was named the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). Jack W. Hendrickson was elected as the first president, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was appointed treasurer, Karen Williams took on the role of historian, and Harriet Hendrickson was named secretary. The PTSA included Deaf parents, USD teachers, students, and supportive friends, encompassing both Deaf and hearing individuals committed to addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The PTSA quickly made a significant impact by advocating against the dual-track program and pushing for educational reform. They were strong supporters of parents' choices between oral and simultaneous communication methods for their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with supportive parents, had opposed the "Y" system—a controversial educational approach that separated Deaf signing students from their oral peers—for nearly ten years prior to taking this position. More information is detailed below.
Deaf Teaching Method Debate
at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
Deaf Teaching Method Debate at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
On July 27, 1970, a significant event took place at the State Capitol auditorium. Approximately 200 individuals, including members of the Utah State Board of Higher Education, the Utah State Board of Education, the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, and other key stakeholders, gathered to witness a debate on the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. Sponsored by the Governor's Advisory Council, this debate marked a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education, igniting discussions that would shape future policies and practices.
The debate on Deaf education included key figures from the State Board of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Governor's Advisory Council. Important attendees included the state superintendent of public instruction, administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf, and presidents of the Parent Teacher Associations and Parent Teacher Student Associations. The event also counted on the support of the President of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House. Respected Deaf leaders such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Joseph B. Burdett, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner were also in attendance (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. McCay Vernon, a Deaf fervent advocate for the total communication method, passionately expressed his concerns, stating, "An overwhelming number of Deaf people fail educationally or are forced to fail because of the way they are taught... The Deaf are just as bright... they have just as high IQs as hearing people... But the proportion of Deaf high school students going to college has decreased" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
In defense of the oral method, Dr. Miller argued that it offered certain advantages. She acknowledged that proponents of both methods agreed on various important issues, such as early identification, parental education, and successful job placement. However, she pointed out that the disagreement between the two methods lay primarily in their communication approaches. Dr. Miller insisted, "We must concentrate on ways to improve oral instruction" due to several challenges, including individual differences among students, teacher motivation, large class sizes, and inconsistencies in the overall oral program. Despite these shortcomings, she praised Utah's oral program as "distinctive," asserting that "[the program] made it possible for each [Deaf] child to enter the adult [hearing] world" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon presented a compelling argument that was both passionate and well-researched. He referenced multiple scholarly studies that showcased the advantages of the total communication method over a strictly oral approach. His emphasis on focusing on the educational needs of Deaf individuals was strongly supported by significant research (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon's claims have consistently received support from numerous scholarly studies. Research consistently shows that Deaf children of Deaf parents outperform their peers in academic achievement, reading and writing skills, and social development (Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1989). This validation of Dr. Vernon's arguments underscores the enduring impact of the 1970 Deaf education debate.
On July 27, 1970, a significant event took place at the State Capitol auditorium. Approximately 200 individuals, including members of the Utah State Board of Higher Education, the Utah State Board of Education, the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, and other key stakeholders, gathered to witness a debate on the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. Sponsored by the Governor's Advisory Council, this debate marked a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education, igniting discussions that would shape future policies and practices.
The debate on Deaf education included key figures from the State Board of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Governor's Advisory Council. Important attendees included the state superintendent of public instruction, administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf, and presidents of the Parent Teacher Associations and Parent Teacher Student Associations. The event also counted on the support of the President of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House. Respected Deaf leaders such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Joseph B. Burdett, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner were also in attendance (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. McCay Vernon, a Deaf fervent advocate for the total communication method, passionately expressed his concerns, stating, "An overwhelming number of Deaf people fail educationally or are forced to fail because of the way they are taught... The Deaf are just as bright... they have just as high IQs as hearing people... But the proportion of Deaf high school students going to college has decreased" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
In defense of the oral method, Dr. Miller argued that it offered certain advantages. She acknowledged that proponents of both methods agreed on various important issues, such as early identification, parental education, and successful job placement. However, she pointed out that the disagreement between the two methods lay primarily in their communication approaches. Dr. Miller insisted, "We must concentrate on ways to improve oral instruction" due to several challenges, including individual differences among students, teacher motivation, large class sizes, and inconsistencies in the overall oral program. Despite these shortcomings, she praised Utah's oral program as "distinctive," asserting that "[the program] made it possible for each [Deaf] child to enter the adult [hearing] world" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon presented a compelling argument that was both passionate and well-researched. He referenced multiple scholarly studies that showcased the advantages of the total communication method over a strictly oral approach. His emphasis on focusing on the educational needs of Deaf individuals was strongly supported by significant research (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon's claims have consistently received support from numerous scholarly studies. Research consistently shows that Deaf children of Deaf parents outperform their peers in academic achievement, reading and writing skills, and social development (Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1989). This validation of Dr. Vernon's arguments underscores the enduring impact of the 1970 Deaf education debate.
Dr. McCay Vernon. Source: Deaf Life website
After the debate, Dr. Grant Bitter, an influential figure in the Deaf education community, sent a letter to Legislative Subcommittee #4 expressing his strong opposition to Dr. Vernon's presentation. In his letter, Dr. Bitter argued that no research supported the efficacy of the total communication method, viewing it not as a legitimate teaching method but rather as a vague philosophy that confused students (Grant Bitter, personal communication, August 5, 1970; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Although Dr. Bitter's stance was ultimately proven incorrect, it significantly influenced the subcommittee's recommendations.
Despite Dr. Bitter's errors, the subcommittee members found his arguments convincing. Representative Loveridge, the chairperson of the Advisory Council's subcommittee, noted that the Utah School for the Deaf began with every Deaf child in the oral program until finishing 6th grade. She stated that the subcommittee would make recommendations to both the committee and Governor Calvin L. Rampton. The questions the subcommittee aimed to address included:
Despite Dr. Bitter's errors, the subcommittee members found his arguments convincing. Representative Loveridge, the chairperson of the Advisory Council's subcommittee, noted that the Utah School for the Deaf began with every Deaf child in the oral program until finishing 6th grade. She stated that the subcommittee would make recommendations to both the committee and Governor Calvin L. Rampton. The questions the subcommittee aimed to address included:
- Should the total communication method be taught to Utah Deaf children at an earlier age than the current 7th grade?
- Should Utah colleges upgrade the deaf education degrees available in the state? (The Salt Lake Tribune, July 27, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Utah Governor Calvin L. Rampton. Source: KSL.com
The State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped, chaired by Senator Ernest H. Dean (D-American Fork), along with the Committee for the Study of Programs of the Deaf, chaired by Dr. Moroni H. Brown, who served as both a chairman of the Utah State Board of Education and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Utah, faced the challenge of deciding what changes, if any, should be implemented at the Utah School for the Deaf. In the fall of 1970, these committees conducted extensive studies of the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. These studies would serve as the foundation for their report to the Utah State Board of Education (Utahn, 1961; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown. Source: Utahn, 1961
Did You Know?
Research indicates that all schoolchildren need to master two types of communication skills to achieve their educational goals: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS encompasses the social and conversational skills acquired through daily interactions with family and peers. In contrast, CALP builds on BICS as a foundation and is learned explicitly.
In the K-12 environment, the setting, context, and conversational partners play a critical role in the development of CALP. Many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, however, lack early exposure to sign language, which results in a deficit in BICS. When these students enter elementary school, their insufficient BICS hinders their ability to fully engage in classroom activities and interact with their peers. Consequently, this delay in BICS negatively affects their capacity to acquire CALP. Research shows this can lead to lower reading scores and generally poor academic performance (Cummins & Swain, 1986).
In summary, many Deaf children do not fully develop BICS and CALP, which are essential for academic success, due to limited exposure to effective sign language during early development.
In the K-12 environment, the setting, context, and conversational partners play a critical role in the development of CALP. Many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, however, lack early exposure to sign language, which results in a deficit in BICS. When these students enter elementary school, their insufficient BICS hinders their ability to fully engage in classroom activities and interact with their peers. Consequently, this delay in BICS negatively affects their capacity to acquire CALP. Research shows this can lead to lower reading scores and generally poor academic performance (Cummins & Swain, 1986).
In summary, many Deaf children do not fully develop BICS and CALP, which are essential for academic success, due to limited exposure to effective sign language during early development.
The Utah Association for the Deaf Board of Directors Presents to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf
On October 5, 1970, Ned C. Wheeler, a member of the Governor's Advisory Council and chairman of the Board of Directors for the Utah Association for the Deaf, invited the UAD board members to his home for a special meeting. The board, comprised of experienced individuals in Deaf education, was tasked with preparing a presentation for the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. They had ten days to complete this vital task, as the committee was scheduled to convene on October 15.
It was decided that Dennis R. Platt, the UAD president, would deliver the main presentation. Joseph B. Burnett would address the situation of learners at the Deaf school, and Lloyd H. Perkins would discuss newspaper propaganda.
It was decided that Dennis R. Platt, the UAD president, would deliver the main presentation. Joseph B. Burnett would address the situation of learners at the Deaf school, and Lloyd H. Perkins would discuss newspaper propaganda.
Ned C. Wheeler
The following points were incorporated into the presentation:
- The UAD urgently requests the inclusion of trained counselors in the school's budget, particularly for the dormitories, with adequate compensation. Delaying this critical need is not an option.
- Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf need trained guidance counselors. Currently, Gene D. Stewart provides guidance for simultaneous communication (total communication) students, but there is no trained guidance counselor for oral students. Gary Suttlemyre's dedication and lack of necessary training severely impact the students' well-being and academic progress.
- It is troubling that children at the Ogden's residential campus, particularly those in the upper grades, are experiencing unhappiness. Numerous petitions to the Utah State Board of Education and an increase in student strikes both on and off campus highlight this issue. As noted in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, "Unhappy children are poor learners." This unhappiness is leading to behavioral issues, which require immediate attention.
- In Utah, there is no trained clinical psychologist specializing in the Deaf. A clinical psychologist is needed to administer IQ tests, conduct psychological evaluations, and counsel emotionally disturbed Deaf children. Dr. Melvin Nielsen is an audiologist who should not function as a psychologist, even part-time.
- Deaf students in the simultaneous communication/total communication department have been required to accept verbal instruction without sign language in some vocational courses. Some of USD's vocational teachers are unqualified to teach Deaf students, and similarly, some teachers in the oral department lack the training to teach speech effectively.
- USD is ignoring the fundamental psychological factors that contribute to student success. The school frequently places Deaf students in situations that they neither desire nor understand. Evidence suggests that parents sometimes ally with the USD administration to keep children in environments that do not support their learning needs. This issue is particularly evident when students are retained in the Oral Program despite failing or expressing a desire to leave. As a result, these children may feel helpless and unsupported, leading to misbehavior.
- Upon entering USD, every child should receive a comprehensive evaluation in areas such as hearing loss, IQ level, and home background to assess their educational potential. A customized program should then be developed to fit the child's needs. Currently, Deaf children are often placed in existing programs that may not meet their needs. These evaluations should occur annually and be modified as necessary, involving a team of professionals, including clinical psychologists, guidance counselors, and dormitory counselors.
- The UAD objects to the mixing of potential grade-level students with slower learners, particularly in the simultaneous communication/total communication department, where class sizes are small. Teachers often focus on potential learners, yet these students are hindered by a slower classroom pace that must accommodate all learners. Implementing appropriate evaluations could help resolve this issue
- There is evidence that parents who advocate for the oral/aural program have undue influence on the school administration. Parents often oppose the transfer of certain children to the simultaneous communication department.
Dennis R. Platt. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Concerns Regarding Newspaper Propaganda:
The media often showed a noticeable bias, especially in favor of the oral method, as evidenced by publications like the Salt Lake Tribune. This biased representation can significantly affect vulnerable parents, particularly those who are hearing and may lack a comprehensive understanding of the needs and best practices for educating Deaf children in terms of their education and vocational training.
Individuals representing the Utah School for the Deaf during public lectures tend to advocate for the oral method. Furthermore, when parents speak with school administrators, they are often encouraged to immediately place their child in the oral department without an evaluation. The UAD stressed the importance of providing these parents with balanced information to help them make informed decisions about their Deaf children's education and vocational training. UAD firmly believed that a comprehensive approach that considers all communication methods is essential for effective Deaf education (UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971).
UAD advocates for a robust program at the University of Utah that trains all teachers of Deaf education with the skills needed to support various methods of communication, not solely speech and speech reading. Many graduate teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah struggled to communicate effectively with Deaf adult individuals. This issue was critical, as these graduates' inability to sign forced Deaf adults to rely on speech, which can put them in uncomfortable situations, especially when their speech is unclear. UAD highlighted that Deaf adults depended on both lip-reading and signing for communication, rather than relying on a single method, which can strain their eyes.
This summary encapsulates the concerns and observations UAD wished to present to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. The full article can be found in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, under the Minutes of UAD Board Meetings.
The media often showed a noticeable bias, especially in favor of the oral method, as evidenced by publications like the Salt Lake Tribune. This biased representation can significantly affect vulnerable parents, particularly those who are hearing and may lack a comprehensive understanding of the needs and best practices for educating Deaf children in terms of their education and vocational training.
Individuals representing the Utah School for the Deaf during public lectures tend to advocate for the oral method. Furthermore, when parents speak with school administrators, they are often encouraged to immediately place their child in the oral department without an evaluation. The UAD stressed the importance of providing these parents with balanced information to help them make informed decisions about their Deaf children's education and vocational training. UAD firmly believed that a comprehensive approach that considers all communication methods is essential for effective Deaf education (UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971).
UAD advocates for a robust program at the University of Utah that trains all teachers of Deaf education with the skills needed to support various methods of communication, not solely speech and speech reading. Many graduate teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah struggled to communicate effectively with Deaf adult individuals. This issue was critical, as these graduates' inability to sign forced Deaf adults to rely on speech, which can put them in uncomfortable situations, especially when their speech is unclear. UAD highlighted that Deaf adults depended on both lip-reading and signing for communication, rather than relying on a single method, which can strain their eyes.
This summary encapsulates the concerns and observations UAD wished to present to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. The full article can be found in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, under the Minutes of UAD Board Meetings.
Two Committees Compile Seventeen Recommendations
for the Utah School for the Deaf
for the Utah School for the Deaf
The State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped and the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf meticulously developed a list of seventeen recommendations after extensive meetings, demonstrating their dedication and thoroughness in the process.
On December 11, 1970, both committees sent a delegation to present their findings to the Utah State Board of Education. The Board adopted several of these recommendations, some of which were already part of the existing policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970). On that day, the State Board listened to reports from the two committees regarding the issues facing the Deaf school. They also heard from proponents of two instructional programs for Deaf children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown, a former state board member, reported findings from his subcommittee on Deaf, Blind, and Socio-Economically Handicapped students, which was led by former Representative Della L. Loveridge (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). This subcommittee interviewed Deaf students at the Ogden's residential campus. Their report recommended that socialization among all Deaf children, regardless of their communication mode, be enhanced (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Please refer to the Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf in the image below.
On December 11, 1970, both committees sent a delegation to present their findings to the Utah State Board of Education. The Board adopted several of these recommendations, some of which were already part of the existing policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970). On that day, the State Board listened to reports from the two committees regarding the issues facing the Deaf school. They also heard from proponents of two instructional programs for Deaf children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown, a former state board member, reported findings from his subcommittee on Deaf, Blind, and Socio-Economically Handicapped students, which was led by former Representative Della L. Loveridge (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). This subcommittee interviewed Deaf students at the Ogden's residential campus. Their report recommended that socialization among all Deaf children, regardless of their communication mode, be enhanced (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Please refer to the Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf in the image below.
Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
Senator Dean's committee recommended increased socialization among students, while Dr. Brown's committee suggested separating the two instructional methods until high school (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). Dr. Brown's group further recommended that students living in the school's dormitories be separated during junior high but allowed to socialize when they reached high school age (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Brown's committee proposed that Deaf students who could succeed in an oral program should continue their education in the public school system, as some parents in the oral education group believed their children should be isolated from sign language. However, parents of signing children felt this separation was discriminatory. The committee recommended that the Utah School for the Deaf determine the best course of action for each child, stressing that there could be no rigid rule (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
At that time, all students received oral instruction through the sixth grade, following the 'Y' system, a method of education that separates students into oral and simultaneous communication. Instruction was divided based on a child's success in the oral program; if a child struggled, they could transfer to a simultaneous communication program. Dr. Brown's committee recommended changing this policy. They suggested that both sign language and oral programs should be available as soon as a child is identified as Deaf. They felt that these programs should be continuous from preschool through high school and that children should be able to transfer between programs as needed (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Keith Winegar, the Bountiful spokesman for the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, addressed the Utah State Board of Education, stating, 'We firmly believe that the oral program is a necessary and effective approach to the education of our children. We do not wish to diminish the options available to students trained in the simultaneous method, but we want to ensure that the programs remain distinct. It should be one method or the other, allowing parents to make that choice.' He expressed concerns about external pressures that were undermining the oral program at the Ogden Deaf School. He warned that his group would take 'extreme measures', such as legal action or public protests, if the program continued to be weakened (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders at Utah State University, spoke on behalf of Deaf parents, arguing that settling on a single teaching method "denies individuality." He pointed out that some children require the opportunity to learn through simultaneous communication from an early age. Dr. Clark recommended that decisions about a child's education be made by parents or, in conjunction with diagnosticians, as early as age 2½ (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Brown's committee proposed that Deaf students who could succeed in an oral program should continue their education in the public school system, as some parents in the oral education group believed their children should be isolated from sign language. However, parents of signing children felt this separation was discriminatory. The committee recommended that the Utah School for the Deaf determine the best course of action for each child, stressing that there could be no rigid rule (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
At that time, all students received oral instruction through the sixth grade, following the 'Y' system, a method of education that separates students into oral and simultaneous communication. Instruction was divided based on a child's success in the oral program; if a child struggled, they could transfer to a simultaneous communication program. Dr. Brown's committee recommended changing this policy. They suggested that both sign language and oral programs should be available as soon as a child is identified as Deaf. They felt that these programs should be continuous from preschool through high school and that children should be able to transfer between programs as needed (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Keith Winegar, the Bountiful spokesman for the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, addressed the Utah State Board of Education, stating, 'We firmly believe that the oral program is a necessary and effective approach to the education of our children. We do not wish to diminish the options available to students trained in the simultaneous method, but we want to ensure that the programs remain distinct. It should be one method or the other, allowing parents to make that choice.' He expressed concerns about external pressures that were undermining the oral program at the Ogden Deaf School. He warned that his group would take 'extreme measures', such as legal action or public protests, if the program continued to be weakened (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders at Utah State University, spoke on behalf of Deaf parents, arguing that settling on a single teaching method "denies individuality." He pointed out that some children require the opportunity to learn through simultaneous communication from an early age. Dr. Clark recommended that decisions about a child's education be made by parents or, in conjunction with diagnosticians, as early as age 2½ (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
The committees reached a consensus on three key points:
Vera M. Gee, the chairwoman of the Governor's Advisory Board for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, called on the state of Utah to clarify its policy regarding the education of Deaf children. She noted that similar controversies had arisen in the past, stating, "We went through this [controversy] 10 years ago, and we are saying the same things again" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
- Deaf children should be identified as early as possible.
- Their parents should receive counseling to understand both their responsibilities and the available programs.
- The Utah School for the Deaf should provide both the oral and simultaneous programs at all grade levels, allowing parents to choose the instructional method for their children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Vera M. Gee, the chairwoman of the Governor's Advisory Board for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, called on the state of Utah to clarify its policy regarding the education of Deaf children. She noted that similar controversies had arisen in the past, stating, "We went through this [controversy] 10 years ago, and we are saying the same things again" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
The Governor’s Advisory Board of the Utah School for the Deaf. Front row, L-R: Verda Hayes, Ned C. Wheeler, chairman of the board, and Vera Gee, former
chairman. Back row, L-R: James E. Ferguson, Norman T. Foy, Fern Leigh, and Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source. UAD Bulletin, June 1974.
Some of the seventeen recommendations supported the continuation of the oral and simultaneous communication educational tracks while introducing more formal procedures. Other key recommendations included:
These final recommendations were adopted for the ongoing operation of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970).
Dr. Bitter raised objections to the final recommendations based on several grounds:
- Implementing an orientation for parents that covers various communication methodologies.
- Expanding the vocational placement program to work in harmony with both oral and simultaneous communication programs.
- Establishing procedures to gather input from concerned citizens and mechanisms to address those concerns.
- Setting certification requirements for teacher preparation programs for the Deaf, which would include some form of training in sign language.
These final recommendations were adopted for the ongoing operation of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970).
Dr. Bitter raised objections to the final recommendations based on several grounds:
- The study that informed the recommendations was not conducted according to proper guidelines, procedures, and conditions.
- Some groups were not represented in the discussion.
- Individuals who spoke as authorities on the topic were not qualified to do so.
- There was a delay in selecting committee members.
- The committee operated more like a grand jury than its intended purpose.
- Information was released that should have remained confidential (G.B. Bitter, December 18, 1970; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
The Proposal for a Dual-Track Program to Support Parental Choices
One pivotal moment in this struggle occurred during the 1969 walkout protest against the continued enforcement of the "Y" system, which enforced social segregation in the dual-track program. This protest echoed the 1962 student demonstration at the Utah School for the Deaf. Although the students did not achieve their desired outcomes, they found new ways to express their discontent. Some sign language students boldly crossed the hallway to the oral department, while others took the route to the simultaneous communication department. This act of defiance broke the "Y" system's rule that designated these areas as 'off-limits' to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even confronted their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). For nearly a decade, the Utah Association for the Deaf, in collaboration with the PTSA, consisted of supportive parents who advocated for sign language and fought against the "Y" system. Their unwavering determination and resilience in the face of social segregation are truly admirable.
When faced with a challenging situation, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder sought assistance from his superior, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, is a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally for the Utah Deaf community. Concerned for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new educational framework that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
When faced with a challenging situation, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder sought assistance from his superior, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, is a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally for the Utah Deaf community. Concerned for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new educational framework that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell
Ned C. Wheeler, who became deaf at the age of 13 and graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1933, was the chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council. He proposed the "two-track program" in response to various events, including Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and the PTSA's opposition to the "Y" system policy. On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy that permitted the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program, effectively eliminating the "Y" system. This new program allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf children, ages 2½ to 21, marking a significant shift in Deaf education (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Ned C. Wheeler on the front cover of The Deaf American magazine in September 1976
The PTSA played a crucial role in influencing school policies. Many parents expressed concerns about the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program and proposed that the USDB Governor's Advisory Board replace the "Y" system with a new program. This new program would provide parents with the option of choosing between oralism and simultaneous communication. Upon approval, the proposal was submitted to the Utah State Board of Education for final consideration.
Utah State Board of Education Adopts New Policy
for the Utah School for the Deaf
for the Utah School for the Deaf
On December 28, 1970, after nearly ten years of debate regarding the best educational methods for Deaf students, the Utah State Board of Education approved a new policy to resolve the educational controversies surrounding the Utah School for the Deaf (Recommendation on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970). This policy allowed the Utah School for the Deaf to implement a two-track program, giving parents the choice between oral communication and total communication methods, replacing the previous simultaneous communication approach for their Deaf children, ages 2½ to 21. Instead of being required to place their child in the oral program initially, parents now had options. The Parent Teacher and Student Association worked diligently to secure this new program, marking a significant victory for the Deaf community in Utah (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Based on seventeen recommendations, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the state superintendent of public instruction, presented the new policy. This system, referred to as the 'two-track' instructional system, permitted Deaf students to transfer between the two programs while ensuring professional evaluations of their progress (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970). Despite objections from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who believed that the new policy would not adequately address the needs of Deaf students, the State Board of Education moved forward.
The second major change in the policy affected junior high and high school students. Students using sign language would be placed in separate academic programs to prevent interference with the oral students, although integration was maintained during athletic events and other social gatherings for the Utah Deaf community (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970; Utah State Board of Education Report, 1973; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Robert W. Tegeder, superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, received guidance from Dr. Jay J. Campbell regarding the implications of these changes for the Deaf school (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006). Superintendent Tegeder explained that the total separation of the two programs was based on reports from the committees involved (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970).
The new policies, derived from the seventeen recommendations, included School Policy Number One, which stated that both the oral program and the total communication program should be available to every student. School Policy Number Two outlined the parameters for student placement, emphasizing that the student and parent should play essential roles in this determination (Campbell, 1977, p. 49).
Despite the PTSA's announced victory over the new policy change that would allow parents to choose between oral and total communication, USDB Superintendent Tegeder described the board's decision as "nothing really earth-shaking." He described it as a compromise on guidelines that were quite similar to those previously in place. He did not perceive a clear-cut victory for either side in the dispute; however, he did acknowledge that signing advocates now had official documentation to support their efforts (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970).
Superintendent Tegeder pointed out that the debate over the best methods for educating Deaf students has been ongoing in America for more than 100 years and in Utah for about 84 years. He expressed skepticism that the new policy changes would resolve the long-standing controversy (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). For further details, you can refer to the image below, which presents the Recommendations for Policies One and Two for the Utah School for the Deaf.
Based on seventeen recommendations, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the state superintendent of public instruction, presented the new policy. This system, referred to as the 'two-track' instructional system, permitted Deaf students to transfer between the two programs while ensuring professional evaluations of their progress (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970). Despite objections from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who believed that the new policy would not adequately address the needs of Deaf students, the State Board of Education moved forward.
The second major change in the policy affected junior high and high school students. Students using sign language would be placed in separate academic programs to prevent interference with the oral students, although integration was maintained during athletic events and other social gatherings for the Utah Deaf community (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970; Utah State Board of Education Report, 1973; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Robert W. Tegeder, superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, received guidance from Dr. Jay J. Campbell regarding the implications of these changes for the Deaf school (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006). Superintendent Tegeder explained that the total separation of the two programs was based on reports from the committees involved (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970).
The new policies, derived from the seventeen recommendations, included School Policy Number One, which stated that both the oral program and the total communication program should be available to every student. School Policy Number Two outlined the parameters for student placement, emphasizing that the student and parent should play essential roles in this determination (Campbell, 1977, p. 49).
Despite the PTSA's announced victory over the new policy change that would allow parents to choose between oral and total communication, USDB Superintendent Tegeder described the board's decision as "nothing really earth-shaking." He described it as a compromise on guidelines that were quite similar to those previously in place. He did not perceive a clear-cut victory for either side in the dispute; however, he did acknowledge that signing advocates now had official documentation to support their efforts (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970).
Superintendent Tegeder pointed out that the debate over the best methods for educating Deaf students has been ongoing in America for more than 100 years and in Utah for about 84 years. He expressed skepticism that the new policy changes would resolve the long-standing controversy (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). For further details, you can refer to the image below, which presents the Recommendations for Policies One and Two for the Utah School for the Deaf.
The Implementation of the Two-Track" Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The two-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf was introduced during the 1971-1972 school year (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). This system was implemented at the Ogden's residential campus and in the extension program located in Salt Lake City, both of which offered oral and total communication programs. These programs were maintained as separate departments to preserve their distinct methodologies. Over time, students enrolled in the on-campus oral program were transitioned to mainstream placements in nearby public schools (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, parents could select a teaching method for their children starting at 2½ years old and continuing until they turned 21 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The advocacy for Deaf children's rights to appropriate education gained momentum in the early summer of 1970 when Dave Mortensen, a highly respected figure in the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association, raised his voice on behalf of Deaf students. Inspired by his Deaf daughter, Kristi Lee, Dave became a champion for equal access to education for Deaf children, advocating for them to have the same educational opportunities as their hearing peers (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
The advocacy for Deaf children's rights to appropriate education gained momentum in the early summer of 1970 when Dave Mortensen, a highly respected figure in the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association, raised his voice on behalf of Deaf students. Inspired by his Deaf daughter, Kristi Lee, Dave became a champion for equal access to education for Deaf children, advocating for them to have the same educational opportunities as their hearing peers (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
Two-Track Program With Communication Method Choices at the Utah School for the Deaf
The Utah State Board of Education Implements Segregation
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education adopted a policy for the Utah School for the Deaf. This policy, which stated that 'Students in the Oral and Total Communication programs conducted at the School and its students who attend public schools shall be separated through the junior high school years' (The Salt Lake Tribune, December 28, 1970), was implemented during a time of significant civil rights gains. However, it perpetuated a form of segregation for Deaf students, a stark contradiction to the prevailing civil rights narrative.
Although the two-track program offered communication options for parents of Deaf children, Dave Mortensen, the President of the Utah Association of the Deaf, opposed the practice of segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf. He argued that the federal government had eliminated segregation throughout the United States. Despite advancements in civil rights, the Utah State Board of Education continued to uphold a harmful segregation policy for Deaf students in residential schools, day classes, and mainstream placements (Dave Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
In the June 1975 UAD Bulletin, President Mortensen vividly described how Deaf children were caught in a double standard. They were expected to navigate a confusing, distracting educational environment, akin to having two authority figures issuing contradictory instructions. This structure was not only harmful but also created significant struggles for the children, evoking a deep sense of empathy from the audience.
Although the two-track program offered communication options for parents of Deaf children, Dave Mortensen, the President of the Utah Association of the Deaf, opposed the practice of segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf. He argued that the federal government had eliminated segregation throughout the United States. Despite advancements in civil rights, the Utah State Board of Education continued to uphold a harmful segregation policy for Deaf students in residential schools, day classes, and mainstream placements (Dave Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
In the June 1975 UAD Bulletin, President Mortensen vividly described how Deaf children were caught in a double standard. They were expected to navigate a confusing, distracting educational environment, akin to having two authority figures issuing contradictory instructions. This structure was not only harmful but also created significant struggles for the children, evoking a deep sense of empathy from the audience.
W. David Mortensen, 1980. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Educational Placement Reflects Status
President Mortensen reviewed the educational system and believed that student placements reflected the administration's belief in each student's ability to learn to speak. The more capable a student was at speaking, the higher their status, and the better the services they received in the program. This created noticeable differences in treatment among students, leading to feelings of prestige and pride that would not occur for those placed in the signing program.
To illustrate what 'status' meant, Dave provided examples from TV commercials: if a commercial stated, "8 out of 10 doctors recommend Anacin!" a consumer might feel a sense of status for choosing that popular brand. He listed several status symbols that resonate with people and boost their self-esteem, including:
Dave's examples demonstrated that every individual desires to feel important. He shared experiences from former oral program graduates, including that of a student who had spent 13 years in the oral track. Despite his long tenure, school officials indicated he had not been successful and should switch to the signing track program. This revelation can be difficult to comprehend; the young person had invested over a decade in the oral department and had come to embrace status symbols associated with specific degrees of deafness, such as:
Suddenly, this oral student was being transferred to the signing program—the very program his parents had hoped to avoid! Not only was he expected to relinquish the status symbols associated with his perceived success, but he also faced disappointment for failing to meet his family's expectations. While he might feel relief from finally being able to sign openly rather than in secret, the emotional turmoil surrounding this program change would be overwhelming.
President Mortensen believed that the dual-track education system at the Utah School for the Deaf was unsuitable for students, despite its uniqueness in the nation. His concern was for the self-esteem of Deaf children and teens. The dual system pressured these students to conform to hearing norms set by their parents, teachers, administrators, audiologists, speech therapists, friends, and relatives. Mortensen argued that it was time for Deaf individuals to stop associating speech and lip reading (hearing values) with status. Instead, they should take pride in their identity as Deaf individuals. He envisioned a transformation that would turn the values of oppression into empowerment and pride.
He concluded his article by highlighting the urgent need for systemic change within the educational system. He noted that students in the total communication track were a minority within a minority, and that this status was typically determined by an administration that favored the oral program. He highlighted that the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf caused animosity between the two programs—leading to hostility and resentment between the oral and total communication programs as they competed for limited resources and funding (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
President Mortensen reviewed the educational system and believed that student placements reflected the administration's belief in each student's ability to learn to speak. The more capable a student was at speaking, the higher their status, and the better the services they received in the program. This created noticeable differences in treatment among students, leading to feelings of prestige and pride that would not occur for those placed in the signing program.
To illustrate what 'status' meant, Dave provided examples from TV commercials: if a commercial stated, "8 out of 10 doctors recommend Anacin!" a consumer might feel a sense of status for choosing that popular brand. He listed several status symbols that resonate with people and boost their self-esteem, including:
- A new car
- A college degree
- The right kind of friends
- Name-brand clothes
- Wealth
- A high-paying job
- A muscular or shapely body
- A prestigious title (e.g., president, queen, chairman)
- A truck and camper
- A spacious new house
- A large number of books (signifying intelligence)
Dave's examples demonstrated that every individual desires to feel important. He shared experiences from former oral program graduates, including that of a student who had spent 13 years in the oral track. Despite his long tenure, school officials indicated he had not been successful and should switch to the signing track program. This revelation can be difficult to comprehend; the young person had invested over a decade in the oral department and had come to embrace status symbols associated with specific degrees of deafness, such as:
- Good speech
- Speech reading
- Hearing ability
- Integration
- Understanding hearing people
- Avoiding signing or gesturing
- Attending a public school
- Having a hearing romantic partner
Suddenly, this oral student was being transferred to the signing program—the very program his parents had hoped to avoid! Not only was he expected to relinquish the status symbols associated with his perceived success, but he also faced disappointment for failing to meet his family's expectations. While he might feel relief from finally being able to sign openly rather than in secret, the emotional turmoil surrounding this program change would be overwhelming.
President Mortensen believed that the dual-track education system at the Utah School for the Deaf was unsuitable for students, despite its uniqueness in the nation. His concern was for the self-esteem of Deaf children and teens. The dual system pressured these students to conform to hearing norms set by their parents, teachers, administrators, audiologists, speech therapists, friends, and relatives. Mortensen argued that it was time for Deaf individuals to stop associating speech and lip reading (hearing values) with status. Instead, they should take pride in their identity as Deaf individuals. He envisioned a transformation that would turn the values of oppression into empowerment and pride.
He concluded his article by highlighting the urgent need for systemic change within the educational system. He noted that students in the total communication track were a minority within a minority, and that this status was typically determined by an administration that favored the oral program. He highlighted that the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf caused animosity between the two programs—leading to hostility and resentment between the oral and total communication programs as they competed for limited resources and funding (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
Utah School for the Deaf Encourages
Parents to Choose the Oral Program
Parents to Choose the Oral Program
Despite recent policy changes, which have drawn criticism from the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Association, staff at the Utah School for the Deaf have been advising parents to enroll their children in the oral program. They have recommended that the total communication program be considered only if the child is not making adequate academic progress (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975; Campbell, 1977; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Consequently, the school has not been fully compliant with the newly established guidelines.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell observed that the two programs were not presented equally to parents, and student placements often did not reflect professional evaluations of their needs. He was particularly concerned that the USD Parent Infant Program (PIP) was urging parents to commit to keeping their child in the oral program while providing little opportunity to consider the total communication program (Campbell, 1977).
Interestingly, the PIP program, a significant player in the Deaf education system, notably influenced the number of Deaf children enrolled in the oral program. The program recommended the total communication option mainly for parents whose children were struggling with speech skills, which led to a disproportionate placement of Deaf students in the oral program.
Dr. Campbell noted that Deaf children who began in the total communication program often transitioned from the oral program. The oral program administrators labeled these children as "oral failures" when they struggled with listening and speaking. Lane (1999) noted that this label had a profoundly negative impact on students, leading them to internalize a stigma that made them resistant to the signing program and ultimately hampered their acceptance of the simultaneous communication (Sim-Com) program. These oral students had been taught to view total communication as inferior, and being placed in the Sim-Com program damaged their self-image and motivation to learn, as the oral philosophy biased them against signing (Campbell, 1977; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Campbell also found that most Utah School for the Deaf staff held the misconception that signing hindered verbal language development. This belief led staff to recommend that Deaf children be placed in the oral program first to learn to speak. The only exceptions were for Deaf children with additional disabilities or if parents specifically preferred the total communication program (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell argued that by offering only one communicative system for all Deaf children, the program deprived parents of crucial information about other educational alternatives that could meet their children's diverse needs (Campbell, 1977, p. 82).
A staff conference was held to discuss alternative placements for children not making adequate progress in the oral program. This conference typically included one or both curriculum coordinators, the principal, an audiologist, and a teacher. Parent participation was rare, and students were never included (Campbell, 1977).
Due to School Policy Number Two, which assigned USD staff the responsibility of determining student placements, Dr. Campbell noted that these meetings created ongoing conflicts among staff and led to biased placement decisions. He was alarmed that there were no uniform assessments or objective test data available to make informed educational placement decisions. Consequently, Dr. Campbell recommended that placement determinations should not fall solely on the USD staff or administration. He also suggested separating the oral and total communication programs entirely, rather than having them operate under a single principal (Campbell, 1977). Ironically, this question resurfaced in 2004 when Janet Cannon, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, asked whether USD should have one administrator or if each program should have its own principal (Cannon's Paper Given to the USDB Institutional Council, 2004).
Dr. Campbell envisioned a system that did not abolish either program. He acknowledged the need for both distinct educational methodologies to coexist on the same campus, but he anticipated ongoing challenges as long as this arrangement persisted. His final recommendation was decisive: a complete separation of the "two-track system." This was not merely a suggestion; it was a call to action to resolve the internal and external conflicts between the Oral and Total Communication Programs and to lessen competition between them. Each program, he proposed, should have its own dean, supervisor, principal, and teachers, highlighting the urgency for change.
The teachers supported this recommendation to appoint separate principals: one for the Oral Department and one for the Total Communication Department. They believed this would allow for effective supervision given the fundamentally different philosophies at the residential school.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell observed that the two programs were not presented equally to parents, and student placements often did not reflect professional evaluations of their needs. He was particularly concerned that the USD Parent Infant Program (PIP) was urging parents to commit to keeping their child in the oral program while providing little opportunity to consider the total communication program (Campbell, 1977).
Interestingly, the PIP program, a significant player in the Deaf education system, notably influenced the number of Deaf children enrolled in the oral program. The program recommended the total communication option mainly for parents whose children were struggling with speech skills, which led to a disproportionate placement of Deaf students in the oral program.
Dr. Campbell noted that Deaf children who began in the total communication program often transitioned from the oral program. The oral program administrators labeled these children as "oral failures" when they struggled with listening and speaking. Lane (1999) noted that this label had a profoundly negative impact on students, leading them to internalize a stigma that made them resistant to the signing program and ultimately hampered their acceptance of the simultaneous communication (Sim-Com) program. These oral students had been taught to view total communication as inferior, and being placed in the Sim-Com program damaged their self-image and motivation to learn, as the oral philosophy biased them against signing (Campbell, 1977; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Campbell also found that most Utah School for the Deaf staff held the misconception that signing hindered verbal language development. This belief led staff to recommend that Deaf children be placed in the oral program first to learn to speak. The only exceptions were for Deaf children with additional disabilities or if parents specifically preferred the total communication program (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell argued that by offering only one communicative system for all Deaf children, the program deprived parents of crucial information about other educational alternatives that could meet their children's diverse needs (Campbell, 1977, p. 82).
A staff conference was held to discuss alternative placements for children not making adequate progress in the oral program. This conference typically included one or both curriculum coordinators, the principal, an audiologist, and a teacher. Parent participation was rare, and students were never included (Campbell, 1977).
Due to School Policy Number Two, which assigned USD staff the responsibility of determining student placements, Dr. Campbell noted that these meetings created ongoing conflicts among staff and led to biased placement decisions. He was alarmed that there were no uniform assessments or objective test data available to make informed educational placement decisions. Consequently, Dr. Campbell recommended that placement determinations should not fall solely on the USD staff or administration. He also suggested separating the oral and total communication programs entirely, rather than having them operate under a single principal (Campbell, 1977). Ironically, this question resurfaced in 2004 when Janet Cannon, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, asked whether USD should have one administrator or if each program should have its own principal (Cannon's Paper Given to the USDB Institutional Council, 2004).
Dr. Campbell envisioned a system that did not abolish either program. He acknowledged the need for both distinct educational methodologies to coexist on the same campus, but he anticipated ongoing challenges as long as this arrangement persisted. His final recommendation was decisive: a complete separation of the "two-track system." This was not merely a suggestion; it was a call to action to resolve the internal and external conflicts between the Oral and Total Communication Programs and to lessen competition between them. Each program, he proposed, should have its own dean, supervisor, principal, and teachers, highlighting the urgency for change.
The teachers supported this recommendation to appoint separate principals: one for the Oral Department and one for the Total Communication Department. They believed this would allow for effective supervision given the fundamentally different philosophies at the residential school.
A Revolutionary Notion of Total Communication
in the Deaf Educational System
in the Deaf Educational System
Prior to the implementation of the two-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, on May 18, 1970, USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder reported to the Governor's Advisory Council that approximately 90 percent of schools for the deaf in the United States were using the oral method to teach children aged 10 to 12 (Deseret News, May 19, 1970). This trend, noted by many educators, prompted state schools for the deaf to adopt oral methods for younger students as well (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
In 1967, Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, a Deaf educator, began to challenge this approach. While teaching at the Indiana School for the Deaf, he developed the total communication approach after observing the limitations and frustrations of oralism. His method emphasized using various communication modes to effectively reach Deaf students. Dr. Holcomb shared his ideas with colleagues at California State University—Northridge, believing that diverse communication methods were essential for the educational success of Deaf children. The total communication approach was first implemented during the 1968-69 school year in Santa Ana, California (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
In 1967, Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, a Deaf educator, began to challenge this approach. While teaching at the Indiana School for the Deaf, he developed the total communication approach after observing the limitations and frustrations of oralism. His method emphasized using various communication modes to effectively reach Deaf students. Dr. Holcomb shared his ideas with colleagues at California State University—Northridge, believing that diverse communication methods were essential for the educational success of Deaf children. The total communication approach was first implemented during the 1968-69 school year in Santa Ana, California (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
Dr. Roy K. Holcomb. Source: Deaf Life, December 1998
This revolutionary idea aimed to provide Deaf children with access to multiple forms of communication, fostering language development. Its implementation sparked renewed interest in American Sign Language (ASL) in Deaf educational settings, which had declined since the early 1900s (Educating Deaf Children, 1970; Hawkin & Brawner, 1997; Gannon, 1981). The method quickly gained popularity and became an essential component of Deaf education, including at the Utah School for the Deaf, which adopted a two-track program that incorporated total communication.
Dr. Holcomb's vision was to unify the various communication methods used by Deaf students in the classroom. The rise of total communication from the 1970s onward coincided with the emergence of manual codes for English, such as Signing Exact English. Some teachers struggled with their sign language skills, while those proficient in signing often combined it with spoken and written English, signing key words in the order of spoken English (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Utah resisted the national trend towards adopting total communication. Although the Utah School for the Deaf eventually incorporated this method for its signing students, the school continued to prioritize the oral approach (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Holcomb's vision was to unify the various communication methods used by Deaf students in the classroom. The rise of total communication from the 1970s onward coincided with the emergence of manual codes for English, such as Signing Exact English. Some teachers struggled with their sign language skills, while those proficient in signing often combined it with spoken and written English, signing key words in the order of spoken English (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Utah resisted the national trend towards adopting total communication. Although the Utah School for the Deaf eventually incorporated this method for its signing students, the school continued to prioritize the oral approach (Baldwin, 1990).
Did You Know?
Dr. Roy K. Holcomb is often referred to as the "Father of Total Communication." The Total Communication philosophy marked an important shift in the educational history of American Deaf students (Hawkin & Brawner, 1997).
Grant B. Bitter included his reflections on how the philosophy of Total Communication was promoted throughout the Deaf education system in America from 1968 to 1989, particularly from 1970 to 1978, in his Summary of Tenure report. He regarded this period as tragic because, in most states, parents lost the right to choose oral instructional (spoken language) programs for their Deaf children unless they enrolled them in regular education classes, where they often received minimal support. According to Dr. Bitter, many deaf children "lost out" and were placed in sign language classes. As a result, most students who initially used some spoken language no longer had the environment or incentive to continue developing their oral communication skills, resulting in a deterioration of their speech and listening abilities. To Dr. Bitter, this situation confined these children to a "silent world." Based on his report, it is evident that Dr. Bitter did not fully understand the true needs of Deaf children.
Dr. Bitter also reflected on the Deaf education profession in his report. He felt that many professionals and parents were either too exhausted to resist the promotion of sign language, with its appealing but often misleading generalities, or had become convinced that signing would be successful. He lamented that these professionals and parents had stopped cooperating to pursue what he viewed as quality educational options, specifically oral/aural deaf education programs. Many highly skilled Deaf education professionals left the field, while others who remained faced professional destruction as their oral education skills became obsolete. Dr. Bitter felt that his life's work was being betrayed and replaced by something he believed would fail (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Grant B. Bitter included his reflections on how the philosophy of Total Communication was promoted throughout the Deaf education system in America from 1968 to 1989, particularly from 1970 to 1978, in his Summary of Tenure report. He regarded this period as tragic because, in most states, parents lost the right to choose oral instructional (spoken language) programs for their Deaf children unless they enrolled them in regular education classes, where they often received minimal support. According to Dr. Bitter, many deaf children "lost out" and were placed in sign language classes. As a result, most students who initially used some spoken language no longer had the environment or incentive to continue developing their oral communication skills, resulting in a deterioration of their speech and listening abilities. To Dr. Bitter, this situation confined these children to a "silent world." Based on his report, it is evident that Dr. Bitter did not fully understand the true needs of Deaf children.
Dr. Bitter also reflected on the Deaf education profession in his report. He felt that many professionals and parents were either too exhausted to resist the promotion of sign language, with its appealing but often misleading generalities, or had become convinced that signing would be successful. He lamented that these professionals and parents had stopped cooperating to pursue what he viewed as quality educational options, specifically oral/aural deaf education programs. Many highly skilled Deaf education professionals left the field, while others who remained faced professional destruction as their oral education skills became obsolete. Dr. Bitter felt that his life's work was being betrayed and replaced by something he believed would fail (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Inequality Education in the
Total Communication Program
Total Communication Program
Parents of Deaf children, including Dave Mortensen, were instrumental in advocating for the implementation of a total communication program in the Salt Lake City extension program. They firmly believed in their Deaf children's right to use sign language. Dave's emphasis on the need for sign language classes in the Salt Lake City area was a key factor in ensuring that Deaf students had access to them. His successful advocacy led the Utah School for the Deaf to support his perspective, resulting in the provision of sign language instruction at Glendale Junior High School for Deaf students. These events not only marked a significant victory for the Utah Deaf community but also underscored the power of collective action in advocating for their rights.
The Utah School for the Deaf initiated its total communication program in 1971. Despite facing numerous challenges, four Deaf students, including Kristi Lee Mortensen, enrolled at Glendale Junior High School in the Salt Lake area. However, they soon encountered a problem when mainstream classes failed to provide sign language interpreting services for Deaf students. Undeterred, Kristi Lee and her peers displayed remarkable perseverance, relying on lip-reading and sharing notes with other students to keep up with their studies.
Another issue was the location of the Deaf classrooms. In the early 1960s, the oral program was located at Glendale Junior High School. Later, the Utah School for the Deaf moved the oral program to Clayton Junior High School and East High School, both in more affluent areas and recognized as two of the top schools in Utah. In contrast, Glendale Junior High School—where the Deaf students participated in the total communication program—was located in the most impoverished section of South Salt Lake City, including the Rose Park area. As a result, Deaf students and their families began to recognize this inequality.
The situation continued to deteriorate. Glendale Junior High had long accommodated the Utah School for the Deaf's oral students, who participated in school activities without the need for sign language interpreters. The principal and teachers opposed the introduction of sign language, citing concerns that it would distract hearing students. Dave had to meet with the guidance counselor at Glendale Junior High to argue for the necessity of sign language interpreters. The counselor compared the situation to that of the oral students already familiar with the school, making it difficult for Dave to make his case.
Eventually, the school counselor recognized the importance of having sign language interpreters and successfully persuaded the administration to allow total communication Deaf students to participate in the monthly talent show, the Christmas program, and the spring plays, all made possible by the presence of interpreters. However, Dave Mortensen faced a much tougher challenge in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for school assemblies, special presentations, field trips, and school plays. He argued that interpreters for these events would greatly benefit Deaf students, and ultimately, the Utah School for the Deaf agreed to cover the costs.
The Utah School for the Deaf initiated its total communication program in 1971. Despite facing numerous challenges, four Deaf students, including Kristi Lee Mortensen, enrolled at Glendale Junior High School in the Salt Lake area. However, they soon encountered a problem when mainstream classes failed to provide sign language interpreting services for Deaf students. Undeterred, Kristi Lee and her peers displayed remarkable perseverance, relying on lip-reading and sharing notes with other students to keep up with their studies.
Another issue was the location of the Deaf classrooms. In the early 1960s, the oral program was located at Glendale Junior High School. Later, the Utah School for the Deaf moved the oral program to Clayton Junior High School and East High School, both in more affluent areas and recognized as two of the top schools in Utah. In contrast, Glendale Junior High School—where the Deaf students participated in the total communication program—was located in the most impoverished section of South Salt Lake City, including the Rose Park area. As a result, Deaf students and their families began to recognize this inequality.
The situation continued to deteriorate. Glendale Junior High had long accommodated the Utah School for the Deaf's oral students, who participated in school activities without the need for sign language interpreters. The principal and teachers opposed the introduction of sign language, citing concerns that it would distract hearing students. Dave had to meet with the guidance counselor at Glendale Junior High to argue for the necessity of sign language interpreters. The counselor compared the situation to that of the oral students already familiar with the school, making it difficult for Dave to make his case.
Eventually, the school counselor recognized the importance of having sign language interpreters and successfully persuaded the administration to allow total communication Deaf students to participate in the monthly talent show, the Christmas program, and the spring plays, all made possible by the presence of interpreters. However, Dave Mortensen faced a much tougher challenge in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for school assemblies, special presentations, field trips, and school plays. He argued that interpreters for these events would greatly benefit Deaf students, and ultimately, the Utah School for the Deaf agreed to cover the costs.
Kristi Lee Mortensen. Source: The Utahn, 1973
Despite objections from total communication students, the Utah School for the Deaf relocated them to Northwest Junior High School in Rose Park, a location perceived as unsafe and offering a low-quality education. As a result, student morale suffered. Although the parents of Deaf students and the Utah Deaf community had successfully established a two-track program that offered parents a choice of placement, significant inequalities remained. Students in the total communication program received far fewer resources compared to those in the oral program, who had access to oral interpreters, note-takers, and greater teacher attention. The oral program aimed to provide whatever was necessary to ensure its students' success.
Kristi Lee recalled a social event where she was surprised to hear her oral friends say they could obtain anything they needed after speaking with Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Christopulos. In contrast, total communication program students had to constantly monitor issues and advocate for equal access to the resources and services offered by the Utah School for the Deaf. This advocacy was crucial in highlighting the disparities and pushing for much-needed change, underscoring the pivotal role of advocacy in addressing inequalities in Deaf education.
When the school counselor finally recognized the importance of having sign language interpreters, Dave persuaded the administration at Glendale Junior High School to allow Deaf students who use total communication to participate in the monthly talent show, the Christmas program, and the school plays and chorus—all made possible by the presence of sign language interpreters. He faced a more challenging task in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for school assemblies, special presentations, field trips, and school plays. Dave argued that having interpreters for these events would greatly benefit the Deaf students. Eventually, the Utah School for the Deaf agreed to fund the interpreters.
However, Dave decided to withdraw his daughter, Kristi Lee, from the total communication extension program and enroll her in their neighborhood school, Riverview Junior High. He met with the school principal and requested a sign language interpreter for her. The Murray School District and United Way secured funding, and the school agreed to provide an interpreter. Dave found both the principal of Riverview Junior High and the Murray School District to be cooperative; they understood the importance of having an interpreter to ensure Kristi Lee had full access to all programs in the mainstream setting. All further requests were approved, and things settled down for Kristi Lee and her parents.
Meanwhile, the parents of three other Deaf students in the total communication program were curious about why Dave had removed Kristi from it. Dave explained the situation regarding the interpreter and reminded them that the Utah School for the Deaf had not been covering mileage costs, as they had promised to reimburse parents for driving their children to school twice a day—approximately a 30-35-mile round trip. The freeway was not operational until 1974, which affected the driving routes for these families. Upset by this situation, these parents wrote a letter to USDB Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Tony Christopulos, requesting that their children be transferred to Riverview Junior High. Additionally, Riverview Junior High was much closer to the parents' homes in Riverton, West Jordan, and Kearns. After a month or two, the students were finally transferred. However, Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Christopulos were unwilling to provide interpreting services for these three students. Since these children were still under the Utah School for the Deaf system, while the Murray School District supplied Kristi Lee's interpreters, there was a division of responsibility.
In retrospect, Dave recalled that Riverview Junior High School and the Murray School District had written letters to the USDB Superintendent and Principal, urging assistance in covering the costs of interpreters to offset their expenses. As a result of this intense pressure, the Utah School for the Deaf eventually complied (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, April 17, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011). This compliance, driven by external demands, highlights not only a commitment to fulfilling educational obligations but also emphasizes the urgent need for resources and advocacy in Deaf education. As schools strive to create inclusive environments, this incident serves as a reminder of the ongoing efforts required to ensure that all students receive equitable access to education tailored to their unique needs.
Kristi Lee recalled a social event where she was surprised to hear her oral friends say they could obtain anything they needed after speaking with Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Christopulos. In contrast, total communication program students had to constantly monitor issues and advocate for equal access to the resources and services offered by the Utah School for the Deaf. This advocacy was crucial in highlighting the disparities and pushing for much-needed change, underscoring the pivotal role of advocacy in addressing inequalities in Deaf education.
When the school counselor finally recognized the importance of having sign language interpreters, Dave persuaded the administration at Glendale Junior High School to allow Deaf students who use total communication to participate in the monthly talent show, the Christmas program, and the school plays and chorus—all made possible by the presence of sign language interpreters. He faced a more challenging task in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for school assemblies, special presentations, field trips, and school plays. Dave argued that having interpreters for these events would greatly benefit the Deaf students. Eventually, the Utah School for the Deaf agreed to fund the interpreters.
However, Dave decided to withdraw his daughter, Kristi Lee, from the total communication extension program and enroll her in their neighborhood school, Riverview Junior High. He met with the school principal and requested a sign language interpreter for her. The Murray School District and United Way secured funding, and the school agreed to provide an interpreter. Dave found both the principal of Riverview Junior High and the Murray School District to be cooperative; they understood the importance of having an interpreter to ensure Kristi Lee had full access to all programs in the mainstream setting. All further requests were approved, and things settled down for Kristi Lee and her parents.
Meanwhile, the parents of three other Deaf students in the total communication program were curious about why Dave had removed Kristi from it. Dave explained the situation regarding the interpreter and reminded them that the Utah School for the Deaf had not been covering mileage costs, as they had promised to reimburse parents for driving their children to school twice a day—approximately a 30-35-mile round trip. The freeway was not operational until 1974, which affected the driving routes for these families. Upset by this situation, these parents wrote a letter to USDB Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Tony Christopulos, requesting that their children be transferred to Riverview Junior High. Additionally, Riverview Junior High was much closer to the parents' homes in Riverton, West Jordan, and Kearns. After a month or two, the students were finally transferred. However, Superintendent Tegeder and Principal Christopulos were unwilling to provide interpreting services for these three students. Since these children were still under the Utah School for the Deaf system, while the Murray School District supplied Kristi Lee's interpreters, there was a division of responsibility.
In retrospect, Dave recalled that Riverview Junior High School and the Murray School District had written letters to the USDB Superintendent and Principal, urging assistance in covering the costs of interpreters to offset their expenses. As a result of this intense pressure, the Utah School for the Deaf eventually complied (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, April 17, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011). This compliance, driven by external demands, highlights not only a commitment to fulfilling educational obligations but also emphasizes the urgent need for resources and advocacy in Deaf education. As schools strive to create inclusive environments, this incident serves as a reminder of the ongoing efforts required to ensure that all students receive equitable access to education tailored to their unique needs.
Did You Know?
In the late 1960s and 1970s, a significant transformation occurred in Deaf education in the United States. This shift moved from the oral method to a total communication approach, which included the use of sign language. This change was largely influenced by the pioneering work of Dr. Roy K. Holcomb.
While total communication spread rapidly in national Deaf education, Dr. William C. Stokoe's research established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure in 1960. However, ASL did not gain widespread recognition until the 1990s.
A landmark development during this period was the introduction of a new two-track policy. This significant and complex step enabled both oral and total communication methods to be used in education, providing families with options to choose from. Despite these advancements, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education community remained resistant to change, continuing to advocate for the oral method. Additionally, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program incorporated only a small portion of the total communication method into its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transitional period.
While total communication spread rapidly in national Deaf education, Dr. William C. Stokoe's research established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure in 1960. However, ASL did not gain widespread recognition until the 1990s.
A landmark development during this period was the introduction of a new two-track policy. This significant and complex step enabled both oral and total communication methods to be used in education, providing families with options to choose from. Despite these advancements, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education community remained resistant to change, continuing to advocate for the oral method. Additionally, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program incorporated only a small portion of the total communication method into its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transitional period.
Sign Language and the Deaf Community : Essays in Honor of William Stokoe
A Feud Between Two Giant Figures, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, in Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, in Deaf Education in Utah
The rivalry between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Grant B. Bitter marks a significant chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah. These two giant figures not only influenced the development of Deaf education in the state, but their contentious interactions also added an element of drama, making their conflict a captivating story within this field. Their dispute had a profound impact on Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the passionate dedication and differing philosophies that can emerge in the pursuit of educational excellence for the Utah Deaf community.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a 1941 graduate of Gallaudet College, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His devotion to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf, having previously served as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, allowing him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. He courageously advocated for the preservation of sign language while fighting against Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who promoted oral communication and mainstream education. Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to ensure that Deaf children received a high-quality education (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
The Utah Deaf community held Dr. Sanderson in high regard for his gutsiness. His fearless personality led him to challenge Dr. Bitter, who had considerable power and influence within the University of Utah and in the legislation supporting oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Hundreds of parents who advocated for oral education backed Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson's repeated confrontations with Dr. Bitter infuriated him and his supporters, who demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment. However, Dr. Rigby recognized the importance of Dr. Sanderson's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah. He refused to fire Dr. Sanderson, demonstrating the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. The state recently hired Dr. Sanderson as a Deaf Services Coordinator, which underscored his significant value to Utah. Dr. Rigby's support for Dr. Sanderson's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). The conflict between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Dr. Gallaudet advocated for sign language, while Dr. Bell fervently promoted speech and lip-reading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a 1941 graduate of Gallaudet College, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His devotion to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf, having previously served as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, allowing him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. He courageously advocated for the preservation of sign language while fighting against Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who promoted oral communication and mainstream education. Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to ensure that Deaf children received a high-quality education (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
The Utah Deaf community held Dr. Sanderson in high regard for his gutsiness. His fearless personality led him to challenge Dr. Bitter, who had considerable power and influence within the University of Utah and in the legislation supporting oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Hundreds of parents who advocated for oral education backed Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson's repeated confrontations with Dr. Bitter infuriated him and his supporters, who demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment. However, Dr. Rigby recognized the importance of Dr. Sanderson's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah. He refused to fire Dr. Sanderson, demonstrating the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. The state recently hired Dr. Sanderson as a Deaf Services Coordinator, which underscored his significant value to Utah. Dr. Rigby's support for Dr. Sanderson's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). The conflict between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Dr. Gallaudet advocated for sign language, while Dr. Bell fervently promoted speech and lip-reading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
Source: 'Never the Twain Shall Meet: The Communication Debate by Richard Winefield'
Dr. Grant B. 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 Utah Association for the Deaf, to committees. Dr. Bitter challenged this, particularly Della Loveridge, a legislator and Deaf community advocate, who had appointed Dr. Sanderson and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Dr. Bitter was also a member. Dr. Bitter felt threatened by their committee appointments but denied it in his interview. He believed that his objection constituted a threat to them.
During a state committee meeting, Della Loveridge described Dr. Bitter as "emotionally disturbed." Dr. Bitter expressed concerns that the UAD had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where their meetings took place. In response to his concerns, he requested Della Loveridge to resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely deeply invested in Deaf education because they were excluded from the secret implementation of the dual-track program in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and divided the community, sparking intense debates that further fueled the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Dr. Bitter's interview also revealed 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, as well as 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 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Sanderson campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education, along with other members of the Utah Association for the Deaf, to committees. Dr. Bitter challenged this, particularly Della Loveridge, a legislator and Deaf community advocate, who had appointed Dr. Sanderson and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Dr. Bitter was also a member. Dr. Bitter felt threatened by their committee appointments but denied it in his interview. He believed that his objection constituted a threat to them.
During a state committee meeting, Della Loveridge described Dr. Bitter as "emotionally disturbed." Dr. Bitter expressed concerns that the UAD had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where their meetings took place. In response to his concerns, he requested Della Loveridge to resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely deeply invested in Deaf education because they were excluded from the secret implementation of the dual-track program in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and divided the community, sparking intense debates that further fueled the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Dr. Bitter's interview also revealed 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, as well as 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 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965
Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked with Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's portrayal of Dr. Sanderson differed from that of Dr. Bitter. As a Deaf educator, Dr. Turk regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson had a deep understanding of the connection between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their opportunities in higher education, which ultimately leads to successful employment outcomes.
Dr. Turk highlighted Dr. Sanderson's passion for advocating on behalf of young people with leadership potential. He made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). His personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling lost in a public school may have influenced Dr. Sanderson's dedication to the cause. After recovering from an illness, he flourished at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he saw that many Deaf children lacked both education and socialization in mainstream settings. He recognized the loneliness and isolation these children often faced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Dr. Sanderson's journey from feeling lost in public school to thriving at the Utah School for the Deaf is a testament to his resilience, highlighting his deep understanding of the challenges faced by Deaf students.
According to Dr. Turk, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of socialization in education. He encouraged teachers to help students ask questions about their school experiences. Dr. Sanderson stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He pointed out that socialization is an integral part of Deaf education that is often ignored (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it is a call to action for teachers and the broader community to make schools and other educational institutions more welcoming and supportive for Deaf students. Dr. Sanderson's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, emphasizing that they require a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He said that kids should learn more than just the three R's: reading, writing, and math. They should also learn the importance of socializing. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019). All should feel the urgency of Dr. Sanderson's cause, as it is a crucial step towards a more inclusive society..
Dr. Sanderson believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Dr. Sanderson's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Dr. Turk highlighted Dr. Sanderson's passion for advocating on behalf of young people with leadership potential. He made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). His personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling lost in a public school may have influenced Dr. Sanderson's dedication to the cause. After recovering from an illness, he flourished at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he saw that many Deaf children lacked both education and socialization in mainstream settings. He recognized the loneliness and isolation these children often faced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Dr. Sanderson's journey from feeling lost in public school to thriving at the Utah School for the Deaf is a testament to his resilience, highlighting his deep understanding of the challenges faced by Deaf students.
According to Dr. Turk, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of socialization in education. He encouraged teachers to help students ask questions about their school experiences. Dr. Sanderson stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He pointed out that socialization is an integral part of Deaf education that is often ignored (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it is a call to action for teachers and the broader community to make schools and other educational institutions more welcoming and supportive for Deaf students. Dr. Sanderson's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, emphasizing that they require a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He said that kids should learn more than just the three R's: reading, writing, and math. They should also learn the importance of socializing. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019). All should feel the urgency of Dr. Sanderson's cause, as it is a crucial step towards a more inclusive society..
Dr. Sanderson believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Dr. Sanderson's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Dr. Frank R. Turk, a Deaf Educator. Source: Deaf Life, August 1989
In a 1982 interview with Gallaudet College, Dr. Sanderson, a prominent figure in rehabilitation services, discussed his one-year professorship at Gallaudet College, where he held the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies. During the interview, he shared his views on "total communication," a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the use of all available means of communication to support the development of Deaf children. This approach encompasses sign language, speech, lip-reading, and written language.
Dr. Sanderson consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He firmly believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated, "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. Delaying the process causes a deaf child to fall behind and lose a significant amount of information. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication.
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular communication mode can quickly stifle the communication process.
Dr. Sanderson explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences. In his view, many schools fail to incorporate what is known about the psychology of communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, p. 3).
Dr. Sanderson reflected during the interview that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf marked a transformative chapter in his life, during which he learned sign language. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who were born deaf and had hearing parents with limited access to language at home. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the limited opportunities he faced in public school after his hearing recovery.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Dr. Sanderson became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the Utah State Board of Education to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. His advocacy focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As the Deaf Services Coordinator, Dr. Sanderson observed many Deaf individuals struggling with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the Utah State Board of Education, highlighting the significant literacy challenges faced by Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand a broader curriculum. Dr. Sanderson's empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to recognize the importance of the three Rs—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 Utah State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Sanderson made a powerful statement against proponents of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. His bold stance and unwavering advocacy have significantly influenced the current state of Deaf education in Utah. "A Deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
According to Gallaudet's article "On the Green," Dr. Sanderson faced challenges related to various social factors and the lifestyles of Deaf individuals, particularly concerning long-term employment (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These challenges included issues such as language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities for Deaf individuals to sustain employment over time. These experiences likely motivated Dr. Sanderson to question Dr. Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
It is also essential to acknowledge the significant impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and advocates for oral and mainstream education have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions are a vital part of this narrative. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must recognize the ongoing issues that persist today. The political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are not only informative but also empowering. Understanding these debates and the history of Deaf education enables us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities.
The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in breaking down systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment that enables Deaf children to excel academically and socially at the Utah School for the Deaf, which promotes the use of sign language. Through its advocacy efforts, the association has played a crucial role in shaping policies and practices that support Deaf education. By emphasizing their voices and experiences, we can strive for a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential. Their advocacy is essential in this effort.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with Dr. Sanderson, shares a strong connection and has demonstrated remarkable resilience in overcoming the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter. Their steadfast fight and eventual success in promoting equality in Deaf education in Utah have been truly inspiring. This new generation has embraced the challenge by initiating four ASL/English bilingual programs across various regions, as detailed below: Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs aim to provide a balanced education in both American Sign Language and English, representing a significant step toward addressing the language deprivation and communication barriers faced by Deaf individuals. Despite numerous obstacles, their impressive progress offers a hopeful perspective for the future of Deaf education in Utah and should motivate us all to continue advocating for equality.
Dr. Sanderson consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He firmly believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated, "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. Delaying the process causes a deaf child to fall behind and lose a significant amount of information. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication.
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular communication mode can quickly stifle the communication process.
Dr. Sanderson explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences. In his view, many schools fail to incorporate what is known about the psychology of communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, p. 3).
Dr. Sanderson reflected during the interview that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf marked a transformative chapter in his life, during which he learned sign language. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who were born deaf and had hearing parents with limited access to language at home. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the limited opportunities he faced in public school after his hearing recovery.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Dr. Sanderson became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the Utah State Board of Education to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. His advocacy focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As the Deaf Services Coordinator, Dr. Sanderson observed many Deaf individuals struggling with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the Utah State Board of Education, highlighting the significant literacy challenges faced by Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand a broader curriculum. Dr. Sanderson's empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to recognize the importance of the three Rs—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 Utah State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Sanderson made a powerful statement against proponents of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. His bold stance and unwavering advocacy have significantly influenced the current state of Deaf education in Utah. "A Deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
According to Gallaudet's article "On the Green," Dr. Sanderson faced challenges related to various social factors and the lifestyles of Deaf individuals, particularly concerning long-term employment (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These challenges included issues such as language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities for Deaf individuals to sustain employment over time. These experiences likely motivated Dr. Sanderson to question Dr. Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
It is also essential to acknowledge the significant impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and advocates for oral and mainstream education have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions are a vital part of this narrative. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must recognize the ongoing issues that persist today. The political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are not only informative but also empowering. Understanding these debates and the history of Deaf education enables us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities.
The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in breaking down systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment that enables Deaf children to excel academically and socially at the Utah School for the Deaf, which promotes the use of sign language. Through its advocacy efforts, the association has played a crucial role in shaping policies and practices that support Deaf education. By emphasizing their voices and experiences, we can strive for a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential. Their advocacy is essential in this effort.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with Dr. Sanderson, shares a strong connection and has demonstrated remarkable resilience in overcoming the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter. Their steadfast fight and eventual success in promoting equality in Deaf education in Utah have been truly inspiring. This new generation has embraced the challenge by initiating four ASL/English bilingual programs across various regions, as detailed below: Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs aim to provide a balanced education in both American Sign Language and English, representing a significant step toward addressing the language deprivation and communication barriers faced by Deaf individuals. Despite numerous obstacles, their impressive progress offers a hopeful perspective for the future of Deaf education in Utah and should motivate us all to continue advocating for equality.
At a reception for him on November 13, 1981, Robert G. Sanderson (second from left) shakes hands with Clarence Williams of the Division of Research. Sanderson was this year's Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies. Robert's wife, Mary, was standing on the left side. Source: On The Green, November 23, 1981
A Dispute Between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, and the Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, and the Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
The dispute between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, two leaders in the field of Deaf education, represents a significant historical event. Dr. Bitter's strong bias toward oral philosophy has had a profound and lasting impact on the field, making it a compelling subject for study.
Dr. Bitter typically organized a listening and speaking panel, the "Oral Demonstration Panel," at the University of Utah, which recruited local Deaf adults to participate. The audience included Deaf individuals who supported sign language, such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing attendees. During the panel, oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the audience. Following the demonstration, Dr. Bitter initiated a Q&A session. Dr. Sanderson stood up and asked, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" To everyone's surprise, Dr. Bitter abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and visible. Dr. Bitter's 'Oral Demonstration Panels' were not just academic exercises but a platform for him to assert his beliefs. The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and palpable. Dr. Bitter's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not just as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance, as they sat in the audience. Beth Ann, determined to ensure that Dr. Sanderson had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signed as quickly as she could. Despite Dr. Bitter's challenges, Dr. Sanderson managed to understand the content and actively participated in the discussion, focusing on his interpreter and impressing everyone with his determination (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Bitter typically organized a listening and speaking panel, the "Oral Demonstration Panel," at the University of Utah, which recruited local Deaf adults to participate. The audience included Deaf individuals who supported sign language, such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing attendees. During the panel, oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the audience. Following the demonstration, Dr. Bitter initiated a Q&A session. Dr. Sanderson stood up and asked, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" To everyone's surprise, Dr. Bitter abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and visible. Dr. Bitter's 'Oral Demonstration Panels' were not just academic exercises but a platform for him to assert his beliefs. The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and palpable. Dr. Bitter's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not just as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance, as they sat in the audience. Beth Ann, determined to ensure that Dr. Sanderson had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signed as quickly as she could. Despite Dr. Bitter's challenges, Dr. Sanderson managed to understand the content and actively participated in the discussion, focusing on his interpreter and impressing everyone with his determination (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 23, 1964
The conflict involving Dr. Bitter had a significant impact on oral Deaf education. Legia Johnson, a parent and oral teacher, expressed concern about Dr. Bitter's decision to involve her daughter, Colleen Johnson Jones, in his demonstration panels. Dr. Bitter used Legia's daughter to represent his own, as she spoke better than his daughter, who was also named Colleen. The incident led to Legia resigning from her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf. Legia's resignation was an apparent protest against using her daughter as a prop in Dr. Bitter's demonstrations, revealing deep divisions within the oral group (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
Dr. Sanderson's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself entangled in the long-standing conflict between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. She shared her experiences at an interpreting workshop hosted at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Dr. Bitter would frequently voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Dr. Sanderson's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself entangled in the long-standing conflict between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. She shared her experiences at an interpreting workshop hosted at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Dr. Bitter would frequently voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Beth Ann observed the heated exchanges that transpired between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson would deliberately provoke Dr. Bitter, who would retaliate in a similar manner. During the legislative hearings, Dr. Bitter spoke as quickly as possible and used complex vocabulary to challenge Beth Ann's interpreting skills. Nevertheless, she managed to keep up with the discussions, which only seemed to infuriate Dr. Bitter further. Throughout these confrontations, Bob remained composed, refusing to be disturbed by Dr. Bitter's taunt: "You can read my lips" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Dr. Sanderson, who lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips, chose to ignore Dr. Bitter's provocation, continuing to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Dr. Bitter's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. While she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Sanderson and Bitter era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program, which combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of its existence. For example, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing abilities while enrolling him in an oral program. Seeking guidance, the father met with Dr. Campbell, who asked whether he was aware of the total communication program option. The father responded that he was not aware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This parental ignorance led Dr. Campbell to realize the need for a brochure explaining both programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant obstacles, Dr. Campbell remained determined to provide parents with the information they needed. He also stressed the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet based on empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed the plan, arguing that the total communication system was solely a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Dr. Sanderson made his position clear on the controversy: he supports parents' right to choose the most suitable educational program for their Deaf children. However, he stressed that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He emphasized the importance of accurate information in making educational decisions, as well as empowering parents to make informed choices. He opposed any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research base (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The conflict between oral and sign language methods continues today, reflecting the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Sanderson, who lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips, chose to ignore Dr. Bitter's provocation, continuing to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Dr. Bitter's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. While she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Sanderson and Bitter era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program, which combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of its existence. For example, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing abilities while enrolling him in an oral program. Seeking guidance, the father met with Dr. Campbell, who asked whether he was aware of the total communication program option. The father responded that he was not aware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This parental ignorance led Dr. Campbell to realize the need for a brochure explaining both programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant obstacles, Dr. Campbell remained determined to provide parents with the information they needed. He also stressed the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet based on empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed the plan, arguing that the total communication system was solely a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Dr. Sanderson made his position clear on the controversy: he supports parents' right to choose the most suitable educational program for their Deaf children. However, he stressed that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He emphasized the importance of accurate information in making educational decisions, as well as empowering parents to make informed choices. He opposed any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research base (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The conflict between oral and sign language methods continues today, reflecting the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Robert G. Sanderson run for president at the 1964 National Association of the Deaf conference
In 1971, a controversy arose regarding Beth Ann's voluntary use of sign language interpreting for the nightly Channel 4 News. Dr. Bitter opposed Beth Ann's interpreting, a role coordinated by Dr. Sanderson, the statewide coordinator of Deaf Services. Dr. Bitter and his supporters from the University of Utah, who favored oral communication, expressed their dissatisfaction and urged Dr. Avaard Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor, to remove Beth Ann from the right corner of the TV screen. In response to the criticism, Dr. Rigby stated, "Well, if you don't like watching her, why don't you change the channel?" This comment further fueled the anger of the advocates, who then called for the firing of Bob Sanderson. However, Dr. Rigby defended Bob, asserting he was one of his best employees (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell interprets for Deaf TV viewers as Newscaster. UAD Bulletin, February 1972. She gives her time without pay as the interpreter in the right-hand corner of the TV screen on Channel 4 for the news broadcast. Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992
Following the contentious meeting with Dr. Rigby, Dr. Bitter, and others, Bob confided in his coworker, Gene Stewart, saying, "No one listens to you unless you have a Ph.D. after your name, so I'm going back to school" (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012, p. 3). At that time, Bob faced significant challenges in gaining credibility, despite holding a master's degree. He recognized the considerable influence that academic credentials have on one's perceived authority. In his conflicts with Dr. Bitter, Bob felt compelled to pursue a Ph.D. to earn the respect and recognition he believed he deserved. He understood that having a Ph.D. next to his name would enhance his acknowledgment in the field.
The backlash from this news situation motivated Dr. Sanderson to pursue a Ph.D., as he believed that the degree would strengthen his credibility in the field. Despite already holding a master's degree, he struggled to earn respect in an environment that placed a high premium on academic qualifications. In contrast, Dr. Bitter, who earned his Ph.D. in 1967, benefited from the credibility and support that came with his academic status.
Despite these initial challenges, Bob's perseverance ultimately paid off when he completed his Ph.D. in 1974, earning him recognition in his advocacy work. The rivalry between these two giant figures—Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who championed sign language—intensified the conflict and shaped their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for the discussions surrounding Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the deep divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
The backlash from this news situation motivated Dr. Sanderson to pursue a Ph.D., as he believed that the degree would strengthen his credibility in the field. Despite already holding a master's degree, he struggled to earn respect in an environment that placed a high premium on academic qualifications. In contrast, Dr. Bitter, who earned his Ph.D. in 1967, benefited from the credibility and support that came with his academic status.
Despite these initial challenges, Bob's perseverance ultimately paid off when he completed his Ph.D. in 1974, earning him recognition in his advocacy work. The rivalry between these two giant figures—Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who championed sign language—intensified the conflict and shaped their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for the discussions surrounding Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the deep divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
'State Educator First Deaf Student To Receive Doctor Degree at BYU.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 29, 1974
Did You Know?
Georgia Hendricks Walker, a 1930 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, had her article "Deaf Group Aims Rapped" published in the Deseret News on June 23, 1970.
"Recently I attended a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah at the Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. It was better than a three-ring circus, and just as amusing, and I have been laughing ever since!
First thing I am laughing at is the name. Who runs it? Hearing teachers and parents – not the oral deaf themselves. The Utah Association for the Deaf is run by the Deaf themselves, not their parents or teachers.
Second, 90 percent of the young adults and older students on display can and do use sign language when they know their parents and teachers are not watching.
Third, one of the students said that she preferred to speak and read lips so that she would be able to get a better job and earn more money than one who couldn't. I have one question: Do employers pay for the ability to speak and read lips or do they pay for the ability to work? It is my observation that employers would rather that those they employ would shut up and get to work. Of course, speech and lip-reading make things a bit easier but what is wrong with a pencil and paper? At least you get the message correctly.
I do know what I am talking about, I am totally deaf and have been for 49 years. I am not belittling the ability to speak and read lips. I acknowledge that life would be harder if I couldn't do it. But what counts with me is "EDUCATION" in capital letters, and I see precious little of it in the oral Deaf I meet after they leave school" (Walker, Deseret News, June 23, 1970).
"Recently I attended a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah at the Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. It was better than a three-ring circus, and just as amusing, and I have been laughing ever since!
First thing I am laughing at is the name. Who runs it? Hearing teachers and parents – not the oral deaf themselves. The Utah Association for the Deaf is run by the Deaf themselves, not their parents or teachers.
Second, 90 percent of the young adults and older students on display can and do use sign language when they know their parents and teachers are not watching.
Third, one of the students said that she preferred to speak and read lips so that she would be able to get a better job and earn more money than one who couldn't. I have one question: Do employers pay for the ability to speak and read lips or do they pay for the ability to work? It is my observation that employers would rather that those they employ would shut up and get to work. Of course, speech and lip-reading make things a bit easier but what is wrong with a pencil and paper? At least you get the message correctly.
I do know what I am talking about, I am totally deaf and have been for 49 years. I am not belittling the ability to speak and read lips. I acknowledge that life would be harder if I couldn't do it. But what counts with me is "EDUCATION" in capital letters, and I see precious little of it in the oral Deaf I meet after they leave school" (Walker, Deseret News, June 23, 1970).
Gerogia Henricks Walker
Misunderstanding of Mainstreaming
and the Least Restrictive Environment
and the Least Restrictive Environment
Even before the federal government passed Public Law 94-142 in 1975, the Utah School for the Deaf was already promoting the mainstreaming of Deaf students into neighborhood schools through its extension classes. This early advocacy, which began in the 1960s, set the stage for a significant increase in the mainstreaming of Deaf children in public schools across Utah (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a prominent figure in the field of Deaf education, was a key advocate for the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, influenced his advocacy. Dr. Bitter's belief that residential schools isolated Deaf students from society was a driving force behind the push for day schools for the Deaf, where children could live at home and attend local public schools (Baldwin, 1990). Despite their influence, many educators and parents worried about how IDEA would impact the Utah School for the Deaf as a 'special school.' Concerns arose about whether the school would be forced to close to comply with the new federal law (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell reassured these individuals, stating, 'The residential school is essential and should not be closed. Special schools serve many students optimally, as their local districts would not provide them with an adequate education. The residential school and local districts need to cooperate in the overall program, and students need to be evaluated and placed where their needs can best be met' (Campbell, 1977, p. 142).
When Public Law 94-142 was passed, its intentions were not fully understood. However, it quickly led to the assumption that all disabled children, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, would be mainstreamed into public school classrooms. At that time, there was limited understanding of the linguistic and social needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Due to this lack of knowledge and the slow pace of research in this area, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students ended up in their neighborhood schools. Educators believed they were adhering to the law by recommending mainstream placements for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during their annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. They interpreted the law as mandating placement of all disabled children in the 'least restrictive environment' (LRE). As more of these children were placed in public schools, unforeseen challenges emerged, including inadequate communication methods and the need for specialized support.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a prominent figure in the field of Deaf education, was a key advocate for the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, influenced his advocacy. Dr. Bitter's belief that residential schools isolated Deaf students from society was a driving force behind the push for day schools for the Deaf, where children could live at home and attend local public schools (Baldwin, 1990). Despite their influence, many educators and parents worried about how IDEA would impact the Utah School for the Deaf as a 'special school.' Concerns arose about whether the school would be forced to close to comply with the new federal law (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell reassured these individuals, stating, 'The residential school is essential and should not be closed. Special schools serve many students optimally, as their local districts would not provide them with an adequate education. The residential school and local districts need to cooperate in the overall program, and students need to be evaluated and placed where their needs can best be met' (Campbell, 1977, p. 142).
When Public Law 94-142 was passed, its intentions were not fully understood. However, it quickly led to the assumption that all disabled children, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, would be mainstreamed into public school classrooms. At that time, there was limited understanding of the linguistic and social needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Due to this lack of knowledge and the slow pace of research in this area, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students ended up in their neighborhood schools. Educators believed they were adhering to the law by recommending mainstream placements for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during their annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. They interpreted the law as mandating placement of all disabled children in the 'least restrictive environment' (LRE). As more of these children were placed in public schools, unforeseen challenges emerged, including inadequate communication methods and the need for specialized support.
Dr. Richard G. Brill. Source: UAD Bulletin, Summer 1971
Dr. Richard C. Brill, Superintendent of the California School for the Deaf-Riverside, was quoted in Dr. Campbell's 1977 book, Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Dr. Brill explained that the term 'least restrictive environment' was typically understood in terms of physical placement. He emphasized that physical placement in a group might imply integration, but proper communication and psychological connection were essential for genuine integration. He asserted, 'Just because a child is placed in a regular classroom with many other children rather than in a special class, it does not mean that this child is automatically in an LRE' (p. 3). Supporting this view, Lawrence Siegel (2000) noted that, under IDEA, most environments that are communication-compatible and fundamentally 'least restrictive' for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children lack official recognition (p. 18). Furthermore, Thomas (1986) stated, 'PL 94-142 apparently supports mainstreaming, but it does not support quality of education or a rich language and social environment for the Deaf, factors which mainstream program directors neither understand nor feel compelled to consider' (p. 16). The law did not clearly define 'appropriate educational setting' or 'least restrictive' as it pertains to the placement of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public or state schools.
However, Section 612 (5) of the law (later renamed IDEA 2004 612 (a) (5) (A)) did state: "...special classes, special schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (p. 1).
However, Section 612 (5) of the law (later renamed IDEA 2004 612 (a) (5) (A)) did state: "...special classes, special schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (p. 1).
Is Mainstreaming the Deaf Really Justified?
The debate over mainstreaming the Deaf has deep historical roots, dating back to the end of the Civil War in 1865. Long before, the principles laid the groundwork for the 1974 law and Public Law 94-142 in 1975. Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin's research indicates that the foundation for today's mainstreaming programs was laid in 1852 by David Ely Bartlett, who opened "Mr. Bartlett's Family School for Young Deaf-Mute Children" in New York City. This was America's first integrated school for Deaf and hearing students (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14).
When Congress passed the Handicapped Act of 1974, it did so without consulting the National Association of the Deaf or Deaf citizens. Dr. Baldwin, in his April 1975 article in The Utah Eagle, criticized this lack of consultation, calling the entire Act discriminatory.
In "Mainstreaming in Retrospect," Dr. Baldwin points to historical figures such as Alexander Graham Bell, Sarah Fuller, Robert C. Spencer, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for day schools and public school classes for Deaf children. They argued that residential schools isolated students from society. These advocates subscribed to the oral/aural philosophy and criticized traditional residential Deaf schools and the use of sign language (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14). They gained the support of uninformed legislators and imposed their educational ideologies on Deaf and hard-of-hearing students under the pretense of preparing them to integrate into the dominant English-speaking society. This event led to significant protests within the American Deaf community, ultimately culminating in the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf in 1880 (Baldwin, 1990). Similarly, in Utah, leaders like Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins engaged in heated debates with Dr. Bitter.
As Public Law 94-142 was being drafted in 1975, Dr. Baldwin, then the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, noticed a surge of literature that painted an overly optimistic view of mainstreaming Deaf children into public schools. These portrayals of the law's impact on Deaf students, in his opinion, were misleading. Dr. Baldwin was concerned that mainstream proponents were suggesting that mainstreaming would result in Deaf children becoming "normal" schoolchildren. He questioned whether this assertion was justifiable given the broader context of the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
When Congress passed the Handicapped Act of 1974, it did so without consulting the National Association of the Deaf or Deaf citizens. Dr. Baldwin, in his April 1975 article in The Utah Eagle, criticized this lack of consultation, calling the entire Act discriminatory.
In "Mainstreaming in Retrospect," Dr. Baldwin points to historical figures such as Alexander Graham Bell, Sarah Fuller, Robert C. Spencer, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for day schools and public school classes for Deaf children. They argued that residential schools isolated students from society. These advocates subscribed to the oral/aural philosophy and criticized traditional residential Deaf schools and the use of sign language (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14). They gained the support of uninformed legislators and imposed their educational ideologies on Deaf and hard-of-hearing students under the pretense of preparing them to integrate into the dominant English-speaking society. This event led to significant protests within the American Deaf community, ultimately culminating in the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf in 1880 (Baldwin, 1990). Similarly, in Utah, leaders like Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins engaged in heated debates with Dr. Bitter.
As Public Law 94-142 was being drafted in 1975, Dr. Baldwin, then the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, noticed a surge of literature that painted an overly optimistic view of mainstreaming Deaf children into public schools. These portrayals of the law's impact on Deaf students, in his opinion, were misleading. Dr. Baldwin was concerned that mainstream proponents were suggesting that mainstreaming would result in Deaf children becoming "normal" schoolchildren. He questioned whether this assertion was justifiable given the broader context of the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin. Source: Amazon.com
Dr. Baldwin noted that mainstreaming advocates envisioned integrating Deaf students into public schools to varying degrees and expected them to behave and think like hearing individuals. He questioned why the perspectives of the Deaf community were excluded from the discussions surrounding this law. This exclusion is a clear injustice. He posed the question, "Have the proponents of mainstreaming ever stood on a soapbox in front of Deaf audiences at their club meetings, fraternity meetings, or state association gatherings?" (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
One example of valuable Deaf input that could have shaped Public Law 94-142 came from an informal survey conducted in February 1975 at a Utah Association for the Deaf workshop. Dr. Baldwin asked 48 Deaf adults—who had attended either Deaf residential schools, Deaf and hard-of-hearing day schools, or public mainstream schools—whether they supported the mainstreaming of Deaf children, regardless of whether they were taught orally or manually. The results were striking: 40 of 48 opposed mainstreaming, four were in favor, and four were undecided. This result represented a significant 83% opposition to the mainstreaming trend. Those who opposed mainstreaming expressed a strong sense of value placed on their education in residential schools, viewing these institutions as more reliable than public schools. They also felt that mainstreaming offered minimal educational and social benefits and criticized mainstream educators for failing to consult Deaf individuals regarding their opinions on the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Once Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975, most educators who supported mainstreaming focused solely on current students, showing little interest in how Deaf students had been educated in the past. Dr. Baldwin emphasized that Deaf adults with experience in educational methods could provide valuable insights and should have been invited to share their perspectives on effective teaching strategies for present-day students (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Baldwin's observations highlighted the challenges that Deaf students faced in mainstream public school environments. He emphasized that these schools often failed to meet the educational, social, mental, and emotional needs of Deaf students, resulting in both the students and the educational system falling short. He expressed concern that many public school teachers lacked proper qualifications to teach Deaf students effectively. Alarmingly, some teachers felt pity for these students, knowing they were incapable of adequately teaching them, and were subsequently awarded passing grades without cause. During his visits to mainstreamed Deaf students, Dr. Baldwin noticed they often congregated together, indicating a lack of social integration and support—an essential aspect of effective education.
While proponents claimed the parents made the decision, Dr. Baldwin questioned whether parents of Deaf children received adequate information about the implications of mainstreaming. He suspected that many parents were unaware of the potential educational pitfalls awaiting their children and had fallen for misleading messages that promoted unrealistic academic aspirations—messages not supported by Deaf individuals or many respected educators in the field. As the USD Total Communication Program Coordinator, he heard firsthand what parents expected from mainstreaming their children: they hoped for a "normal" child capable of navigating the hearing world through listening, speech, and lip-reading skills. However, these parents often overlooked the detrimental effects of mainstreaming on their children's education.
When a dedicated special educator identified academic struggles in a mainstreamed Deaf student, they typically acted quickly to move the student out of the mainstream setting before further educational harm occurred. This often involved placing the student in a self-contained Deaf classroom or sending them to a state residential school for the Deaf. However, many mainstream educators were opposed to residential schools. They showed a strong aversion to them, pushing instead for Deaf students to be included in public schools while advocating for a reduction in residential school options.
Dr. Baldwin had personal experience with mainstream education, having attended the Horace Mann School, an early example of mainstream integration, in 1956. He remained integrated into public schools for seven years, excelling academically and athletically without any support services. Nonetheless, he also felt he lost critical emotional fulfillment and a sense of acceptance from his hearing peers and teachers regarding his deafness. In retrospect, he considered his mainstream experience disappointing in both educational achievements and personal relationships. After 30 years of reflection, he became convinced that the educational system should not take as long to recognize the shortcomings of mainstreaming for Deaf children. He was determined not to squander the learning opportunities for future generations of Deaf students.
Dr. Baldwin's article, "Is Mainstreaming of the Hearing Impaired Really Justified?" published in the April 1975 issue of The Utah Eagle, sparked significant controversy among parents who had enrolled their children in mainstream classes. USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder supported Dr. Baldwin's stance, emphasizing that parents needed to understand that mainstreaming was not the panacea for hearing loss that many idealistic portrayals suggested. The article cautioned parents against assuming that mainstreaming would necessarily result in positive outcomes for their Deaf children. Dr. Baldwin urged both parents and educators to consider the potential ramifications of placing Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school settings. He believed that, had federal legislators consulted Deaf adults, many of these issues could have been avoided.
Despite these warnings, the number of mainstreamed Deaf students increased rapidly as parents sought to "normalize" their children's experiences, aiming for them to talk, behave, think, and act like hearing individuals. Before 1975, the criteria for mainstreaming Deaf students did not include how well they spoke or heard; instead, the sole requirements were excellent social skills, above-average reading ability, and strong writing skills. Ironically, following the enactment of PL94-142, Dr. Baldwin observed a shift in the attitudes of oral advocates, who began to claim that oral Deaf students should be fully integrated into public schools.
One example of valuable Deaf input that could have shaped Public Law 94-142 came from an informal survey conducted in February 1975 at a Utah Association for the Deaf workshop. Dr. Baldwin asked 48 Deaf adults—who had attended either Deaf residential schools, Deaf and hard-of-hearing day schools, or public mainstream schools—whether they supported the mainstreaming of Deaf children, regardless of whether they were taught orally or manually. The results were striking: 40 of 48 opposed mainstreaming, four were in favor, and four were undecided. This result represented a significant 83% opposition to the mainstreaming trend. Those who opposed mainstreaming expressed a strong sense of value placed on their education in residential schools, viewing these institutions as more reliable than public schools. They also felt that mainstreaming offered minimal educational and social benefits and criticized mainstream educators for failing to consult Deaf individuals regarding their opinions on the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Once Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975, most educators who supported mainstreaming focused solely on current students, showing little interest in how Deaf students had been educated in the past. Dr. Baldwin emphasized that Deaf adults with experience in educational methods could provide valuable insights and should have been invited to share their perspectives on effective teaching strategies for present-day students (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Baldwin's observations highlighted the challenges that Deaf students faced in mainstream public school environments. He emphasized that these schools often failed to meet the educational, social, mental, and emotional needs of Deaf students, resulting in both the students and the educational system falling short. He expressed concern that many public school teachers lacked proper qualifications to teach Deaf students effectively. Alarmingly, some teachers felt pity for these students, knowing they were incapable of adequately teaching them, and were subsequently awarded passing grades without cause. During his visits to mainstreamed Deaf students, Dr. Baldwin noticed they often congregated together, indicating a lack of social integration and support—an essential aspect of effective education.
While proponents claimed the parents made the decision, Dr. Baldwin questioned whether parents of Deaf children received adequate information about the implications of mainstreaming. He suspected that many parents were unaware of the potential educational pitfalls awaiting their children and had fallen for misleading messages that promoted unrealistic academic aspirations—messages not supported by Deaf individuals or many respected educators in the field. As the USD Total Communication Program Coordinator, he heard firsthand what parents expected from mainstreaming their children: they hoped for a "normal" child capable of navigating the hearing world through listening, speech, and lip-reading skills. However, these parents often overlooked the detrimental effects of mainstreaming on their children's education.
When a dedicated special educator identified academic struggles in a mainstreamed Deaf student, they typically acted quickly to move the student out of the mainstream setting before further educational harm occurred. This often involved placing the student in a self-contained Deaf classroom or sending them to a state residential school for the Deaf. However, many mainstream educators were opposed to residential schools. They showed a strong aversion to them, pushing instead for Deaf students to be included in public schools while advocating for a reduction in residential school options.
Dr. Baldwin had personal experience with mainstream education, having attended the Horace Mann School, an early example of mainstream integration, in 1956. He remained integrated into public schools for seven years, excelling academically and athletically without any support services. Nonetheless, he also felt he lost critical emotional fulfillment and a sense of acceptance from his hearing peers and teachers regarding his deafness. In retrospect, he considered his mainstream experience disappointing in both educational achievements and personal relationships. After 30 years of reflection, he became convinced that the educational system should not take as long to recognize the shortcomings of mainstreaming for Deaf children. He was determined not to squander the learning opportunities for future generations of Deaf students.
Dr. Baldwin's article, "Is Mainstreaming of the Hearing Impaired Really Justified?" published in the April 1975 issue of The Utah Eagle, sparked significant controversy among parents who had enrolled their children in mainstream classes. USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder supported Dr. Baldwin's stance, emphasizing that parents needed to understand that mainstreaming was not the panacea for hearing loss that many idealistic portrayals suggested. The article cautioned parents against assuming that mainstreaming would necessarily result in positive outcomes for their Deaf children. Dr. Baldwin urged both parents and educators to consider the potential ramifications of placing Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school settings. He believed that, had federal legislators consulted Deaf adults, many of these issues could have been avoided.
Despite these warnings, the number of mainstreamed Deaf students increased rapidly as parents sought to "normalize" their children's experiences, aiming for them to talk, behave, think, and act like hearing individuals. Before 1975, the criteria for mainstreaming Deaf students did not include how well they spoke or heard; instead, the sole requirements were excellent social skills, above-average reading ability, and strong writing skills. Ironically, following the enactment of PL94-142, Dr. Baldwin observed a shift in the attitudes of oral advocates, who began to claim that oral Deaf students should be fully integrated into public schools.
Total Communication and the Deaf Teacher
In April 1976, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson published an article entitled "Total Communication and the Deaf Teacher" in the UAD Bulletin. He highlighted a suggestion from Dr. David Denton that every teacher in the total communication program should be required to speak. Dr. Sanderson viewed this requirement as discrimination against Deaf teachers and Deaf candidates in the University of Utah's teacher-training program. He argued that a Deaf child who is ready to learn speech should receive the best possible instruction from a qualified speech teacher. He believed that a teacher responsible for subjects like math, geography, or history should not also be burdened with teaching speech, as this would not provide the best instruction in either area. Similarly, a Deaf teacher should not be expected to teach speech if their primary focus is on subjects like algebra, social studies, or chemistry.
In his critique of teacher-training programs that prioritize speech, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of sign language in Deaf education. He maintained that teacher candidates should develop proficiency in sign language, recognizing its vital role in helping Deaf children achieve language competency through visual learning. This perspective not only acknowledges the unique needs of the Deaf community but also emphasizes the value of their language and culture in the educational setting.
Dr. Sanderson observed that prejudice against Deaf teachers remained prevalent. He found it ironic that many parents seemed to harbor negative feelings toward deafness and Deaf adults. Did these parents not realize that their own Deaf child would likely grow up to be a Deaf adult? Would they consider that their child might aspire to become a teacher for the Deaf? The contradiction was stark.
In his critique of teacher-training programs that prioritize speech, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of sign language in Deaf education. He maintained that teacher candidates should develop proficiency in sign language, recognizing its vital role in helping Deaf children achieve language competency through visual learning. This perspective not only acknowledges the unique needs of the Deaf community but also emphasizes the value of their language and culture in the educational setting.
Dr. Sanderson observed that prejudice against Deaf teachers remained prevalent. He found it ironic that many parents seemed to harbor negative feelings toward deafness and Deaf adults. Did these parents not realize that their own Deaf child would likely grow up to be a Deaf adult? Would they consider that their child might aspire to become a teacher for the Deaf? The contradiction was stark.
Robert G. Sanderson, after whom the Deaf Center was named, served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf from 1964 to 1968. The September 1966 issue of the Deaf American magazine features a photo of him shaking hands with Dr. Boyce R. Williams, a Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consultant at the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. At the convention banquet in San Francisco, California, Robert G. Sanderson announced the award and presented the first National Association of the Deaf Distinguished Service Award to Dr. Boyce R. Williams. The photo was taken by Floyd Barlow.
Dr. Sanderson stressed the essential role that Deaf teachers play in schools for Deaf children. These teachers serve as role models whom the children can identify with. He reminded readers that 'Total Communication' encompasses more than just simultaneous speaking and signing; it involves providing all modes of communication a child may need or want. While Deaf children should be encouraged to develop speech, this should not be forced upon them. Forcing speech on children who are not ready or do not wish to speak is detrimental and can lead to resistance and challenges later on. The Utah Deaf community did not oppose speech development, understanding its benefits, but they strongly opposed coercive methods such as intimidation, anger, physical violence, or punishment in either the oral or total communication programs.
Reflecting on past practices, it is noted that on November 12, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education decided to keep Deaf students in oral and total communication programs separate up to junior high school. This separation allowed oral teachers to enforce lip-reading and auditory training methods using physical punishment (Utah State Board of Education's Committee Meeting Minutes, November 12, 1970; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Forms of physical punishment included having students sit on their hands, slapping hands with a ruler, throwing chalk at students, putting soap in students' mouths, submerging students' heads in toilets, taking away lunch, and bending students' ears. Dr. Sanderson argued that such methods were inferior teaching techniques. The American Deaf community disrespected teachers who employed these methods, administrators who permitted them, and parents who condoned such actions. They believed that children learn best in a relaxed, supportive environment (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 1976).
Reflecting on past practices, it is noted that on November 12, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education decided to keep Deaf students in oral and total communication programs separate up to junior high school. This separation allowed oral teachers to enforce lip-reading and auditory training methods using physical punishment (Utah State Board of Education's Committee Meeting Minutes, November 12, 1970; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Forms of physical punishment included having students sit on their hands, slapping hands with a ruler, throwing chalk at students, putting soap in students' mouths, submerging students' heads in toilets, taking away lunch, and bending students' ears. Dr. Sanderson argued that such methods were inferior teaching techniques. The American Deaf community disrespected teachers who employed these methods, administrators who permitted them, and parents who condoned such actions. They believed that children learn best in a relaxed, supportive environment (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 1976).
C. Roy Cochran Submits His Resignation from the
Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah
Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah
In March 1976, C. Roy Cochran, a 1961 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a parent of two Deaf children, was invited to serve on the Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah. This committee was responsible for evaluating the teacher training program for the deaf and played a crucial role in shaping the future of Deaf education in Utah. However, after eight months of service, he resigned on November 17, 1976, due to significant disagreements with many of the program's standard practices. Below is Roy's resignation letter:
Dear Dr. Bitter and Members of the Self-Study Advisory Committee,
I do not wish to stay on the Committee any longer. May I list the reasons why I am leaving the Committee for good?
1. The U. of U. program for teachers of the Deaf is ORAL and will always be ORAL as long as Dr. Bitter is there.
2. All the course requirements for those in deaf education concentrate heavily on speech, speech reading, and auditory training. Yes, they are important, but not at the expense of other important subjects like science, history, and so on;
3. The Board of Regents may wish the U. of U. to have a Total Communication in a small way, such as the sign language or a course under Dr. Sanderson, but the program under Dr. Bitter IS strongly ORAL/AURAL.
UNFAIR!
4. Dr. Bitter is a nationally known ORAL advocate and an active Alexander Graham Bell Officer. In Utah, most of the deaf adults believed in Total Communication for most Deaf children. So, Dr. Bitter is one of the symbols of Oralism in Utah, and his program at U. of U. will always be ORAL/AURAL. If I must make recommendations, I would first change the whole program inside and out and make it a real Total Communication program. But again, I say I am wasting my time, as long as Dr. Bitter is here (Mr. Baldwin may wish to make some recommendations, and I wish him luck).
5. Mrs. Dorothy Young is a friend of mine. She is deaf and an active member of the Salt Lake Valley Ward for the Deaf. Recently, she dropped out of the U. of U. program where she hoped to receive her teacher's certification in the education of the deaf. While I may not have all the details about why she left…, I can only say that the U. of U. is NOT a fair place for a deaf person or a hearing person who wants to be a real Total Communication teacher. DR. BITTER IS KNOWN TO OPPOSE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND THEIR ACTIVITIES. Furthermore, Oral deaf adults do NOT speak for the real deaf community. Mrs. Young is living proof of most of my reasons for leaving the Committee.
6. Recently, I learned that West Jordan School is privately controlled by Dr. Bitter. These deaf children are vegetative.
I am leaving with a very good conscience. It is not worth my efforts or time.
Sincerely,
Charles Roy Cochran
Representative of a Parent Whose Children are enrolled in Total Communication at the Utah School for the Deaf (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, November 17, 1976)
Dear Dr. Bitter and Members of the Self-Study Advisory Committee,
I do not wish to stay on the Committee any longer. May I list the reasons why I am leaving the Committee for good?
1. The U. of U. program for teachers of the Deaf is ORAL and will always be ORAL as long as Dr. Bitter is there.
2. All the course requirements for those in deaf education concentrate heavily on speech, speech reading, and auditory training. Yes, they are important, but not at the expense of other important subjects like science, history, and so on;
3. The Board of Regents may wish the U. of U. to have a Total Communication in a small way, such as the sign language or a course under Dr. Sanderson, but the program under Dr. Bitter IS strongly ORAL/AURAL.
UNFAIR!
4. Dr. Bitter is a nationally known ORAL advocate and an active Alexander Graham Bell Officer. In Utah, most of the deaf adults believed in Total Communication for most Deaf children. So, Dr. Bitter is one of the symbols of Oralism in Utah, and his program at U. of U. will always be ORAL/AURAL. If I must make recommendations, I would first change the whole program inside and out and make it a real Total Communication program. But again, I say I am wasting my time, as long as Dr. Bitter is here (Mr. Baldwin may wish to make some recommendations, and I wish him luck).
5. Mrs. Dorothy Young is a friend of mine. She is deaf and an active member of the Salt Lake Valley Ward for the Deaf. Recently, she dropped out of the U. of U. program where she hoped to receive her teacher's certification in the education of the deaf. While I may not have all the details about why she left…, I can only say that the U. of U. is NOT a fair place for a deaf person or a hearing person who wants to be a real Total Communication teacher. DR. BITTER IS KNOWN TO OPPOSE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND THEIR ACTIVITIES. Furthermore, Oral deaf adults do NOT speak for the real deaf community. Mrs. Young is living proof of most of my reasons for leaving the Committee.
6. Recently, I learned that West Jordan School is privately controlled by Dr. Bitter. These deaf children are vegetative.
I am leaving with a very good conscience. It is not worth my efforts or time.
Sincerely,
Charles Roy Cochran
Representative of a Parent Whose Children are enrolled in Total Communication at the Utah School for the Deaf (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, November 17, 1976)
C. Roy Cochran. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Dr. Bitter responded to Roy Cochran's letter on December 3, 1976. He expressed regret over Cochran's resignation, stating that his input was greatly needed and valued. Dr. Bitter emphasized his commitment to ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all individuals with differences. One of the goals of the teacher training program for the deaf at the University of Utah was to ensure that student teachers developed basic skills in manual communication. They were encouraged to engage with the Utah Deaf community to foster manual competence and increase their understanding and acceptance of it. He affirmed that he was not opposed to the Utah Deaf community. In fact, he invited Gene D. Stewart, director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, to teach the 'Special Education 580' class and encouraged students to enroll in SPA 789, a course taught by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Dr. Bitter asserted that he held no private control over the West Jordan school or any other educational institution, clarifying that if he had personal control, he would ensure that the Deaf children would not be "vegetating" (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Regarding Dorothy Young's departure from the teacher training program, Dr. Bitter explained that it resulted from a discussion she had with him, Dr. David R. Byrne (Assistant Dean of the College of Education), and Jeannette Misaka (Clinical Instructor). Dorothy had previously taught at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1960 to 1967, but had provisional teaching credentials that expired in 1968 and were deemed outdated. Her secondary teaching certificate was valid until 1981. She had enrolled in some classes at the University of Utah to prepare herself for the new certification requirements. Dr. Bitter expressed concern about Dorothy's potential challenges in the teacher training program, particularly because she was totally Deaf and had limited oral communication skills, which posed difficulties within the program's structure. He also believed that the sign language interpreter would not be able to convey the necessary information. Ultimately, Dorothy was disappointed with the situation and chose not to pursue renewal of her teaching certification, as there was little she could do to change the program's current structure (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Dr. Bitter asked Roy to reconsider his decision to resign from the committee. He cordially invited Roy to attend their next meeting on December 17th (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976). Roy did return briefly to complete a specific assignment. However, he ultimately decided to enroll his Deaf children, Don and Lisa, in the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, D.C. There, they would have access to Deaf peers and receive a better education (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, April 22, 2011). This decision was a turning point for the family, as it provided Don and Lisa with an environment where they could thrive both socially and academically. Knowing that his children would surround themselves with peers who shared similar experiences and challenges, Roy felt a renewed sense of hope.
Regarding Dorothy Young's departure from the teacher training program, Dr. Bitter explained that it resulted from a discussion she had with him, Dr. David R. Byrne (Assistant Dean of the College of Education), and Jeannette Misaka (Clinical Instructor). Dorothy had previously taught at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1960 to 1967, but had provisional teaching credentials that expired in 1968 and were deemed outdated. Her secondary teaching certificate was valid until 1981. She had enrolled in some classes at the University of Utah to prepare herself for the new certification requirements. Dr. Bitter expressed concern about Dorothy's potential challenges in the teacher training program, particularly because she was totally Deaf and had limited oral communication skills, which posed difficulties within the program's structure. He also believed that the sign language interpreter would not be able to convey the necessary information. Ultimately, Dorothy was disappointed with the situation and chose not to pursue renewal of her teaching certification, as there was little she could do to change the program's current structure (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Dr. Bitter asked Roy to reconsider his decision to resign from the committee. He cordially invited Roy to attend their next meeting on December 17th (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976). Roy did return briefly to complete a specific assignment. However, he ultimately decided to enroll his Deaf children, Don and Lisa, in the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, D.C. There, they would have access to Deaf peers and receive a better education (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, April 22, 2011). This decision was a turning point for the family, as it provided Don and Lisa with an environment where they could thrive both socially and academically. Knowing that his children would surround themselves with peers who shared similar experiences and challenges, Roy felt a renewed sense of hope.
SECTION II:
Controversy at the
Utah State Board of Education
Controversy at the
Utah State Board of Education
Since 1962, a debate has been ongoing within Utah's Deaf education community about the most effective teaching methods for Deaf children. This unresolved discussion, which continues to this day, focuses on two primary approaches: total communication and oral communication. Presentations made in February, March, April, August, November, and December of 1977, including a report by Dr. Jay J. Campbell on his study of Deaf education in Utah, did not reach a definitive conclusion. This debate, with its rich history and diverse perspectives, remains a central and urgent issue in the field of Deaf education in Utah.
During these presentations, both sides presented their arguments. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, supported the oral approach, while Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a counselor in Deaf Services, endorsed the total communication program. Their viewpoints were articulated in a series of board meetings, resembling a chess game. The Utah Association for the Deaf, a key player in the debate, even staged protests at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah, underscoring the intensity of the controversy and their significant influence. The year 1977 stands out as one of the most challenging periods for the Utah Deaf community. Tensions escalated as advocates for different communication methods clashed, each believing their approach would best serve the needs of Deaf individuals. Despite the conflicts, community members came together, aiming to promote understanding and unity in a divided environment.
During these presentations, both sides presented their arguments. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, supported the oral approach, while Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a counselor in Deaf Services, endorsed the total communication program. Their viewpoints were articulated in a series of board meetings, resembling a chess game. The Utah Association for the Deaf, a key player in the debate, even staged protests at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah, underscoring the intensity of the controversy and their significant influence. The year 1977 stands out as one of the most challenging periods for the Utah Deaf community. Tensions escalated as advocates for different communication methods clashed, each believing their approach would best serve the needs of Deaf individuals. Despite the conflicts, community members came together, aiming to promote understanding and unity in a divided environment.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, an Advocate for Total Communication,
Presents His Recommended Separation of Two Programs
on Behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf to the
Utah State Board of Education on February 18, 1977
Presents His Recommended Separation of Two Programs
on Behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf to the
Utah State Board of Education on February 18, 1977
President W. David Mortensen of the Utah Association for the Deaf led over 100 Deaf people seeking better education into the Utah State Board of Education meeting room in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 18, 1977. They gathered to advocate for improving Deaf education (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who represented the Utah Association for the Deaf, served as the board's spokesperson. He said in front of the board members, "Tomorrow's world, with its great technological advances, will require even more education for deaf individuals to compete in marketplace jobs. When we look around the world and see the millions of people who can hear and talk normally, we realize that their education, not their speech, enables them to succeed" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
W. David Mortensen. Source: FamilySearch.org
The Utah Association for the Deaf made three recommendations for the board to consider, as follows:
Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah State Board of Education, noting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and in the public school system face significant literacy challenges. He emphasized that integrating Deaf children into the regular education system would place them in hopeless competition with hearing students. Furthermore, he conveyed the concerns of both himself and the Utah Association of the Deaf about the high turnover rates among teachers and dormitory counselors at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as concerns about the overall quality of education (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Sanderson stated that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading skills ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade, emphasizing the importance of teaching reading, writing, and math in Deaf classes. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the more comprehensive curriculum. Dr. Sanderson also emphasized the importance of education in the lives of Deaf individuals, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to acknowledge the significance of the three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in enhancing opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly stated that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
Dr. Sanderson made a final statement against the defenders of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose his speech if he learns sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson asserted. "When our speech is poor, it is because of deafness, not because of sign language (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
- Divide the Utah School for the Deaf at Ogden into two distinct schools: one for total communication and another for oral communication. The Total Communication Division should be located on the current Ogden campus, and the Oral Division should have a separate campus. The rationale for this recommendation was conflicts between philosophies and teaching approaches.
- A professional team should evaluate each Deaf child and recommend a specific program for them.
- The State Board should develop a long-range research program to determine the needs of and the best instructional method for Deaf children in the state (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah State Board of Education, noting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and in the public school system face significant literacy challenges. He emphasized that integrating Deaf children into the regular education system would place them in hopeless competition with hearing students. Furthermore, he conveyed the concerns of both himself and the Utah Association of the Deaf about the high turnover rates among teachers and dormitory counselors at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as concerns about the overall quality of education (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Sanderson stated that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading skills ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade, emphasizing the importance of teaching reading, writing, and math in Deaf classes. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the more comprehensive curriculum. Dr. Sanderson also emphasized the importance of education in the lives of Deaf individuals, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to acknowledge the significance of the three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in enhancing opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly stated that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
Dr. Sanderson made a final statement against the defenders of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose his speech if he learns sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson asserted. "When our speech is poor, it is because of deafness, not because of sign language (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Robert G. Sanderson at Gallaudet College in the mid-1930s
Gene D. Stewart, an Advocate for Total Communication,
Speaks a Scathing Indictment of the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977
Speaks a Scathing Indictment of the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977
Gene D. Stewart, the only hearing child of a Deaf family, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, and the Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, spoke a scathing indictment of the oral advocacy group's dominance at the Utah School for the Deaf in a meeting before the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977. He accused the Ogden's residential school of providing inadequate educational training to Deaf children. He also added that "very few deaf children go to college. In fact, practically none." By reaching the postsecondary level, they will have no further educational opportunities. We continue to graduate students from that program, yet many of them do not have a strong grasp of the English language (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene went on to say that Deaf education in Utah needs improvement, as significantly fewer of Utah's Deaf students pursue higher education than their peers in other states. He described the program at the Utah School for the Deaf as "detrimental" due to the presence of two conflicting teaching philosophies. He noted that this conflict creates an environment where students frequently shift between the two programs (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students that demonstrated their lack of language skills and included questions such as, "How can you read lips if you don't know the words?" and, "How can you learn to write English if you don't know the language?" He added that the average reading grade for a high school graduate from the Utah School for the Deaf is 4th or 5th. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene went on to say that Deaf education in Utah needs improvement, as significantly fewer of Utah's Deaf students pursue higher education than their peers in other states. He described the program at the Utah School for the Deaf as "detrimental" due to the presence of two conflicting teaching philosophies. He noted that this conflict creates an environment where students frequently shift between the two programs (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students that demonstrated their lack of language skills and included questions such as, "How can you read lips if you don't know the words?" and, "How can you learn to write English if you don't know the language?" He added that the average reading grade for a high school graduate from the Utah School for the Deaf is 4th or 5th. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene D. Stewart. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
The oral advocates felt that the oral approach would better equip Deaf people to function in a hearing society and that if allowed to learn sign language, they would be more likely to gravitate to a Deaf subculture. The total communication advocates disputed this claim and urged that an overly long insistence on the oral method delays learning. They also urged that the total communication method more often yields quicker, more permanent results. Both groups preferred that the classes be separated or the students be converted to all oral or in total. The board questioned Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter about potential solutions to reconcile the two groups. Dr. Sanderson saw no immediate resolution. Dr. Bitter proposed the creation of an advisory commission to act as arbiter and coordinator. Dr. Sanderson opposed the idea. Joan Burnside, the board chairperson, stated that the board would be satisfied if all options and programs were made available, and parents should be able to select the program they want for their children (Deseret News, March 20, 1977, p. 4).
Dr. Campbell agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf's proposal to split the Utah School for the Deaf into two separate schools. His argument was clear and compelling. He presented evidence that children at the Utah School for the Deaf were not receiving a satisfactory education and that the fundamental skills needed significant improvement. His solution was to recommend separate schools, as oral and total communication wanted it, and their goals were distinct. Oralists focused on teaching the child to speak, while totalists prioritized teaching basic skills with speaking as a secondary emphasis (Deseret News, March 19, 1977).
The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for total communication education and urged the state board to establish two schools with different instructional philosophies. Despite the board's request for a study, they have not taken any action (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
Dr. Campbell agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf's proposal to split the Utah School for the Deaf into two separate schools. His argument was clear and compelling. He presented evidence that children at the Utah School for the Deaf were not receiving a satisfactory education and that the fundamental skills needed significant improvement. His solution was to recommend separate schools, as oral and total communication wanted it, and their goals were distinct. Oralists focused on teaching the child to speak, while totalists prioritized teaching basic skills with speaking as a secondary emphasis (Deseret News, March 19, 1977).
The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for total communication education and urged the state board to establish two schools with different instructional philosophies. Despite the board's request for a study, they have not taken any action (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
Gene D. Stewart: Dark Ages
In response to Gene D. Stewart's March 17, 1977, charge against the Utah School for the Deaf in the Utah State Board of Education in the Ogden Standard-Examiner newspaper, USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder stated that students on the Ogden's residential campus switched from one teaching method to another due to constant conflict and incompatibility between the two educational systems. In addition, he said, "The ultimate decision to teach Deaf children by oral or total communication method belongs to the parents." Gene responded, "The school's philosophy is oral." If the kid fails the oral program, they will be shifted to the other." He continued stating, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah." "Many schools across the country use the total communication concept alone." Superintendent Tegeder also denied the accusation that the school's oral philosophy is unsubstantiated. When a child does not progress in the oral program, the school will move them from oral to total communication, which is a natural transition. When a child's speech does not develop satisfactorily, the emphasis shifts to a less speech-focused approach. He went on to say that the total communication concept is "hard to define because there's never really been an agreement on what total communication includes." Superintendent Tegedar also stated that he did not want to start a newspaper war and that it was up to the board to decide whether to establish two campuses, one for each teaching method. Meanwhile, he emphasized that the school respects parents' wishes (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
'Method of Teaching Deaf Students Stir Debate.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977, p. 9
Despite facing numerous challenges, the Utah Deaf leaders united to provide better education and services that we now take for granted. In 2000, I finished my college degree, got married, and relocated to Utah, my spouse's home state. It was there that I first heard the term "Dark Ages." Initially, I was unaware of its origin until I came across a 1977 newspaper article about Gene's "Dark Ages" statement. That's when I began to comprehend the connection between the harsh realities of Deaf education in Utah during what would later become referred to as the "Dark Ages." The term was a stark reminder of the obstacles that the Deaf community in Utah had to endure. Gene's unwavering advocacy for the Utah Deaf community is an inspiration, and his bravery deserves our utmost recognition and respect.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Begins His Pioneering
Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
In 1966, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a respected individual and advocate for the Utah Deaf community, to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf. During his tenure from 1966 to 1977, he witnessed the ongoing controversy between Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who supported sign language. Additionally, Dr. Campbell observed the conflict in communication methods between the oral program and the total communication program, both within and outside the Utah School for the Deaf.
In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's study project on Deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Campbell's study focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and to develop a comprehensive, inclusive education system for these students. The study focused primarily on the following areas:
In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's study project on Deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Campbell's study focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and to develop a comprehensive, inclusive education system for these students. The study focused primarily on the following areas:
- An analysis of research on communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- A study of Deaf children in Utah school districts,
- A sample of opinions of parents of older students at the Utah School for the Deaf,
- Comments from professional staff,
- Letters/materials received from national leaders and educators of the deaf,
- Perceptions and recommendations from former USD students,
- Professional interpreters for the deaf, and
- Professional counselors for the deaf.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1973
After an extensive two-year study, Dr. Campbell, in collaboration with external researchers, completed his comprehensive report on February 15, 1977, in preparation to share the findings with the Utah State Board of Education on April 14, 1977. This study, conducted between 1960 and 1977, involved students from both mainstream school districts and the Utah School for the Deaf. The report aimed to resolve the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, address internal conflicts at the Utah School for the Deaf, and offer policy proposals for the Utah State Board of Education to consider (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
The report indicated that students' poor academic performance stemmed from conflicts between two educational ideologies. Unfortunately, this debate overlooked the education and language needs of Deaf children. Other issues included a shortage of teacher aides and tutors at the Utah School for the Deaf. Teachers felt overwhelmed by the challenge of educating children with varying ages, language skills, and cognitive abilities within a single classroom.
One teacher pointed out that there were significant differences in ability levels among students in most classes, and at times, teachers had to instruct at multiple levels simultaneously. However, employing a capable assistant could support the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher works with the rest. Utilizing assistants can enhance the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize the instructional time available for teaching (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. In the mainstream setting, interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
One teacher pointed out that there were significant differences in ability levels among students in most classes, and at times, teachers had to instruct at multiple levels simultaneously. However, employing a capable assistant could support the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher works with the rest. Utilizing assistants can enhance the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize the instructional time available for teaching (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. In the mainstream setting, interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Jay J. Jay's Observation of a Two-Track System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Dr. Campbell conducted a study on the two-track program and the conflict it caused at the Utah School for the Deaf. The study included a letter from a respondent, which contained essential observations and suggestions. Based on observations and recommendations in the letter, Dr. Campbell proposed a 'two-track system' in separate schools to solve internal and external conflicts, eliminate competition, and alleviate tensions between the two programs. He recommended that each program have its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students to avoid competition and tensions between the two programs. At the time, two oral and sign language coordinators reported to the principal, who favored oral education. Such an arrangement has harmed the sign language department, prompting a request to the Utah State Board of Education to separate the two schools. The letter in the following section provides a deeper understanding of the challenges surrounding the two-track program.
A Letter Detailing the Impact of the Dual-Track Program
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
A Letter Detailing the Impact of the Dual-Track Program
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell signing his speech “Humanizing Education” and Beth Ann Stewart signing her rendition in signs of “I.” There Be Peace on Earth at convention banquet. Source: UAD Bulletin, November 1973
As part of a study, the Utah State Office of Education assigned Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to conduct a survey of the alums of the Utah School for the Deaf to confirm their experience regarding the education they received there. The survey compared the opinions of graduates who completed their studies at the school before 1948, those who graduated between 1948 and 1959, and those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results revealed a significant difference in the alums' views. Graduates who completed their studies before 1949 had a more positive experience at the school; they understood their teachers better and enjoyed the administrators more than those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results for students who graduated between 1949 and 1959 fell into both categories (Sanderson, 1977).
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
- Restructure and strengthen the programs to reduce the competition and tension and meet the children's educational needs through a fair placement process,
- Improve the evaluation of each student in relation to communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- Provide periodic evaluations of all students and, if needed, recommendations for transfer,
- Provide aid and education to parents as they make decisions regarding placement,
- Set up an early intervention program for Deaf toddlers and preschoolers,
- Improve curriculum and offer vocational courses for skill-building targeted to obtain employment,
- Encourage teachers and parents to become involved with the Deaf community and have the right attitude towards the deaf,
- Include the state evaluative process for Deaf children in school districts under the direction of the Utah School for the Deaf and make recommendations along the spectrum of placements,
- Keep up with the research on services and education trends,
- Coordinate the educational research of Utah School for the Deaf with research from other states, and
- Reconsider and rewrite the Utah School for the Deaf policies to clarify their intent and ensure that they reflect a coherent and consistent policy (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: On the Green, July 12, 1981
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Presents His Research
on Deaf Education in Utah
to the Utah State Board of Education
on April 14, 1977
AND
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State
Board of Education on That Day
on Deaf Education in Utah
to the Utah State Board of Education
on April 14, 1977
AND
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State
Board of Education on That Day
From February to April 1977, the Utah State Board of Education engaged in a heated debate regarding the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. The central issue was a proposal to separate the two programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, which led to conflict between the oral communication method and the total communication approach (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Rather than focusing on their differences, the Utah State Board of Education aimed to strengthen both programs (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, the Utah State Board of Education convened at the Utah School for the Deaf, where around 300 parents advocating for the oral method gathered for a debate. The third debate focused on the two instructional philosophies presented to the board. Questions arose regarding whether the oral approach or the total communication method is more effective for teaching Deaf children, and whether improving both programs would enhance Deaf education overall. There was also discussion about the possibility of establishing two separate schools, one for oral communication and another for total communication, as suggested in Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart advocated for the total communication approach, while supporters of the oral philosophy shared their perspectives during the meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). The importance of parental choice was a recurring theme at the board meeting, with Dr. Bitter emphasizing the need to provide parents with options for their children and to preserve their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education.
Dr. Campbell presented his comprehensive 200-page study report to the board, outlining his findings and suggestions for enhancing education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He pushed for a more equitable evaluation and placement system. His study significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about Deaf education, offering a hopeful outlook for the school's future programs. In his research, Dr. Campbell provided findings, ideas, and recommendations aimed at improving the education system at the Utah School for the Deaf, including the proposal for more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed Dr. Campbell's research, which indicated that Deaf children excel academically when using sign language. In front of 300 parents of oral Deaf children who supported his view, Dr. Bitter criticized both the oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over which approach is most effective. He challenged them to collaborate in improving the quality of Deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter stressed the importance of providing parents with options for their children and preserving their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Bitter expressed concerns about Dr. Campbell's research, claiming it contained inaccuracies and unfounded conclusions regarding the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs statewide (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). This controversy over research and program bias added another layer of tension and uncertainty to the debate, complicating the decision-making process.
Dr. Bitter emphasized that the focus should not be on advocating for one of the two philosophies or determining which is best for all Deaf students; rather, the priority should be on improving the quality of existing Deaf education programs. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decisions. Some participants claimed that the reports from February and March suggested bias in the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, favoring the oral method over the total communication method (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Most of the criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February report to the State Board and Dr. Campbell's study, which both recommended establishing separate schools for the two educational programs while continuing to support the total communication approach at Ogden's residential school. Dr. Sanderson also advocated for the separation of the two educational programs while retaining the Ogden residential school for the total communication approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Additionally, Dr. Bitter criticized Dr. Sanderson's survey of Utah School for the Deaf alums, which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Bitter raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's selection procedures for the population and sample, which led to considerable confusion. Some critics alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that previous reports indicated the orientation program for parents of new students at the Ogden campus was biased toward the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of improving existing Deaf education programs instead of debating which educational philosophy should be considered the best for all Deaf students. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decision-making. Additionally, concerns were raised about potential bias in the reports from February and March regarding the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, which seemed to favor the oral method over total communication. This bias has the potential to significantly influence parents' decisions and impact their choice of Deaf education in Utah.
Peter Viahos, an attorney and parent of a Deaf daughter, praised the alignment of the two state school officers with the overall program. However, he argued that this alignment should not grant them administrative control over the oral program. "Utah is fortunate to have both methods of instruction, but it is unfortunate that we have almost constant conflict over which method is best," he stated (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22).
While Dr. Bitter supported offering dual options for Deaf education, the oral program often promoted itself as the preferred choice for parents and Deaf children. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sanderson, and the Utah Association for the Deaf have noted that many Deaf students struggle in the oral program and ultimately transition to the total communication approach. They have actively advocated for the total communication method and have encountered numerous parents who were unaware of this option when advised to choose the oral program. Until the board meeting on April 14th, Dr. Campbell remained dedicated to finding solutions that benefit both groups and was optimistic about the future of Deaf education in Utah.
On April 14, 1977, the Utah State Board of Education convened at the Utah School for the Deaf, where around 300 parents advocating for the oral method gathered for a debate. The third debate focused on the two instructional philosophies presented to the board. Questions arose regarding whether the oral approach or the total communication method is more effective for teaching Deaf children, and whether improving both programs would enhance Deaf education overall. There was also discussion about the possibility of establishing two separate schools, one for oral communication and another for total communication, as suggested in Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart advocated for the total communication approach, while supporters of the oral philosophy shared their perspectives during the meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). The importance of parental choice was a recurring theme at the board meeting, with Dr. Bitter emphasizing the need to provide parents with options for their children and to preserve their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education.
Dr. Campbell presented his comprehensive 200-page study report to the board, outlining his findings and suggestions for enhancing education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He pushed for a more equitable evaluation and placement system. His study significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about Deaf education, offering a hopeful outlook for the school's future programs. In his research, Dr. Campbell provided findings, ideas, and recommendations aimed at improving the education system at the Utah School for the Deaf, including the proposal for more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed Dr. Campbell's research, which indicated that Deaf children excel academically when using sign language. In front of 300 parents of oral Deaf children who supported his view, Dr. Bitter criticized both the oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over which approach is most effective. He challenged them to collaborate in improving the quality of Deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter stressed the importance of providing parents with options for their children and preserving their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Bitter expressed concerns about Dr. Campbell's research, claiming it contained inaccuracies and unfounded conclusions regarding the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs statewide (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). This controversy over research and program bias added another layer of tension and uncertainty to the debate, complicating the decision-making process.
Dr. Bitter emphasized that the focus should not be on advocating for one of the two philosophies or determining which is best for all Deaf students; rather, the priority should be on improving the quality of existing Deaf education programs. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decisions. Some participants claimed that the reports from February and March suggested bias in the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, favoring the oral method over the total communication method (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Most of the criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February report to the State Board and Dr. Campbell's study, which both recommended establishing separate schools for the two educational programs while continuing to support the total communication approach at Ogden's residential school. Dr. Sanderson also advocated for the separation of the two educational programs while retaining the Ogden residential school for the total communication approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Additionally, Dr. Bitter criticized Dr. Sanderson's survey of Utah School for the Deaf alums, which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Bitter raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's selection procedures for the population and sample, which led to considerable confusion. Some critics alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that previous reports indicated the orientation program for parents of new students at the Ogden campus was biased toward the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of improving existing Deaf education programs instead of debating which educational philosophy should be considered the best for all Deaf students. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decision-making. Additionally, concerns were raised about potential bias in the reports from February and March regarding the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, which seemed to favor the oral method over total communication. This bias has the potential to significantly influence parents' decisions and impact their choice of Deaf education in Utah.
Peter Viahos, an attorney and parent of a Deaf daughter, praised the alignment of the two state school officers with the overall program. However, he argued that this alignment should not grant them administrative control over the oral program. "Utah is fortunate to have both methods of instruction, but it is unfortunate that we have almost constant conflict over which method is best," he stated (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22).
While Dr. Bitter supported offering dual options for Deaf education, the oral program often promoted itself as the preferred choice for parents and Deaf children. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sanderson, and the Utah Association for the Deaf have noted that many Deaf students struggle in the oral program and ultimately transition to the total communication approach. They have actively advocated for the total communication method and have encountered numerous parents who were unaware of this option when advised to choose the oral program. Until the board meeting on April 14th, Dr. Campbell remained dedicated to finding solutions that benefit both groups and was optimistic about the future of Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Key Recommendations for
Improving Educational Programs for the Deaf and
Creating a Statewide Comprehensive Plan
Improving Educational Programs for the Deaf and
Creating a Statewide Comprehensive Plan
On the same day, Dr. Grant B. Bitter presented his recommendations for improving educational programs for the Deaf to the Utah State Board of Education. Representing the Utah Council of Parents of Deaf Children, Dr. Bitter acknowledged the significant achievements Utah has made in the field of Deaf education. These accomplishments have set a high standard for other states to follow.
Dr. Bitter outlined several recommendations to assist in implementing the new Public Law 94-142, which addresses the rights of individuals with disabilities within the educational system:
He strongly advocated for adequate support personnel to meet the emerging needs of Deaf students under Public Law 94-142, which includes the use of appropriate diagnostic procedures and tracking systems. Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of parental involvement in this process. He proposed the creation of a State Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation to strengthen all areas of concern and improve educational excellence. He had the support of his alliance of parents who advocate for oral communication.
Dr. Bitter recommended assigning representation to various groups, agencies, organizations, and institutions, and suggested the state review its current educational, social, and vocational services. His recommendations included:
1. A review of the effectiveness of the currently constituted Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
2. Conducting a long-term cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the costs per pupil per year for education in:
3. Hiring at least one qualified professional rehabilitation counselor with expertise in oral/aural skills to assist oral/aural Deaf individuals seeking help from the Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Deaf.
4. Organizing a statewide Comprehensive Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation.
Finally, Dr. Bitter stated, "None of us can allow ourselves to waste tax dollars, human energy, and resources on the historic, destructive, and divisive conflict over philosophy and methodology among various groups of the hearing impaired. The question is not whether to choose 'either-or,' but rather 'How can we improve the quality of existing programs for the hearing impaired to make them more efficient and effective?' We must safeguard equal educational rights and opportunities and ensure educational alternatives in the least restrictive environment" (Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
- Utah's commitment to the development and preservation of parents' rights, opportunities, and responsibilities in the education of their Deaf children is a cornerstone of our educational system.
- The right to choose educational alternatives, such as an oral track or a total communication track, in separate and adequately equipped facilities.
- Utah provides unique opportunities for placing deaf children in regular public school classes, Extension Day Classes, or the Residential School in Ogden. The Utah School for the Deaf offers day class placements in public schools, which is a distinctive option in Utah. The willingness of school districts to collaborate with parents and the Utah School for the Deaf for both day class placements and full-time enrollment in district schools is commendable.
Dr. Bitter outlined several recommendations to assist in implementing the new Public Law 94-142, which addresses the rights of individuals with disabilities within the educational system:
- The right to due process.
- Protection against discriminatory testing during the diagnosis process.
- Placement in the least restrictive educational setting.
- Development of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
He strongly advocated for adequate support personnel to meet the emerging needs of Deaf students under Public Law 94-142, which includes the use of appropriate diagnostic procedures and tracking systems. Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of parental involvement in this process. He proposed the creation of a State Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation to strengthen all areas of concern and improve educational excellence. He had the support of his alliance of parents who advocate for oral communication.
Dr. Bitter recommended assigning representation to various groups, agencies, organizations, and institutions, and suggested the state review its current educational, social, and vocational services. His recommendations included:
1. A review of the effectiveness of the currently constituted Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
2. Conducting a long-term cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the costs per pupil per year for education in:
- Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden,
- Extension Day Classes, Salt Lake City,
- Multiple handicapped facilities,
- School districts providing full-time enrollment for deaf children in regular classes
3. Hiring at least one qualified professional rehabilitation counselor with expertise in oral/aural skills to assist oral/aural Deaf individuals seeking help from the Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Deaf.
4. Organizing a statewide Comprehensive Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation.
Finally, Dr. Bitter stated, "None of us can allow ourselves to waste tax dollars, human energy, and resources on the historic, destructive, and divisive conflict over philosophy and methodology among various groups of the hearing impaired. The question is not whether to choose 'either-or,' but rather 'How can we improve the quality of existing programs for the hearing impaired to make them more efficient and effective?' We must safeguard equal educational rights and opportunities and ensure educational alternatives in the least restrictive environment" (Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Utahn, 1963
Education for the Deaf Sparks Debate at the
Utah State Board of Education: No Action Taken
Utah State Board of Education: No Action Taken
During an emotional presentation at the Utah State Board of Education, Pete Vlahos remarked, "Dr. Campbell may have little interest in what parents have to say here today." He continued, "The stigma of deafness is so strong that parents do not want any of their associates to know they have a child in a special school. Parents must keep their immediate relatives—grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins—from learning that they have a handicapped family member. Likewise, they do not feel the need to admit they have a handicapped child. I resent that personally" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Another parent, Legia Johnson, fiercely defended her children's rights amid accusations against the Utah School for the Deaf. She declared, "We resent public statements that our children are poor students. First and foremost, they are children—not deaf people. They are people with a problem." Legia also shared her daughter's perspective, who sees herself as "not handicapped, but inconvenienced" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Dr. Bitter expressed concern that Dr. Campbell's study did not include interviews with the parents of the school's students. Pete Vlahos added in his prepared remarks that the parents of two-thirds of the Deaf school students he represented had requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not continue to influence oral students. Despite Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson's recommendation to separate the two schools, neither the oral nor the total communication parent groups strongly supported or opposed the establishment of separate campuses for oral and total schools (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
In this context, Dr. Bitter requested that the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
Another parent, Legia Johnson, fiercely defended her children's rights amid accusations against the Utah School for the Deaf. She declared, "We resent public statements that our children are poor students. First and foremost, they are children—not deaf people. They are people with a problem." Legia also shared her daughter's perspective, who sees herself as "not handicapped, but inconvenienced" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Dr. Bitter expressed concern that Dr. Campbell's study did not include interviews with the parents of the school's students. Pete Vlahos added in his prepared remarks that the parents of two-thirds of the Deaf school students he represented had requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not continue to influence oral students. Despite Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson's recommendation to separate the two schools, neither the oral nor the total communication parent groups strongly supported or opposed the establishment of separate campuses for oral and total schools (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
In this context, Dr. Bitter requested that the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
John Cummins, 'Deaf Education Method Best Served by 'Re-Channeling Energy.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22
During a board meeting, Peter Vlahos made a compelling argument, pointing out that Utah has access to both educational methods for Deaf children, but they often conflict with one another. He expressed pride in his daughter's accomplishments and questioned the need to prove one educational method superior to the other, emphasizing that the focus should be on educating children (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
As previously mentioned, Peter Vlahos revealed that two-thirds of parents were in favor of removing Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles in Utah's Deaf education. Over 300 parents, united behind advocates like Dr. Bitter and Peter Vlahos, stood in support of the oral method during the heated meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). The discussions were intense, making it challenging to reach a unified approach to Deaf education that prioritizes the needs of children.
A group of parents, influenced by Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral and sign language methods in Deaf education, citing its inconclusive nature. Additionally, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Notable attendees included Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dennis R. Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
As previously mentioned, Peter Vlahos revealed that two-thirds of parents were in favor of removing Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles in Utah's Deaf education. Over 300 parents, united behind advocates like Dr. Bitter and Peter Vlahos, stood in support of the oral method during the heated meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). The discussions were intense, making it challenging to reach a unified approach to Deaf education that prioritizes the needs of children.
A group of parents, influenced by Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral and sign language methods in Deaf education, citing its inconclusive nature. Additionally, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Notable attendees included Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dennis R. Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
- Dr. Bitter suggested removing Dr. Campbell from his position to reduce his influence on the board's decision.
- Assigning him to another position, or
- Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were intimidated by some of the state's programs (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Walter D. Talbot. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1970
Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal by assigning him to another position within the Utah State Office of Education to reduce his influence on the Utah School for the Deaf. His decision sparked a wave of tension. The Deaf group, which was in attendance, strongly opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and wild, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating conflict, Dr. Talbot asked the members of the Deaf community to leave the room (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). There are ongoing disagreements about the actions of Deaf individuals during the meeting, with different accounts circulating about what transpired.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, amidst the controversy surrounding his analysis—which included data from independent researchers—the board chose to disregard all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). Unfortunately, Dr. Bitter, a key decision-maker, blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to improve Utah's Deaf education system by advocating for separating the oral and total communication departments into their own administrations and teaching staff. This separation was intended to reduce conflicts between the two groups.
The board's decision had profound consequences: Dr. Campbell's plan—a two-year study designed to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures—was not only rejected but ultimately dismantled. The Utah Deaf community can't help but feel a sense of loss, as this once-promising plan has since been buried and forgotten (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf continued its trend of placing Deaf students in the oral program, which often did not meet their needs (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Despite this setback, the two-track program continued under the leadership of a principal who advocated for oral education. This principal oversaw both the oral and total communication departments, leading to a power imbalance and a lack of voice for the total communication department. As a result, parents remained unaware of their full range of communication options available, and Deaf students continued to struggle with language deprivation. Gene D. Stewart, a vocal advocate, spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf. His powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution. It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson and needed to be careful not to jeopardize his job, as the school administrators supported Dr. Bitter (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
It was not until 2010 that the Parent Infant Program Orientation was established at the Utah School for the Deaf. This initiative aimed to provide parents of Deaf children with fair and balanced options. The development followed a long history of recommendations, beginning with Dr. Campbell's proposal for an orientation in the 1970s. However, Dr. Bitter initially rejected this idea because total communication was not recognized as an official language. The details below provide additional information on this topic.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, amidst the controversy surrounding his analysis—which included data from independent researchers—the board chose to disregard all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). Unfortunately, Dr. Bitter, a key decision-maker, blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to improve Utah's Deaf education system by advocating for separating the oral and total communication departments into their own administrations and teaching staff. This separation was intended to reduce conflicts between the two groups.
The board's decision had profound consequences: Dr. Campbell's plan—a two-year study designed to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures—was not only rejected but ultimately dismantled. The Utah Deaf community can't help but feel a sense of loss, as this once-promising plan has since been buried and forgotten (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf continued its trend of placing Deaf students in the oral program, which often did not meet their needs (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Despite this setback, the two-track program continued under the leadership of a principal who advocated for oral education. This principal oversaw both the oral and total communication departments, leading to a power imbalance and a lack of voice for the total communication department. As a result, parents remained unaware of their full range of communication options available, and Deaf students continued to struggle with language deprivation. Gene D. Stewart, a vocal advocate, spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf. His powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution. It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson and needed to be careful not to jeopardize his job, as the school administrators supported Dr. Bitter (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
It was not until 2010 that the Parent Infant Program Orientation was established at the Utah School for the Deaf. This initiative aimed to provide parents of Deaf children with fair and balanced options. The development followed a long history of recommendations, beginning with Dr. Campbell's proposal for an orientation in the 1970s. However, Dr. Bitter initially rejected this idea because total communication was not recognized as an official language. The details below provide additional information on this topic.
*****
Did You Know?
Jay A. Monson, a former chairman of the Utah State Board of Education, believed that proponents of oral education at the University of Utah played a role in causing many personnel issues at the Utah School for the Deaf during a time of controversy (Cole, 1977).
Acknowledgment
Thirty years after the debate held by the Utah State Board of Education in 1977, I discovered Dr. Jay J. Campbell's comprehensive study in 2007. This work is of immense significance in the history of Deaf education in Utah. I am deeply grateful to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954 and is the father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane. His efforts to introduce me to Dr. Campbell's important advocacy for the Utah Deaf community in 2006 made a lasting impact on me. In 2007, I felt compelled to explore the study further and asked Ken if I could see a copy of the book. He retrieved Dr. Campbell's study from its dusty resting place and handed it to me, igniting a personal connection to the Utah Deaf community that continues to shape my perspective.
Thank you, Ken, for sharing the history of Deaf education in Utah with me and for bringing Dr. Campbell's book out of the dust. Without your efforts, this history website would not have been possible. I also want to express my gratitude to my mother-in-law, Ilene Coles Kinner, for donating the other book, which I had previously given to the George Sutherland Archives at Utah Valley University for preservation. Thank you, Ken and Ilene, for caring for Dr. Campbell's books and keeping them safe all these years!
Thank you, Ken, for sharing the history of Deaf education in Utah with me and for bringing Dr. Campbell's book out of the dust. Without your efforts, this history website would not have been possible. I also want to express my gratitude to my mother-in-law, Ilene Coles Kinner, for donating the other book, which I had previously given to the George Sutherland Archives at Utah Valley University for preservation. Thank you, Ken and Ilene, for caring for Dr. Campbell's books and keeping them safe all these years!
Kenneth L. Kinner
I, too, would like to express my gratitude to my colleague, Julie Hesterman Smith, an interpreter, who, through a family friend, had a connection with Dr. Jay J. Campbell, whom I was intrigued by and eager to meet. This connection enabled me to interview him and learn more about his work on July 1, 2007. Dr. Campbell's research had a profound impact on me, and it was a privilege to meet him and his wife, Beth Ann, who is a Child of Deaf Adults (CODA) and also an interpreter. Dr. Campbell's legacy as a vital ally of the Utah Deaf community continues, even after his passing on January 3, 2020, at the age of 96. Thank you, Julie, for introducing me to Dr. Campbell and his wife, Beth Ann!
Julie Hesterman Smith
Like Ken and Julie, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jay J. Campbell for his support and investment in his study, "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehension Study." This research was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study faced significant opposition, and his efforts to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures ultimately failed. However, after being initially buried and forgotten, his two-year study resurfaced in 2007 and gained recognition as a valuable source of information.
Notably, his work continues to shape the future of Deaf education, offering hope for a more equitable system and highlighting the lasting impact of his research. Dr. Campbell's study remains a guiding light in the field, demonstrating the importance of his contributions and the potential for positive change. The disagreement surrounding his study led to a deep controversy that still resonates in Deaf education today.
Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your unwavering support and dedication to our community. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we are deeply grateful for everything you have done. Your work has profoundly influenced the field of Deaf education, and we will never forget and honor your legacy.
Last but not least, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell shared a crucial insight at the interpreting workshop held at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. Her husband, Dr. Jay J. Campbell, was also present at the workshop. She noted that I shed light on Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and interviewed him about his research in 2007. Beth Ann expressed her surprise at the reemergence of this issue, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness. She mentioned that there were challenging times (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010). The following details the history of Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and the obstacles that hindered its potential to enhance Deaf education in Utah.
We are deeply appreciative of Beth Ann for her inspiring advocacy on behalf of the Utah Deaf community. Her experiences as an interpreter during the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act era and her firsthand knowledge of the Deaf education battles during the Bitter/Sanderson era were truly enlightening. During the interview, she spoke about the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language, but believed it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter/Sanderson era. Thank you, Beth Ann, for interpreting and advocating for our causes!
Notably, his work continues to shape the future of Deaf education, offering hope for a more equitable system and highlighting the lasting impact of his research. Dr. Campbell's study remains a guiding light in the field, demonstrating the importance of his contributions and the potential for positive change. The disagreement surrounding his study led to a deep controversy that still resonates in Deaf education today.
Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your unwavering support and dedication to our community. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we are deeply grateful for everything you have done. Your work has profoundly influenced the field of Deaf education, and we will never forget and honor your legacy.
Last but not least, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell shared a crucial insight at the interpreting workshop held at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. Her husband, Dr. Jay J. Campbell, was also present at the workshop. She noted that I shed light on Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and interviewed him about his research in 2007. Beth Ann expressed her surprise at the reemergence of this issue, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness. She mentioned that there were challenging times (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010). The following details the history of Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and the obstacles that hindered its potential to enhance Deaf education in Utah.
We are deeply appreciative of Beth Ann for her inspiring advocacy on behalf of the Utah Deaf community. Her experiences as an interpreter during the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act era and her firsthand knowledge of the Deaf education battles during the Bitter/Sanderson era were truly enlightening. During the interview, she spoke about the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language, but believed it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter/Sanderson era. Thank you, Beth Ann, for interpreting and advocating for our causes!
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell and Jay J. Campbell, 1987. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Did You Know?
Norman Williams, a 1962 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and father of two Deaf daughters, Penny and Jan, recalls finding Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study in the trash can at the Utah State Office of Education a few years after the fateful presentation. He had heard a lot about this research and was overjoyed to have the book finally in his hands (Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010). Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Norman Williams
*****
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on August 19, 1977
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on August 19, 1977
The Utah State Board of Education heard arguments for both oral communication and total communication approaches during meetings held in February, March, and April. On August 19, 1977, the board convened for another discussion featuring Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a proponent of total communication, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication. Dr. Sanderson acknowledged that some students who struggle with speech might benefit more from the total communication approach. Similarly, Dr. Bitter conceded that students could find value in his oral program.
Dr. Bitter explained that the oral approach emphasizes speaking and lipreading, while sign language conveys concepts rather than specific words. He noted the nationwide conflict between the two teaching philosophies and stressed that the debate is ongoing, inviting the audience to stay engaged. He expressed the importance of moving beyond the idea that one approach is superior to the other, stating, "We must get out of the idea that my side is better than your side" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
In contrast, Dr. Sanderson believed that the child's needs should be prioritized over strict adherence to a single method. He pointed out that children often learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which also involves the participation of all family members. He emphasized, "My personal choice would not focus on one program or the other but on the child's needs. However, children learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which involves all members of the child's family" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
Following the removal of Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a key figure in the debate due to controversies surrounding oral and total communication philosophies at the Utah State Board of Education, on April 14, 1977, Dr. Bitter made three additional recommendations for revising statewide services for the deaf. He presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education.
Dr. Bitter emphasized the following needs:
Dr. Bitter criticized the Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind for its limited power and restricted scope. Originally designed to guide the governor on issues related to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the council had transformed into a heated debate between oral and manual methods, resulting in a minimal positive impact on the effectiveness of the children's programs. He described their efforts as "an exercise in futility."
Dr. Bitter called for a broader-based committee to address emerging trends in Deaf education. This committee would support the Advisory Council in achieving its mission for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. He proposed that the Utah State Board of Education approve the formation of a statewide Advisory Commission for Hearing Conservation, with the following mission:
Dr. Bitter also reported that parents and oral Deaf young people seeking assistance from the Utah State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation—Division of Services for the Deaf often encountered bewilderment and disappointment due to bias, intimidation, and a lack of professionalism there. He asserted that this situation, under the State Office of Education, required immediate action. Dr. Bitter recommended that the Board direct the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (OVRS) to hire a professional counselor who understands the workplace needs of individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring a more experienced and unbiased approach to Deaf services.
After disagreeing with Dr. Campbell's 1977 study on Deaf education in Utah, Dr. Bitter suggested to the Board that they create clear steps for studying, training, and assessing the methods used for the education and support of Deaf individuals in the state (Bitter, personal communication, August 19, 1977).
Ultimately, the state board did not reach a decision based on these presentations (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977). The complexity of the issue and the need for further discussion were cited as the main reasons for this. However, Dr. Sanderson's emphasis on each child's individual needs remained a key consideration. Notably, in 2016, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a personalized deaf education placement that aligns with this focus, highlighting the importance of individual needs in decision-making.
Dr. Bitter explained that the oral approach emphasizes speaking and lipreading, while sign language conveys concepts rather than specific words. He noted the nationwide conflict between the two teaching philosophies and stressed that the debate is ongoing, inviting the audience to stay engaged. He expressed the importance of moving beyond the idea that one approach is superior to the other, stating, "We must get out of the idea that my side is better than your side" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
In contrast, Dr. Sanderson believed that the child's needs should be prioritized over strict adherence to a single method. He pointed out that children often learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which also involves the participation of all family members. He emphasized, "My personal choice would not focus on one program or the other but on the child's needs. However, children learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which involves all members of the child's family" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
Following the removal of Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a key figure in the debate due to controversies surrounding oral and total communication philosophies at the Utah State Board of Education, on April 14, 1977, Dr. Bitter made three additional recommendations for revising statewide services for the deaf. He presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education.
Dr. Bitter emphasized the following needs:
- He acknowledged the fragmentation, lack of communication, and the proliferation of services in Utah that aimed to meet the needs of the deaf community. Many agencies and organizations in the state lacked the necessary data for making informed referrals and were unable to provide accurate and unbiased information about Deaf services. This situation needed urgent correction.
- He noted the increasing number of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children entering public school classes. He recommended that administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf (USD) and all 40 school district administrators establish a cooperative and efficient plan for referring and tracking these students. This plan would evaluate their progress and develop support systems to help these children succeed in their educational placements.
- Citing Public Law 94-142 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Dr. Bitter expressed that the State Board of Education should collaborate with various professional agencies, clinics, hospitals, schools, parent groups, and universities. He envisioned a future role for USD working alongside Utah school districts to ensure the appropriate placement of Deaf children and youth. He emphasized the importance of an orderly transition, anticipating shifts in school populations and the need for professional staff members to be effectively utilized. Dr. Bitter recognized the future needs of Deaf children in both urban and rural areas of the state, as well as at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden and its extension programs. He wanted to prepare for these needs proactively rather than wait until later.
Dr. Bitter criticized the Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind for its limited power and restricted scope. Originally designed to guide the governor on issues related to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the council had transformed into a heated debate between oral and manual methods, resulting in a minimal positive impact on the effectiveness of the children's programs. He described their efforts as "an exercise in futility."
Dr. Bitter called for a broader-based committee to address emerging trends in Deaf education. This committee would support the Advisory Council in achieving its mission for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. He proposed that the Utah State Board of Education approve the formation of a statewide Advisory Commission for Hearing Conservation, with the following mission:
- Prepare a comprehensive plan to ensure the education of all Deaf children and youth in Utah, utilizing the expertise of a broad-based commission to study, review, analyze, and evaluate programs for the Deaf while minimizing bias, contention, and inaccuracies or inadequacies in the data.
- Include in the plan a consideration of the relationship between education, rehabilitation, and the Deaf-related challenges of aging. Recommend ways to adequately meet the needs of Deaf citizens throughout their lifespan, from birth to death, with the Parent Infant Program (PIP) continuing as a vital part of this continuum.
Dr. Bitter also reported that parents and oral Deaf young people seeking assistance from the Utah State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation—Division of Services for the Deaf often encountered bewilderment and disappointment due to bias, intimidation, and a lack of professionalism there. He asserted that this situation, under the State Office of Education, required immediate action. Dr. Bitter recommended that the Board direct the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (OVRS) to hire a professional counselor who understands the workplace needs of individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring a more experienced and unbiased approach to Deaf services.
After disagreeing with Dr. Campbell's 1977 study on Deaf education in Utah, Dr. Bitter suggested to the Board that they create clear steps for studying, training, and assessing the methods used for the education and support of Deaf individuals in the state (Bitter, personal communication, August 19, 1977).
Ultimately, the state board did not reach a decision based on these presentations (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977). The complexity of the issue and the need for further discussion were cited as the main reasons for this. However, Dr. Sanderson's emphasis on each child's individual needs remained a key consideration. Notably, in 2016, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a personalized deaf education placement that aligns with this focus, highlighting the importance of individual needs in decision-making.
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on November 18, 1977
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on November 18, 1977
Hannah P. Lewis, a parent of a grown Deaf son, wrote an impactful article during the Utah State Board of Education meeting on November 18, 1977. In her article, published by the Deseret News on November 24, 1977, she discussed the study of total communication and the academic challenges faced by Deaf students, posing a critical question: How many more years would this study require?
At the board meeting, Dr. Bitter advocated for oral methods of communication, but Hannah, who is deeply empathetic, expressed concern that many Deaf children struggle to master these methods and often cannot use their voices for effective communication. She recognizes the importance of sign language in the lives of Deaf students and believes it is essential for their communication. While she questions whether a person who can speak truly needs sign language assistance, she insists it is crucial to encourage them to speak the words as they sign. Hannah pointed out that Dr. Bitter was worried that if a student can speak but chooses not to, they might rely on signs and not use their voices.
Hannah recounted her experience with her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf and felt "dumb" during a visit home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that he and his Deaf friends were intelligent and that being Deaf was only a barrier to expressing that intelligence. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her 36 years ago. Hannah asserted that no one should allow a dictator to determine their preferred mode of expression, emphasizing the need to resist Dr. Bitter's imposition of communication standards and highlighting his limited understanding of the Deaf community's needs from the perspective of those who can hear. She expressed gratitude for Dr. Sanderson's ongoing support of the Deaf community, especially in helping her son.
During the political dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter, Hannah noted that Dr. Sanderson has been a guiding light for the Deaf community and stressed the importance of his continued support. She said, "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After earning his Ph.D., Dr. Sanderson continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003.
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and attended both public school and a 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. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked alongside Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson contradicted Dr. Bitter's portrayal, as he regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson recognized the crucial link between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their prospects for higher education, ultimately leading to successful employment outcomes. As a dedicated advocate for young people with leadership potential, Dr. Sanderson made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and communal equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson.
At the board meeting, Dr. Bitter advocated for oral methods of communication, but Hannah, who is deeply empathetic, expressed concern that many Deaf children struggle to master these methods and often cannot use their voices for effective communication. She recognizes the importance of sign language in the lives of Deaf students and believes it is essential for their communication. While she questions whether a person who can speak truly needs sign language assistance, she insists it is crucial to encourage them to speak the words as they sign. Hannah pointed out that Dr. Bitter was worried that if a student can speak but chooses not to, they might rely on signs and not use their voices.
Hannah recounted her experience with her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf and felt "dumb" during a visit home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that he and his Deaf friends were intelligent and that being Deaf was only a barrier to expressing that intelligence. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her 36 years ago. Hannah asserted that no one should allow a dictator to determine their preferred mode of expression, emphasizing the need to resist Dr. Bitter's imposition of communication standards and highlighting his limited understanding of the Deaf community's needs from the perspective of those who can hear. She expressed gratitude for Dr. Sanderson's ongoing support of the Deaf community, especially in helping her son.
During the political dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter, Hannah noted that Dr. Sanderson has been a guiding light for the Deaf community and stressed the importance of his continued support. She said, "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After earning his Ph.D., Dr. Sanderson continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003.
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and attended both public school and a 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. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked alongside Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson contradicted Dr. Bitter's portrayal, as he regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson recognized the crucial link between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their prospects for higher education, ultimately leading to successful employment outcomes. As a dedicated advocate for young people with leadership potential, Dr. Sanderson made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and communal equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson.
Hannah P. Lewis, 'Forum: Letters from our Readers.' Source: Deseret News, November 24, 1977
State Superintendent Walter D. Talbot requested that the UAD address several long-standing issues. In a proactive move, the UAD sought support from the association to facilitate a meeting with Dr. Talbot. This engagement aimed to secure the state's assistance in improving the quality of education for Deaf children and enhancing support for Deaf adults within the Division of Rehabilitation Services.
Three days later, on November 21, a dedicated delegation from the UAD, led by President W. David Mortensen and Vice President Paul Chamberlain, met with Dr. Talbot. Their purpose was to clarify three issues raised by Dr. Talbot on November 18 and to persuade him to implement changes.
The issues discussed were:
1. The separation policy imposed on students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
2. The restructuring of the Deaf unit within the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
3. The composition of the 22-member Hearing Conservation Committee.
Dr. Talbot and the UAD delegation agreed to prioritize the issue of methodological separation as presented in the new policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Silent Spotlight, November 1977). Dr. Talbot had also been in discussions with advocates for oral communication and planned to meet with them on December 5. He aimed to develop a policy with input from both groups.
Following the protests on November 18 and 28 by the Utah Association of the Deaf at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on December 6, 1977, Dr. Talbot wrote to Dr. Bitter on December 6, 1977. In his letter, he explained that after agreeing to the proposed policy, the UAD had requested a legal opinion from the Utah Attorney General. They sought clarification on whether the mandatory social and academic separation conflicted with anti-discrimination laws, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977). This request underscored the UAD's thorough approach to the issue, demonstrating their dedication to finding a comprehensive solution.
In his letter to Dr. Bitter, Dr. Talbot expressed disappointment that there was no unanimous support for his Alternative Number 9. This proposal suggested that the degree of separation in instruction, living accommodations, and social life for each student should be based on their IEP. He argued that using the IEP would create a better framework for separation, as it was already designed to guide educational decisions. The IEP process involves school officials, parents, and occasionally the students themselves working together to agree on educational goals. Dr. Talbot believed that utilizing a pre-existing policy would be preferable to creating a new one that could limit the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to integrate students if parents requested it (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977).
Three days later, on November 21, a dedicated delegation from the UAD, led by President W. David Mortensen and Vice President Paul Chamberlain, met with Dr. Talbot. Their purpose was to clarify three issues raised by Dr. Talbot on November 18 and to persuade him to implement changes.
The issues discussed were:
1. The separation policy imposed on students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
2. The restructuring of the Deaf unit within the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
3. The composition of the 22-member Hearing Conservation Committee.
Dr. Talbot and the UAD delegation agreed to prioritize the issue of methodological separation as presented in the new policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Silent Spotlight, November 1977). Dr. Talbot had also been in discussions with advocates for oral communication and planned to meet with them on December 5. He aimed to develop a policy with input from both groups.
Following the protests on November 18 and 28 by the Utah Association of the Deaf at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on December 6, 1977, Dr. Talbot wrote to Dr. Bitter on December 6, 1977. In his letter, he explained that after agreeing to the proposed policy, the UAD had requested a legal opinion from the Utah Attorney General. They sought clarification on whether the mandatory social and academic separation conflicted with anti-discrimination laws, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977). This request underscored the UAD's thorough approach to the issue, demonstrating their dedication to finding a comprehensive solution.
In his letter to Dr. Bitter, Dr. Talbot expressed disappointment that there was no unanimous support for his Alternative Number 9. This proposal suggested that the degree of separation in instruction, living accommodations, and social life for each student should be based on their IEP. He argued that using the IEP would create a better framework for separation, as it was already designed to guide educational decisions. The IEP process involves school officials, parents, and occasionally the students themselves working together to agree on educational goals. Dr. Talbot believed that utilizing a pre-existing policy would be preferable to creating a new one that could limit the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to integrate students if parents requested it (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977).
Segregation Policy at the Utah School for the Deaf
Discussed with Key Leaders and at the
Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977
Discussed with Key Leaders and at the
Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977
After months of discussions with key leaders, Dr. Walter D. Talbot drafted what he called a "Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired," which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977. The board accepted the document, including the controversial Item 9, which addressed the separation of oral students and those using total communication. This item did not satisfy either group (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978).
The Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired emphasized the following:
The Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired emphasized the following:
- Two distinct programs of instruction (oral and total communication) would be available to all students at the State School for the Deaf in Ogden. Students would be assigned based on individual needs as determined by the student, parents, and school officials (Item 9).
- The Utah School for the Deaf would report to Dr. LaRue Winget of the State Board's Office of Instructional Services, which was under Special Education. Previously, the Utah School for the Deaf had reported to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Office of Administration Services.
- Deaf students in the Utah School for the Deaf's programs would remain separate through the junior high school years. High school students would be allowed to socialize with each other. Students attending a mainstreamed high school for half a day or more were expected to participate in that school's extracurricular activities instead of joining after-school activities at Ogden's residential school (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 16, 1977).
"Two-track system adopted. Deaf instruction separated. Source: Chaffin, Deseret News, December 16, 1977
To respond to UAD's question, the Utah Attorney General stated that there was no conflict with separating students on Ogden's residential campus, citing that the philosophy of the oral program did not allow interaction with students who used sign language. After receiving this information, the UAD decided to consult additional legal advisors, as they believed that the mandatory separation could still be considered discriminatory and therefore illegal (The Silent Spotlight, January 1978).
Following this, on April 11, 1978, UAD requested that Dr. Jay J. Campbell write a letter to David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. In his letter, he asked, "Does Section 504 allow a school system to segregate or separate one group of deaf students from another on the same campus?"
David S. Tatel responded on July 10, 1978, stating that if there are sound pedagogical reasons for determining that it is inappropriate to educate a particular Deaf child in a regular educational environment, and if an alternative placement provides a free appropriate public education, then it would not be considered a violation of Section 504 to separate those children. However, this did not answer Dr. Campbell's question.
The main question Dr. Campbell wanted Director Tatel to address was whether it is legal under Section 504 or the Civil Rights Act to segregate or separate deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school or the preferences of the parents, just as it is illegal to segregate children based on race.
Director Tatel later addressed Dr. Campbell's concern regarding segregation on the same school campus based on educational philosophy in another letter, which follows:
"Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1978, clarifying your inquiry of December 15, 1977, concerning the Department's Regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [as restated]. Your question is whether it is legal under Section 504 to segregate or separate certain deaf children from other deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school and/or the parents.
Attached to your letter of April 11, 1978, was a paper entitled "The Deaf Child Controversy Over Teaching Methods," describing a controversy among educators regarding the best method for teaching prelingually, severely, or profoundly deaf children. On the one hand, the advocates of the oralist school of thought contend that most deaf children can be taught to speak and lip-read. They also contend that (a) sign language segregates the deaf into their own subculture, (b) gestures should be kept to a minimum, and (c) sign language should be forbidden because it will destroy the chance of oral success.
On the other hand, the advocates of the total communication school of thought contend that (a) most of the deaf cannot become oral successes, (b) sign language does not inhibit speech development, and (c) all methods are to be used, including sign language, speech, and lip-reading. Only time will tell which combination best suits a particular deaf child. Subpart D of the Regulation generally prescribes the requirements that recipients operating preschool, elementary, and secondary education programs must satisfy.
As you may know, Section 84.33 of the Regulation generally requires recipients to provide a free and appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person within their jurisdiction. Section 84.34 (a) provides that a qualified handicapped person must be educated with persons who are not handicapped "to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person." Once it has been determined that it is inappropriate to educate a particular deaf child in the regular educational environment and an alternative placement provides a free and appropriate public education, this office will not require the recipient to choose between two competing educational philosophies. To the extent it is necessary, for sound pedagogical reasons, to separate children enrolled in the oralist program from the children enrolled in the total communications program, no violation of Section 504 will be deemed to have occurred."
David S. Tatel, Director
Office for Civil Rights (David S. Tatel, Education on the Handicapped Law Report, July 10, 1978).
This information highlights the ongoing issue of segregation among students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite Director Tatel's letter indicating that Section 504 would not immediately resolve the segregation on Ogden's residential campus, it became evident that a more comprehensive approach was necessary. This realization prompted a deeper exploration of alternative strategies to promote inclusivity and support for all students. Engaging community stakeholders and advocating for policy changes became crucial steps in addressing the persistent segregation.
Additionally, the debate between oral and total communication within the Utah State Board of Education did not conclude by the December 16, 1977 deadline. Instead, it continued, emphasizing the complexity and ongoing nature of the issue.
In the fall of 1977, a conflict emerged between the UAD and the University of Utah concerning the integration of total communication into the university's curriculum. Dr. Bitter and the University of Utah opposed UAD's proposals to include total communication in their oral training program. This disagreement resulted in protests on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education, and again on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus, as detailed in the following section.
Additionally, these protests were fueled by various complaints, including a perception of favoritism towards oral methods, unfair treatment of total communication methods, a preference for day schools, insufficient Deaf representation on the Advisory Committee, and a lack of respect for the concerns raised by the UAD. The tireless work of the UAD and their allies during these protests not only captured the attention of the Utah State Board of Education but also inspired significant reforms in the state's approach to Deaf education. Due to the advocacy efforts of the UAD, Utah State University established the Total Communication Program in 1985 with funding support. This program was later renamed the Bilingual and Bicultural Program, as described in detail below.
The year 1977 presented considerable challenges for the UAD due to the opposition from Dr. Bitter and supporters of oralism. It was a dark year for the association. Nonetheless, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to improve Deaf education in Utah. Their remarkable contributions and relentless commitment have earned them well-deserved recognition, ensuring that their efforts were not in vain.
Moreover, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association fought vigorously to support Deaf children, despite facing significant obstacles. Their persistence and dedication in the face of adversity are commendable and deserve respect and admiration, inspiring us all with their resilience.
Following this, on April 11, 1978, UAD requested that Dr. Jay J. Campbell write a letter to David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. In his letter, he asked, "Does Section 504 allow a school system to segregate or separate one group of deaf students from another on the same campus?"
David S. Tatel responded on July 10, 1978, stating that if there are sound pedagogical reasons for determining that it is inappropriate to educate a particular Deaf child in a regular educational environment, and if an alternative placement provides a free appropriate public education, then it would not be considered a violation of Section 504 to separate those children. However, this did not answer Dr. Campbell's question.
The main question Dr. Campbell wanted Director Tatel to address was whether it is legal under Section 504 or the Civil Rights Act to segregate or separate deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school or the preferences of the parents, just as it is illegal to segregate children based on race.
Director Tatel later addressed Dr. Campbell's concern regarding segregation on the same school campus based on educational philosophy in another letter, which follows:
"Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1978, clarifying your inquiry of December 15, 1977, concerning the Department's Regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [as restated]. Your question is whether it is legal under Section 504 to segregate or separate certain deaf children from other deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school and/or the parents.
Attached to your letter of April 11, 1978, was a paper entitled "The Deaf Child Controversy Over Teaching Methods," describing a controversy among educators regarding the best method for teaching prelingually, severely, or profoundly deaf children. On the one hand, the advocates of the oralist school of thought contend that most deaf children can be taught to speak and lip-read. They also contend that (a) sign language segregates the deaf into their own subculture, (b) gestures should be kept to a minimum, and (c) sign language should be forbidden because it will destroy the chance of oral success.
On the other hand, the advocates of the total communication school of thought contend that (a) most of the deaf cannot become oral successes, (b) sign language does not inhibit speech development, and (c) all methods are to be used, including sign language, speech, and lip-reading. Only time will tell which combination best suits a particular deaf child. Subpart D of the Regulation generally prescribes the requirements that recipients operating preschool, elementary, and secondary education programs must satisfy.
As you may know, Section 84.33 of the Regulation generally requires recipients to provide a free and appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person within their jurisdiction. Section 84.34 (a) provides that a qualified handicapped person must be educated with persons who are not handicapped "to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person." Once it has been determined that it is inappropriate to educate a particular deaf child in the regular educational environment and an alternative placement provides a free and appropriate public education, this office will not require the recipient to choose between two competing educational philosophies. To the extent it is necessary, for sound pedagogical reasons, to separate children enrolled in the oralist program from the children enrolled in the total communications program, no violation of Section 504 will be deemed to have occurred."
David S. Tatel, Director
Office for Civil Rights (David S. Tatel, Education on the Handicapped Law Report, July 10, 1978).
This information highlights the ongoing issue of segregation among students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite Director Tatel's letter indicating that Section 504 would not immediately resolve the segregation on Ogden's residential campus, it became evident that a more comprehensive approach was necessary. This realization prompted a deeper exploration of alternative strategies to promote inclusivity and support for all students. Engaging community stakeholders and advocating for policy changes became crucial steps in addressing the persistent segregation.
Additionally, the debate between oral and total communication within the Utah State Board of Education did not conclude by the December 16, 1977 deadline. Instead, it continued, emphasizing the complexity and ongoing nature of the issue.
In the fall of 1977, a conflict emerged between the UAD and the University of Utah concerning the integration of total communication into the university's curriculum. Dr. Bitter and the University of Utah opposed UAD's proposals to include total communication in their oral training program. This disagreement resulted in protests on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education, and again on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus, as detailed in the following section.
Additionally, these protests were fueled by various complaints, including a perception of favoritism towards oral methods, unfair treatment of total communication methods, a preference for day schools, insufficient Deaf representation on the Advisory Committee, and a lack of respect for the concerns raised by the UAD. The tireless work of the UAD and their allies during these protests not only captured the attention of the Utah State Board of Education but also inspired significant reforms in the state's approach to Deaf education. Due to the advocacy efforts of the UAD, Utah State University established the Total Communication Program in 1985 with funding support. This program was later renamed the Bilingual and Bicultural Program, as described in detail below.
The year 1977 presented considerable challenges for the UAD due to the opposition from Dr. Bitter and supporters of oralism. It was a dark year for the association. Nonetheless, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to improve Deaf education in Utah. Their remarkable contributions and relentless commitment have earned them well-deserved recognition, ensuring that their efforts were not in vain.
Moreover, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association fought vigorously to support Deaf children, despite facing significant obstacles. Their persistence and dedication in the face of adversity are commendable and deserve respect and admiration, inspiring us all with their resilience.
SECTION III:
Protests by the Utah Association for the Deaf
at the Utah State Office of Education
and the University of Utah
Protests by the Utah Association for the Deaf
at the Utah State Office of Education
and the University of Utah
The following timeline outlines the correspondence between the Utah Association for the Deaf, the University of Utah, the Utah School for the Deaf, and the Parent Teacher Association leading up to the Utah State Board of Education meeting on December 16, 1977. This communication, initiated by the Utah Association for the Deaf, ultimately led to protests at both the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on November 18 and 28, 1977.
Lloyd H. Perkins Requests for a Written Review of the
University of Utah's Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
University of Utah's Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
The issues arose from inequalities in Deaf education, particularly regarding the University of Utah's teacher training program, which focused on oral education. In 1971, the Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Lloyd H. Perkins, Chairperson of the UAD Educational Committee, formally requested a written review of the Teacher Training Program (Lloyd Perkins, personal communication, date unknown).
On December 7, 1971, Dr. Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education and supervisor of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, responded to Lloyd's request, confirming that a meeting would be held on December 13 to review the Teacher Training Program. On December 16, 1971, Dr. Stephen Hencley, Dean of the Graduate School of Education, replied to Lloyd's letter, assuring him that the Teacher Training Program would undergo curriculum changes to include a sign language component (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, December 6, 1971). This addition was seen as a potential game-changer in Deaf-sign language education, offering hope for a more inclusive and effective curriculum. However, some educators expressed concerns that adding a sign language component might shift focus away from other critical areas of the curriculum. Additionally, there were doubts about whether the necessary resources and training for instructors would be sufficient to support the implementation of these changes.
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 held a different perspective on this expectation.
On December 7, 1971, Dr. Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education and supervisor of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, responded to Lloyd's request, confirming that a meeting would be held on December 13 to review the Teacher Training Program. On December 16, 1971, Dr. Stephen Hencley, Dean of the Graduate School of Education, replied to Lloyd's letter, assuring him that the Teacher Training Program would undergo curriculum changes to include a sign language component (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, December 6, 1971). This addition was seen as a potential game-changer in Deaf-sign language education, offering hope for a more inclusive and effective curriculum. However, some educators expressed concerns that adding a sign language component might shift focus away from other critical areas of the curriculum. Additionally, there were doubts about whether the necessary resources and training for instructors would be sufficient to support the implementation of these changes.
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 held a different perspective on this expectation.
Lloyd H. Perkins. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Requests a Report from the
University of Utah Regarding its
Teachers for the Deaf Preparation Program
University of Utah Regarding its
Teachers for the Deaf Preparation Program
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 (Dr. Campbell, personal communication, July 23, 1974).
In response, Dr. Erdman informed Dr. Campbell that in 1972, Gene Stewart had been hired to teach two mandatory courses: a sign language course (SPA 782, Basic Communication and Counseling of Deaf Adults) and a counseling course (SP ED 624, Guidance and Counseling of the Hearing Impaired) as part of the Teacher Preparation Program (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974).
To address the situation, the university established a committee to assess personnel needs for programs focused on the deaf. The committee's final report concluded that establishing a total communication program would not be economically feasible, as it would require hiring new staff and incur additional administrative costs (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974).
Dr. Erdman's letter also outlined a new policy, stating, "All students 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 classes described above or demonstrate those competencies if they have previous manual communication experiences and/or coursework in that area" (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974, p. 2).
The Utah State Board of Education also evaluated the feasibility of creating a parallel Teacher Preparation Program in Total Communication at the University of Utah. They concurred that implementing a comprehensive communication program for the Deaf Preparation Program was not economically viable. Consequently, the State Board approved funding to recruit Total Communication teachers from outside the state and agreed to incorporate some total communication experiences into the existing oral training program at the University of Utah (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974, p. 3). The following three years, from 1974 to 1976, were relatively non-controversial (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
In response, Dr. Erdman informed Dr. Campbell that in 1972, Gene Stewart had been hired to teach two mandatory courses: a sign language course (SPA 782, Basic Communication and Counseling of Deaf Adults) and a counseling course (SP ED 624, Guidance and Counseling of the Hearing Impaired) as part of the Teacher Preparation Program (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974).
To address the situation, the university established a committee to assess personnel needs for programs focused on the deaf. The committee's final report concluded that establishing a total communication program would not be economically feasible, as it would require hiring new staff and incur additional administrative costs (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974).
Dr. Erdman's letter also outlined a new policy, stating, "All students 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 classes described above or demonstrate those competencies if they have previous manual communication experiences and/or coursework in that area" (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974, p. 2).
The Utah State Board of Education also evaluated the feasibility of creating a parallel Teacher Preparation Program in Total Communication at the University of Utah. They concurred that implementing a comprehensive communication program for the Deaf Preparation Program was not economically viable. Consequently, the State Board approved funding to recruit Total Communication teachers from outside the state and agreed to incorporate some total communication experiences into the existing oral training program at the University of Utah (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974, p. 3). The following three years, from 1974 to 1976, were relatively non-controversial (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
George D. Wilding Speaks Up Against Discrimination
by Dr. Grant B. Bitter in the Classroom
by Dr. Grant B. Bitter in the Classroom
On July 4, 1977, three months after the dispute at the Utah State Board of Education, George D. Wilding, a Deaf individual, wrote to Dr. Orlando Rivera, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah. In his letter, he shared his experiences in Dr. Grant B. Bitter's classroom, addressing issues of discrimination he encountered there.
George recounted walking into Dr. Bitter's Special Education 502 class, accompanied by his interpreter, Wilma Powell. This course, titled "Introduction to Special Education," was held during the Summer Quarter of 1975 and was required for his employment. George reported that Dr. Bitter was not pleased to see him and instructed him to "go to the back of the classroom." He felt that Dr. Bitter wanted to prevent his classmates from seeing the interpreter. To George, this felt like a form of prejudice and discrimination, reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws in the South. He likened his experience to that of a Black person being ordered to the back of the bus. George believed he was denied his right to choose his seat, while the other students were deprived of the opportunity to observe an interpreter facilitating the course material. After that first day, George decided he would no longer sit at the back of the room and instead chose his preferred seat in the front.
In his letter, George also emphasized the necessity of understanding and acceptance within the educational system. He expressed disappointment that the University of Utah seemed to tolerate such bigotry and bias from one of its professors. According to George, Dr. Bitter's actions reflected a disdain for Deaf individuals who disagreed with him and a resistance to having Deaf adults become teachers for the Deaf. He asserted that if a professor could not accept sign language interpreters, then he lacked an understanding of the fundamental needs of most Deaf individuals. His words highlighted the importance of inclusivity and acceptance in education, particularly for students with unique communication needs.
George recounted walking into Dr. Bitter's Special Education 502 class, accompanied by his interpreter, Wilma Powell. This course, titled "Introduction to Special Education," was held during the Summer Quarter of 1975 and was required for his employment. George reported that Dr. Bitter was not pleased to see him and instructed him to "go to the back of the classroom." He felt that Dr. Bitter wanted to prevent his classmates from seeing the interpreter. To George, this felt like a form of prejudice and discrimination, reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws in the South. He likened his experience to that of a Black person being ordered to the back of the bus. George believed he was denied his right to choose his seat, while the other students were deprived of the opportunity to observe an interpreter facilitating the course material. After that first day, George decided he would no longer sit at the back of the room and instead chose his preferred seat in the front.
In his letter, George also emphasized the necessity of understanding and acceptance within the educational system. He expressed disappointment that the University of Utah seemed to tolerate such bigotry and bias from one of its professors. According to George, Dr. Bitter's actions reflected a disdain for Deaf individuals who disagreed with him and a resistance to having Deaf adults become teachers for the Deaf. He asserted that if a professor could not accept sign language interpreters, then he lacked an understanding of the fundamental needs of most Deaf individuals. His words highlighted the importance of inclusivity and acceptance in education, particularly for students with unique communication needs.
George Wilding
George further explained that the curriculum for training teachers of the Deaf exemplified Dr. Bitter's bias toward oralism and the negative impact this bias had on Deaf individuals. The University had compelled Dr. Bitter to set up sign language classes for teacher candidates who would work with the Deaf. However, he only established one three-credit-hour class. Compared to other languages offered on campus, and the number of classes available, this single class—three hours a week for one quarter—was insufficient for the candidates to achieve any real proficiency. In contrast, candidates for teaching speech were required to take fifteen or more credit hours of speech classes. This discrepancy in requirements revealed an oral-training bias within the curriculum.
The higher number of speech classes that teacher candidates had to complete did not result in better speech production from Deaf students. Most students who learned to speak from these trained teachers quickly realized that, except for their teachers and parents, very few people could understand them. When this realization set in, the students switched to using sign language as soon as they were free from the oral program and could discontinue speech classes. In George's critique of Dr. Bitter's program, it appeared that Dr. Bitter promoted teaching skills that Deaf children would rarely use (speech and listening) while neglecting the teaching of sign language skills that would be relevant throughout their lives.
In George's view, Dr. Bitter's priorities were misleading. He believed that sign language should be the primary language for Deaf students, while English could serve as a second language, and speech could be introduced as a third language. This approach reflected the realities of life for Deaf individuals in the adult world. George sensed that Dr. Bitter wanted to dismiss this reality, but it was nonetheless how Deaf adults lived, worked, and engaged socially.
George posed a rhetorical question: Can you imagine how Spanish speakers would feel if Dr. Bitter sought to eliminate the Spanish language? Would they resent him and rebel? This was akin to how the Utah Deaf community felt about Dr. Bitter's attempts to eradicate sign language. The Deaf community is similar to any other minority group with its own language and culture (George Wilding, personal communication, June 4, 1977).
On July 11, 1977, Dr. Bitter responded to George Wilding's comments in a letter to his supervisor, Dr. Donald R. Logan, the chairman of the Department of Special Education. He denied forcing George to sit at the back of the room, explaining that George was one of 60 students in the class and that the only available seats were near the back. Dr. Bitter noted that George's interpreter arrived late, hence she had to sit beside him. He assured Dr. Logan that he consulted with both George and his interpreter after class regarding future seating arrangements, and they mutually agreed that George could sit anywhere that was suitable for him and his interpreter. Dr. Bitter concluded that George's claim of being forced to sit at the back and being unable to choose his own seat did not accurately reflect the situation.
Dr. Bitter expressed confusion over George's accusations of prejudice. To his knowledge, George was a respected member of the class who had ample opportunities to voice his opinions on various issues, problems, trends, concerns, learning, and experiences. Dr. Bitter believed that the class members appreciated George's participation. Every effort was made to assist him, and his interpreter felt welcomed and comfortable throughout the quarter (G. B. Bitter, personal communication, July 11, 1977).
The higher number of speech classes that teacher candidates had to complete did not result in better speech production from Deaf students. Most students who learned to speak from these trained teachers quickly realized that, except for their teachers and parents, very few people could understand them. When this realization set in, the students switched to using sign language as soon as they were free from the oral program and could discontinue speech classes. In George's critique of Dr. Bitter's program, it appeared that Dr. Bitter promoted teaching skills that Deaf children would rarely use (speech and listening) while neglecting the teaching of sign language skills that would be relevant throughout their lives.
In George's view, Dr. Bitter's priorities were misleading. He believed that sign language should be the primary language for Deaf students, while English could serve as a second language, and speech could be introduced as a third language. This approach reflected the realities of life for Deaf individuals in the adult world. George sensed that Dr. Bitter wanted to dismiss this reality, but it was nonetheless how Deaf adults lived, worked, and engaged socially.
George posed a rhetorical question: Can you imagine how Spanish speakers would feel if Dr. Bitter sought to eliminate the Spanish language? Would they resent him and rebel? This was akin to how the Utah Deaf community felt about Dr. Bitter's attempts to eradicate sign language. The Deaf community is similar to any other minority group with its own language and culture (George Wilding, personal communication, June 4, 1977).
On July 11, 1977, Dr. Bitter responded to George Wilding's comments in a letter to his supervisor, Dr. Donald R. Logan, the chairman of the Department of Special Education. He denied forcing George to sit at the back of the room, explaining that George was one of 60 students in the class and that the only available seats were near the back. Dr. Bitter noted that George's interpreter arrived late, hence she had to sit beside him. He assured Dr. Logan that he consulted with both George and his interpreter after class regarding future seating arrangements, and they mutually agreed that George could sit anywhere that was suitable for him and his interpreter. Dr. Bitter concluded that George's claim of being forced to sit at the back and being unable to choose his own seat did not accurately reflect the situation.
Dr. Bitter expressed confusion over George's accusations of prejudice. To his knowledge, George was a respected member of the class who had ample opportunities to voice his opinions on various issues, problems, trends, concerns, learning, and experiences. Dr. Bitter believed that the class members appreciated George's participation. Every effort was made to assist him, and his interpreter felt welcomed and comfortable throughout the quarter (G. B. Bitter, personal communication, July 11, 1977).
Myrna Burbank, Former President of the Parent Teacher
Association, Receives Threatening Letters
from the Utah Deaf Community
Association, Receives Threatening Letters
from the Utah Deaf Community
On August 12, 1977, Myrna Burbank, former president of the Parent Teacher Association of the Oral Department at the Utah School for the Deaf, received an unsigned letter opposing oralism and supporting total communication (M. Burbank, personal communication, August 12, 1977). The anonymous author accused Myrna of "trying to hurt Jay J. Campbell and Robert G. Sanderson for advocating total communication." The letter claimed that Myrna's daughter would ultimately believe that total communication "is the best way." It implied that Ms. Burbank was being paternalistic by deciding what was best for the Deaf community. Additionally, an 8.5 by 11-inch sheet of paper was printed and distributed, stating: "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD." See the letters below.
The letter of "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
The anonymous author accused Myrna Burbank of "trying to hurt Jay J. Campbell and Robert G. Sanderson for advocating total communication." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
J. Boyd Nielsen, an Assistant Principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, Receives Threatening Letters from the Utah Deaf Community
J. Boyd Nielsen, a graduate of Dr. Bitter's teacher training program in 1966, also served as an assistant principal in the Oral Department at the Utah School for the Deaf. He received two threatening letters.
The first letter, dated August 15, 1977, explicitly warned of his potential job loss, stating, "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power."
The first letter, dated August 15, 1977, explicitly warned of his potential job loss, stating, "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power."
The letter of "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
The second, an anonymous letter, included a disturbing drawing of Nielsen with a noose around his neck, reflecting the intense debate over communication methods—oral versus total communication—during that time. This letter appears to have been created around 1970.
An anonymous letter of J. Boyd Nielsen with a noose around his neck, reflecting the intense debate over communication methods—oral versus total communication—during that time. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter revealed that he had been the target of a vicious attack by the Utah Deaf community. Community leaders perceived him as a scoundrel who lacked knowledge 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 paper titled "Years of Controversy" also contains slanderous statements, as detailed in Jeffrey W. Pollock's work. For example, it includes phrases like, "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD," and "J.J. Campbell and R. Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a 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).
Dr. Bitter seems to have a limited understanding of the experiences of Deaf individuals within oral and mainstream educational systems. His failure to engage with Deaf individuals and their communities represents a missed opportunity for gaining valuable insights into the challenges they face and the effectiveness of various educational approaches. This deeper understanding could have enriched his perspective and led to more inclusive practices that genuinely empower Deaf students, but it was a potential progress in Deaf education that was never realized.
Dr. Bitter seems to have a limited understanding of the experiences of Deaf individuals within oral and mainstream educational systems. His failure to engage with Deaf individuals and their communities represents a missed opportunity for gaining valuable insights into the challenges they face and the effectiveness of various educational approaches. This deeper understanding could have enriched his perspective and led to more inclusive practices that genuinely empower Deaf students, but it was a potential progress in Deaf education that was never realized.
The Utah Association for the Deaf Advocates for
Comprehensive Curriculum Inclusion in the University of Utah's
Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
Comprehensive Curriculum Inclusion in the University of Utah's
Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
In 1977, the Utah Association for the Deaf continued its advocacy for the inclusion of a total communication curriculum in educational programs. The association urged President Alfred C. Emery of the University of Utah, along with other university administrators, to review and modify the Teacher Training Program. They pressed for the integration of sign language as an equal component alongside oralism.
In late August or early September of that year, UAD representatives convened with Dr. Pete D. Gardner, the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University, to discuss a detailed 9-point list of concerns regarding the Teacher Training Program. During this meeting, Lloyd Perkins and his fellow representatives requested to meet directly with President Emery to voice their concerns. However, Dr. Gardner replied by sending a letter to Madeleine Burton Perkins, Lloyd's wife and the interpreter for the meeting. In his correspondence, Dr. Gardner stated that a meeting with President Emery would likely be unproductive and asserted that Dr. Bitter had not violated any academic standards (P.D. Gardner, personal communication, September 14, 1977).
In late August or early September of that year, UAD representatives convened with Dr. Pete D. Gardner, the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University, to discuss a detailed 9-point list of concerns regarding the Teacher Training Program. During this meeting, Lloyd Perkins and his fellow representatives requested to meet directly with President Emery to voice their concerns. However, Dr. Gardner replied by sending a letter to Madeleine Burton Perkins, Lloyd's wife and the interpreter for the meeting. In his correspondence, Dr. Gardner stated that a meeting with President Emery would likely be unproductive and asserted 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, University of Utah
The University of Utah Continues to Decline
to Meet with the Utah Association for the Deaf
to Meet with the Utah Association for the Deaf
On September 27, 1977, Lloyd H. Perkins wrote to Dr. Pete D. Gardner, Vice President for Academic Affairs, expressing his disappointment with the content of the communication. He felt that Dr. Gardner had missed the critical points that the Utah Association for the Deaf was attempting to convey. Lloyd again requested a meeting to discuss these issues.
In anticipation of this situation, Dr. Bitter prepared a detailed response to what he deemed "slanderous" charges made by Lloyd Perkins. In his letter, he meticulously listed each charge and provided substantial evidence to support his responses (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, October 10, 1977).
Dr. Cedric I. Davern, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah, was assigned the responsibility of addressing this situation. He wrote to Lloyd Perkins to inform him that the Utah State Board of Education was conducting hearings on the oral method versus the total communication method. A report on this controversy will be available soon. Until that report is published, Dr. Davern stated that no changes would be made to the teacher training program (Cedric I. Davern, personal communication, October 28, 1977).
Lloyd Perkins felt that Dr. Davern did not fully understand the nature of the problem concerning the teacher training program for the deaf. He questioned Dr. Davern's familiarity with this program. While the Utah Deaf Community had general concerns, the teacher training program brought specific issues to light that the UAD wanted to address with Dr. Davern. Lloyd emphasized that UAD wished to meet with university administrators to address these concerns (Lloyd H. Perkins, personal communication, November 7, 1977). However, University of Utah President Emery declined to meet with them.
In anticipation of this situation, Dr. Bitter prepared a detailed response to what he deemed "slanderous" charges made by Lloyd Perkins. In his letter, he meticulously listed each charge and provided substantial evidence to support his responses (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, October 10, 1977).
Dr. Cedric I. Davern, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah, was assigned the responsibility of addressing this situation. He wrote to Lloyd Perkins to inform him that the Utah State Board of Education was conducting hearings on the oral method versus the total communication method. A report on this controversy will be available soon. Until that report is published, Dr. Davern stated that no changes would be made to the teacher training program (Cedric I. Davern, personal communication, October 28, 1977).
Lloyd Perkins felt that Dr. Davern did not fully understand the nature of the problem concerning the teacher training program for the deaf. He questioned Dr. Davern's familiarity with this program. While the Utah Deaf Community had general concerns, the teacher training program brought specific issues to light that the UAD wanted to address with Dr. Davern. Lloyd emphasized that UAD wished to meet with university administrators to address these concerns (Lloyd H. Perkins, personal communication, November 7, 1977). However, University of Utah President Emery declined to meet with them.
Protests at the Utah State Office of
Education and the University of Utah
Education and the University of Utah
Tensions escalated when President Alfred C. Emery of the University of Utah declined to engage with the UAD. In response, W. David Mortensen, a prominent political activist and president of the UAD, organized two protests. These demonstrations were significant, as they marked a turning point in the Deaf education controversy in the state of Utah. The first took place on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education. The second occurred on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus (Chaffin, Daily Utah Chronicle, November 19, 1977, p. 30A; UAD letter, 1977; UAD flyer, 1977).
W. David Mortensen
"Deaf group contends U ignores their needs. Source: Chronicle, The Daily Utah, November 29, 1977
Alfred C. Emery. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
These demonstrations were sparked by the university's unfair focus on oral communication over total communication training, its preference for oral-only education, discrimination against the total communication method, preference for day schools, the lack of a Deaf representative on the Advisory Committee, and the ongoing disregard for the concerns of the UAD and the Utah Deaf community.
Around twenty Deaf individuals gathered in front of the Park Building on November 28 to protest the university's handling of these issues. M.J. Lewis published a letter in the Deseret News stating, "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and instilled fear in 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). This statement reflects the deep frustration within the Utah Deaf community regarding the perceived lack of support and understanding from the university. It emphasizes the need to promote effective communication and the acceptance of the total communication method as a means to foster independence and success among Deaf individuals.
Around twenty Deaf individuals gathered in front of the Park Building on November 28 to protest the university's handling of these issues. M.J. Lewis published a letter in the Deseret News stating, "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and instilled fear in 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). This statement reflects the deep frustration within the Utah Deaf community regarding the perceived lack of support and understanding from the university. It emphasizes the need to promote effective communication and the acceptance of the total communication method as a means to foster independence and success among Deaf individuals.
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 demonstrated a strong commitment to the oral method of teaching. His stance on the education of Deaf children continued to polarize the Utah Deaf community. In response to the UAD protest, he stated, "We are endeavoring 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 explained his preference for the oral-only approach, believing it was the most effective way to help Deaf children become functional members of society (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1). He genuinely believed that oralism would provide Deaf children with a healthy self-concept and better prepare them for everyday life. He argued that the oral method would free them from reliance on interpreters and grant them the independence they would need as adults.
Referring to the University of Utah's teacher training program, Dr. Bitter reminded the UAD that a class in basic sign language skills was part of the curriculum. He also highlighted the program's connection with the Utah Deaf community through its practicum. Dr. Bitter demonstrated to the protesters that the University of Utah had met its obligation to the Utah State Board of Education by integrating experiences in total communication into its oral curriculum (Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977).
Referring to the University of Utah's teacher training program, Dr. Bitter reminded the UAD that a class in basic sign language skills was part of the curriculum. He also highlighted the program's connection with the Utah Deaf community through its practicum. Dr. Bitter demonstrated to the protesters that the University of Utah had met its obligation to the Utah State Board of Education by integrating experiences in total communication into 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
|
Despite Dr. Bitter's response, the UAD continued to advocate for change. UAD President Mortensen led this persistent effort, which the Utah State Board of Education took note of. Following the protest, the Utah State Board of Education made several decisions based on the information presented to them, which represents a significant step forward in the improvement of Deaf education:
The Board of Education was expected to remain neutral in disputes concerning deaf education methodologies. At the time, it was determined that appointing an additional advisory committee was not necessary. Additionally, the state board has requested studies to evaluate the need for a Total Communication Teacher Preparation Program at the university level in the state (REFERENCE NEEDED)
In April 1979, the Utah State Board of Education passed a motion directing the University of Utah to hire a faculty member to teach total communication skills to prospective teachers of the deaf (The Silent Spotlight, June 1979; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader, was hired as an adjunct professor in the Division of Communication Disorders at the University of Utah from 1979 to 1985. He taught American Sign Language (ASL), which was later replaced by total communication, while also exploring the social, psychological, and cultural aspects of deafness (Newman, 2006). His contributions significantly influenced the curriculum, providing students with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding hearing loss. Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of cultural competency and effective communication strategies in the education of Deaf students, paving the way for advancements in the field.
- Long-range research will be initiated to determine the characteristics of deaf students for whom specific programs are most effective.
- A procedure will be established for the diagnosis, evaluation, and placement of deaf students according to their needs, requiring the approval of parents or guardians.
- Two distinct instructional programs will be offered at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden: the Oral Program and the Total Communication Program.
- Students enrolled in each program will be kept separate until they reach junior high school.
- The Utah School for the Deaf will report to the Utah State Board of Education, through their Special Education Instructional Services Department, headed by LaRue Winget.
- Faculty members from the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah State
The Board of Education was expected to remain neutral in disputes concerning deaf education methodologies. At the time, it was determined that appointing an additional advisory committee was not necessary. Additionally, the state board has requested studies to evaluate the need for a Total Communication Teacher Preparation Program at the university level in the state (REFERENCE NEEDED)
In April 1979, the Utah State Board of Education passed a motion directing the University of Utah to hire a faculty member to teach total communication skills to prospective teachers of the deaf (The Silent Spotlight, June 1979; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader, was hired as an adjunct professor in the Division of Communication Disorders at the University of Utah from 1979 to 1985. He taught American Sign Language (ASL), which was later replaced by total communication, while also exploring the social, psychological, and cultural aspects of deafness (Newman, 2006). His contributions significantly influenced the curriculum, providing students with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding hearing loss. Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of cultural competency and effective communication strategies in the education of Deaf students, paving the way for advancements in the field.
*****
Acknowledgment
I am particularly grateful to Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf education advocate, for his efforts in uncovering and preserving the essential documents related to Dr. Grant B. Bitter. His research for his master's degree at the University of Utah played a crucial role in bringing these documents to light. When Dr. Bitter retired in 1987, he generously donated his collection to the J. Willard Marriott Library.
In 2005, Jeff presented his findings at the Utah Association for the Deaf Conference, which was a turning point in this journey. His discovery of Dr. Bitter's detailed records, combined with my 2006 manuscript, "The Deaf Education History in Utah," which discusses Dr. Bitter's influence on Deaf education, led to the creation of this website—a digital tribute to his remarkable preservation efforts. None of those efforts would have been possible without his generous donation of documents to the library.
You can access Jeff W. Pollock's research paper titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication Versus Oralism at the University of Utah," which he submitted for his master's degree in "History of Higher Education" at the University of Utah on May 4, 2005."
Jeff, your dedication and passion for the project have not gone unnoticed. I am truly grateful for your invaluable contribution. Thank you!
In 2005, Jeff presented his findings at the Utah Association for the Deaf Conference, which was a turning point in this journey. His discovery of Dr. Bitter's detailed records, combined with my 2006 manuscript, "The Deaf Education History in Utah," which discusses Dr. Bitter's influence on Deaf education, led to the creation of this website—a digital tribute to his remarkable preservation efforts. None of those efforts would have been possible without his generous donation of documents to the library.
You can access Jeff W. Pollock's research paper titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication Versus Oralism at the University of Utah," which he submitted for his master's degree in "History of Higher Education" at the University of Utah on May 4, 2005."
Jeff, your dedication and passion for the project have not gone unnoticed. I am truly grateful for your invaluable contribution. Thank you!
Jeff W. Pollock
*****
Utah Association for the Deaf President W. David Mortensen
Seeks to Address Concerns about Grant B. Bitter
Seeks to Address Concerns about Grant B. Bitter
On February 2, 1978, Dave Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward W. Clyde, chairman of the University of Utah's Institutional Council, which was responsible for managing the university's growth. In his letter, President Mortensen criticized Dr. Bitter's unprofessional conduct during a presentation to the Utah State Board of Education on August 19, 1977. He asked that Dr. Bitter be "reprimanded and put on probation or other corrective measures to stop the unprofessional conduct of a man who should not be at the University of Utah in the first place."
A month later, on March 6, 1978, Dr. Bitter replied to Dr. Clyde, denying any wrongdoing. Due to Dr. Bitter's adept self-defense and his talent for presenting his recommendations and philosophy in a non-threatening manner, no action was taken to address President Mortensen's concerns (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, February 2, 1978).
A month later, on March 6, 1978, Dr. Bitter replied to Dr. Clyde, denying any wrongdoing. Due to Dr. Bitter's adept self-defense and his talent for presenting his recommendations and philosophy in a non-threatening manner, no action was taken to address President Mortensen's concerns (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, February 2, 1978).
Ongoing Controversy Over the Teacher
Preparation Program at the University of Utah
Preparation Program at the University of Utah
On August 27, 1979, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote a letter to Dr. Don Logan, Chairman of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. Members of the Utah State Board of Education raised concerns about the university's teacher preparation program, which Dr. Talbot acknowledged. These board members agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf that the program lacked a balanced approach to teaching total communication skills compared to oral requirements. Dr. Logan confirmed that the university's training was primarily oral, despite providing minimal experience in total communication for candidate teachers. He noted that the Utah State Board of Education recognized the need for a teacher preparation program in total communication that would be equal in all aspects to the existing oral/aural preparation program.
To address these concerns, Dr. Talbot proposed three recommendations:
Dr. Talbot's first recommendation did not come to fruition until 1982 (Bitter, Utah’s Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk, 1986).
To address these concerns, Dr. Talbot proposed three recommendations:
- The State Board of Regents should allow a Total Communication Teacher for the Deaf Training Program to be established at another teacher-training institution in Utah.
- The State Board of Education could disapprove the University of Utah's program by refusing to certify graduates from it.
- The state could revoke the University of Utah's teacher training program entirely, leaving no program for training teachers of the deaf in any of Utah's universities.
Dr. Talbot's first recommendation did not come to fruition until 1982 (Bitter, Utah’s Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk, 1986).
Utah State University Establishes a
Total Communication Education Program
Total Communication Education Program
The Utah Association for the Deaf achieved a significant milestone in Deaf education after years of lobbying and advocacy. On April 20, 1982, the Utah State Board of Regents granted Utah State University (USU) approval to establish a new Deaf Education major, just three years after State Superintendent Talbot's letter to Don Logan. This program, which focuses on total communication education, marks a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Leading this initiative was Dr. Thomas C. Clark, the founder of SKI-HI (Sensory Impairment Home Intervention), an initiative dedicated to serving Deaf babies and toddlers. Dr. Clark provided valuable insights on hearing loss that were incorporated into the total communication program launched at Utah State University.
Additionally, Dr. Clark established the Deaf Mentor Program, which pairs hearing families with a Deaf adult mentor. This program allows hearing parents to ask questions about hearing loss and receive practical guidance and support from their Deaf Mentor, who serves as a role model in American Sign Language. This mentorship approach has been instrumental in alleviating the fears and uncertainties that hearing families often face when they welcome a Deaf baby.
This decision represented a major step forward in enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students in Utah. It emphasized the importance of comprehensive communication methods in teaching and fostering a more inclusive learning environment for Deaf children.
At that time, the University of Utah still had a Teacher Preparation Program focused on speech and listening skills (G.B. Bitter Papers, 1970). The debate over this program had died down after the introduction of the total communication major at Utah State University (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Leading this initiative was Dr. Thomas C. Clark, the founder of SKI-HI (Sensory Impairment Home Intervention), an initiative dedicated to serving Deaf babies and toddlers. Dr. Clark provided valuable insights on hearing loss that were incorporated into the total communication program launched at Utah State University.
Additionally, Dr. Clark established the Deaf Mentor Program, which pairs hearing families with a Deaf adult mentor. This program allows hearing parents to ask questions about hearing loss and receive practical guidance and support from their Deaf Mentor, who serves as a role model in American Sign Language. This mentorship approach has been instrumental in alleviating the fears and uncertainties that hearing families often face when they welcome a Deaf baby.
This decision represented a major step forward in enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students in Utah. It emphasized the importance of comprehensive communication methods in teaching and fostering a more inclusive learning environment for Deaf children.
At that time, the University of Utah still had a Teacher Preparation Program focused on speech and listening skills (G.B. Bitter Papers, 1970). The debate over this program had died down after the introduction of the total communication major at Utah State University (Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark
Notably, Dr. Clark was the hearing son of John H. Clark, who was deaf and graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897. He was also the first graduate from Utah to attend Gallaudet College in 1902. He was also a second cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, who, like John H. Clark, graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and became the first Utah graduate of Gallaudet College in 1902. Elizabeth served as the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf in 1909.
John H. Clark. Source: FamilySearch.org
|
Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org
|
However, it is important to note that funding for this new major was not available until 1985, when Utah State University established a preparation program that included a total communication component.
Despite the lack of immediate funding, the establishment of the Deaf education program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Deaf community and the Utah Association of the Deaf. For years, most total communication teachers in Utah had come from out of state, while many oral teachers were graduates of the University of Utah. It took Dr. Clark three years to develop the new program, with substantial support from UAD, Deaf individuals in Utah, Utah Senator Lyle Hillyard, and USU Dean Oral Ballam (Dr. Thomas C. Clark, personal communication, November 13, 2008). This program, a testament to their collective efforts, opened its doors in 1985.
On a side note, in 1974, the SKI-HI Model packet featured Duane Kinner—the son of Deaf parents Kenneth L. Kinner and Ilene Coles—on its front cover. This packet provided training through amplification and home intervention for families with Deaf infants and toddlers. The goal was not only to provide resources but also to empower families by enhancing their communication skills and creating a supportive environment for their children. This emphasis on early intervention ensured that Deaf infants and toddlers received the essential resources needed for their development and success, inspiring a new wave of support for the Deaf community in Utah.
Despite the lack of immediate funding, the establishment of the Deaf education program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Deaf community and the Utah Association of the Deaf. For years, most total communication teachers in Utah had come from out of state, while many oral teachers were graduates of the University of Utah. It took Dr. Clark three years to develop the new program, with substantial support from UAD, Deaf individuals in Utah, Utah Senator Lyle Hillyard, and USU Dean Oral Ballam (Dr. Thomas C. Clark, personal communication, November 13, 2008). This program, a testament to their collective efforts, opened its doors in 1985.
On a side note, in 1974, the SKI-HI Model packet featured Duane Kinner—the son of Deaf parents Kenneth L. Kinner and Ilene Coles—on its front cover. This packet provided training through amplification and home intervention for families with Deaf infants and toddlers. The goal was not only to provide resources but also to empower families by enhancing their communication skills and creating a supportive environment for their children. This emphasis on early intervention ensured that Deaf infants and toddlers received the essential resources needed for their development and success, inspiring a new wave of support for the Deaf community in Utah.
Duane Kinner, the son of Deaf parents, Kenneth and Ilene Kinner, is featured on the front cover of the SKI-Hi Model packet
The launch of the Total Communication program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Deaf community in Utah. Previously, most total communication teachers in Utah were from other states, while most oral teachers were from the University of Utah.
The Transformation of Deaf Education in a
Bilingual and Bicultural Program at Utah State University
Bilingual and Bicultural Program at Utah State University
The Deaf Education teacher program at Utah State University underwent a significant transformation under the leadership of Dr. J. Freeman King. When Dr. King took over in 1991, he shifted the program from the Total Communication approach to a more comprehensive Bilingual/Bicultural model (UAD Bulletin, October 1991), which was later renamed the ASL/English Bilingual program. This change, based on years of research and learning, marked a new era for the program and aligned it with best practices in Deaf education. Dr. King's gradual elimination of required speech pathology and audiology classes for the Total Communication major, replacing them with more pedagogical coursework, was a strategic decision aimed at training teachers rather than clinicians. The program had switched from a pathological model of hearing loss to a socio-cultural model.
Dr. King explained that the shift from the Total Communication program to the Bilingual/Bicultural program was a logical progression. Research indicated that the Total Communication method did not provide a comprehensive language model in either English or American Sign Language (ASL). The ASL/English bilingual program is grounded in solid linguistic principles. The goal of USU's Deaf Education program is to prepare teachers with a strong foundation in ASL, the language that Deaf children can naturally acquire. Teacher candidates are trained to teach English as a second language to Deaf students by presenting it in written form. The Bilingual Program aims to help Deaf children and teenagers achieve mastery of academic content and become literate, contributing members of society.
Deaf adults have played a crucial role in the success of Dr. King's students by serving as mentors, language role models, and cultural experts. Their involvement has been invaluable, guiding the program's approach and ensuring a deep understanding of the Deaf community.
Dr. King emphasized that the wait was over for Deaf education teachers who truly understand the educational needs of Deaf children. There was no longer a need to compromise the education of Deaf children due to ignorance in legislation and education. New ideas and paradigms provided a renewed sense of purpose as new teachers of the Deaf are trained and prepared.
According to Dr. King, Deaf children are primarily visual learners and should be educated using a language that takes advantage of their visual strengths rather than their hearing limitations.
Dr. King explained that the shift from the Total Communication program to the Bilingual/Bicultural program was a logical progression. Research indicated that the Total Communication method did not provide a comprehensive language model in either English or American Sign Language (ASL). The ASL/English bilingual program is grounded in solid linguistic principles. The goal of USU's Deaf Education program is to prepare teachers with a strong foundation in ASL, the language that Deaf children can naturally acquire. Teacher candidates are trained to teach English as a second language to Deaf students by presenting it in written form. The Bilingual Program aims to help Deaf children and teenagers achieve mastery of academic content and become literate, contributing members of society.
Deaf adults have played a crucial role in the success of Dr. King's students by serving as mentors, language role models, and cultural experts. Their involvement has been invaluable, guiding the program's approach and ensuring a deep understanding of the Deaf community.
Dr. King emphasized that the wait was over for Deaf education teachers who truly understand the educational needs of Deaf children. There was no longer a need to compromise the education of Deaf children due to ignorance in legislation and education. New ideas and paradigms provided a renewed sense of purpose as new teachers of the Deaf are trained and prepared.
According to Dr. King, Deaf children are primarily visual learners and should be educated using a language that takes advantage of their visual strengths rather than their hearing limitations.
Dr. J. King Freeman
In summary, Dr. King stated that the USU Deaf Education program equipped candidates with fluency in ASL and essential training on how to use it for teaching academic subjects and English literacy. Graduates from this program obtained certification not only in Deaf Education but also in Elementary Education, Secondary Education, or Special Education. In contrast, the Teacher for the Deaf Training Program at the University of Utah primarily focused on training teachers in audiology and speech pathology, offering minimal instruction on teaching academic subjects to Deaf children.
Additionally, Dr. King highlighted that the ASL/English Bilingual program fully incorporates the use of residual hearing and provides options for teaching speech and listening skills. Here, speech is viewed as a tool that can enhance a Deaf child's communication with hearing family members or peers, rather than being the primary goal, which could overshadow a complete and appropriate education.
The ultimate objective was to ensure that the education of Deaf children matches, in all respects, that of their hearing peers. Studies suggested that achieving this goal required Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to become bilingual. Instruction in American Sign Language, along with English learning, acknowledges and respects both languages and cultures. Families were no longer forced to choose between signing and speaking, as was often the case in the past. Instead, Deaf children and their families can fully benefit from a high-quality bilingual and bicultural program (Dr. Freeman King, personal communication, April 22, 2009).
However, in 2007, Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University, founded the Listening and Spoken Language program. This decision ignited a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program, which continued to coexist within the same department. The Listening and Spoken Language Program focused on developing auditory skills and speech, but critics argued that it risked overshadowing the cultural and linguistic identity promoted by the Bilingual-Bicultural Program. This tension highlighted a broader philosophical divide in the field, with some educators advocating for a bilingual approach that better addressed the diverse needs of students with hearing loss. For more details about this issue, refer to Part IV and VI below.
Additionally, Dr. King highlighted that the ASL/English Bilingual program fully incorporates the use of residual hearing and provides options for teaching speech and listening skills. Here, speech is viewed as a tool that can enhance a Deaf child's communication with hearing family members or peers, rather than being the primary goal, which could overshadow a complete and appropriate education.
The ultimate objective was to ensure that the education of Deaf children matches, in all respects, that of their hearing peers. Studies suggested that achieving this goal required Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to become bilingual. Instruction in American Sign Language, along with English learning, acknowledges and respects both languages and cultures. Families were no longer forced to choose between signing and speaking, as was often the case in the past. Instead, Deaf children and their families can fully benefit from a high-quality bilingual and bicultural program (Dr. Freeman King, personal communication, April 22, 2009).
However, in 2007, Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University, founded the Listening and Spoken Language program. This decision ignited a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program, which continued to coexist within the same department. The Listening and Spoken Language Program focused on developing auditory skills and speech, but critics argued that it risked overshadowing the cultural and linguistic identity promoted by the Bilingual-Bicultural Program. This tension highlighted a broader philosophical divide in the field, with some educators advocating for a bilingual approach that better addressed the diverse needs of students with hearing loss. For more details about this issue, refer to Part IV and VI below.
Dr. Karl R. White. Source: Utah State University
The Closure of the Teacher Preparation
Program at the University of Utah
Program at the University of Utah
The Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah was discontinued in 1986, after nearly 23 years of operation, a decision that had a profound impact on the Deaf community and the field of Deaf education.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote a letter to Dr. Irvin Altman, Vice President of Academic Affairs, titled "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk!" He garnered support from numerous advocates who joined him in an effort to prevent the program's closure. However, the University of Utah decided to eliminate the program due to budgetary constraints imposed by the state, low student enrollment, and a decline in the number of graduates each year (Bitter, "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At Risk," 1986).
In his quest for broader support, Dr. Bitter approached the Utah Deaf community, asking UAD President Dave Mortensen to rally the community's support in opposing the program's closure. However, President Mortensen bluntly stated that he and the Utah Association for the Deaf, a prominent organization advocating for the rights and education of Deaf individuals, would not support Dr. Bitter's efforts (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
After the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program was closed, Dr. Bitter retired from his position as Associate Professor of Special Education on June 30, 1987, at the age of 65.
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 increasing integration of Deaf students into mainstream education, deeply 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 the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes classes in American Sign Language, it places a stronger emphasis on listening and speaking practices. This focus reflects the lasting impact of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, on Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote a letter to Dr. Irvin Altman, Vice President of Academic Affairs, titled "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk!" He garnered support from numerous advocates who joined him in an effort to prevent the program's closure. However, the University of Utah decided to eliminate the program due to budgetary constraints imposed by the state, low student enrollment, and a decline in the number of graduates each year (Bitter, "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At Risk," 1986).
In his quest for broader support, Dr. Bitter approached the Utah Deaf community, asking UAD President Dave Mortensen to rally the community's support in opposing the program's closure. However, President Mortensen bluntly stated that he and the Utah Association for the Deaf, a prominent organization advocating for the rights and education of Deaf individuals, would not support Dr. Bitter's efforts (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
After the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program was closed, Dr. Bitter retired from his position as Associate Professor of Special Education on June 30, 1987, at the age of 65.
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 increasing integration of Deaf students into mainstream education, deeply 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 the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes classes in American Sign Language, it places a stronger emphasis on listening and speaking practices. This focus reflects the lasting impact of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, on Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utahn, 1973
SECTION IV: Restructuring the Administrative
System and Consolidating the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind
System and Consolidating the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind
Restructuring the Administrative System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The controversy between the oral and total communication programs, a long-standing issue in Deaf education in Utah, continued to escalate during the years 1986-1987. The debate centered around the most effective method of communication and education for Deaf students. In 1986, Dr. Thomas Bannister was appointed superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Knowing sign language, he was appalled by the biased and one-sided information provided to families (UAD Bulletin, November 1986).
Dr. Thomas Bannister
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's comprehensive study, conducted in 1977, revealed various instances where the principal, Tony Christopulos, demonstrated a less committed approach to total communication as an educational philosophy. He did not provide the necessary leadership to support the total communication division and favored the oral division (Campbell, 1977). In response to the ongoing controversy, Superintendent Bannister decided to overhaul the administrative system. Unhappy with these changes, Tony Christopulos resigned and retired (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Superintendent Bannister introduced the concept of 'program directors' who would be responsible for specific geographic areas of the state and oversee educational programs within those regions. To ensure fairness and prevent bias—a crucial step in the restructuring process—Superintendent Bannister implemented new rules. Steven W. Noyce, a strong advocate for the oral approach and a former student of Dr. Bitter's oral training program at the University of Utah, was appointed as the program director for the Utah School for the Deaf program in Orem, Utah. Deaf leaders Dave Mortensen and Lloyd Perkins visited Orem's Deaf program. They were pleased to discover that, despite the separation of oral and total communication classrooms, all students were now allowed to interact during lunch and recess, which represented a major change in student dynamics (Kenneth K. Kinner, personal communication, April 17, 2011).
Superintendent Bannister introduced the concept of 'program directors' who would be responsible for specific geographic areas of the state and oversee educational programs within those regions. To ensure fairness and prevent bias—a crucial step in the restructuring process—Superintendent Bannister implemented new rules. Steven W. Noyce, a strong advocate for the oral approach and a former student of Dr. Bitter's oral training program at the University of Utah, was appointed as the program director for the Utah School for the Deaf program in Orem, Utah. Deaf leaders Dave Mortensen and Lloyd Perkins visited Orem's Deaf program. They were pleased to discover that, despite the separation of oral and total communication classrooms, all students were now allowed to interact during lunch and recess, which represented a major change in student dynamics (Kenneth K. Kinner, personal communication, April 17, 2011).
Consolidation of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
This segment of history meticulously details the process of consolidating both state schools onto one campus, considering crucial factors such as financial implications, student welfare, and community impact.
By 1980, the number of day schools and mainstream classes had increased significantly nationwide (Baldwin, 1990). This situation impacted the Utah School for the Deaf. During the legislative session in February 1986, a proposal was made to consolidate the Deaf School and the Blind School onto a single campus. Lawmakers noted that the Deaf School, located at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue in Ogden, was only half-filled. They proposed studying the effects of moving the Deaf School to the Blind School campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard in Ogden (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
A legislative task force was formed during the summer of 1986, specifically to review the details of merging the two state schools. Although the task force lacked the expertise to make a definitive decision, they believed that combining the two campuses would be more cost-effective (UAD Bulletin, November 1986). They learned from Thomas Bannister, the Superintendent of the USDB, that the consolidation could save between $110,000 and $130,000 per year (UAD Bulletin, July 1987). As part of their investigation, Design West in Logan, Utah, received $50,000 in planning funds in February 1988. They were tasked with developing architectural designs for a campus that would accommodate children who are Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, or autistic, should new buildings need to be constructed (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Various scenarios were considered feasible. One group favored closing both Ogden campuses and relocating the schools to Salt Lake City. This option seemed reasonable since most deaf and blind students registered for the schools came from the Salt Lake City area. However, due to an oversight, Salt Lake City was not included as a potential relocation site that the task force studied.
UAD President Dave Mortensen voiced support for another, equally viable idea. He suggested that the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) be constructed on land adjacent to the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (UCCD) facility. USD and UCCD could share the proposed pool and gym, which would primarily serve the school during the day, while UCCD patrons could utilize them in the evenings. President Mortensen argued that having the Deaf School next door would facilitate transitional activities to help students move from school life into adulthood. The study indicated that buying property in Salt Lake City and building new facilities there would be costly. Most of Utah's Deaf students were being mainstreamed into local public school systems and were not attending the state school, making it difficult to justify such a large financial investment (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Officials from both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah School for the Blind strongly opposed the merger. They feared that consolidation would jeopardize the quality of services provided to students. They petitioned the legislature to keep the two schools on separate campuses, encouraging them to seek alternative ways to save money.
Their petition stated that:
The Utah Council of the Blind also voiced objections, sending a letter stating, "Those of us who are blind have never been able to understand why anyone would seek to connect two completely opposite disabilities." They noted that no state deaf or blind programs in the nation had been consolidated since 1912 (Ipaktchian, The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 11, 1986).
The legislative study recommended combining the Deaf and Blind Schools at the Blind School campus in Ogden. It was reasoned that keeping the Blind students on their own campus would be less traumatic for them, as they would face difficulties in adapting to new and different surroundings if their school were relocated.
The vote of the Institutional Council, which oversees the operations and policies of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, followed the conclusions of the Task Force. The vote resulted in a three-to-one recommendation to the Utah Board of Education to locate the Deaf school on the campus of the Blind school. Dennis R. Platt, a Deaf member of the Institutional Council, was the sole vote in favor of keeping the Deaf services at their current site at 846 20th Street in Ogden, citing tradition and a desire to preserve the school's century-old origins (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). This diverse range of perspectives was crucial in the decision-making process.
By 1980, the number of day schools and mainstream classes had increased significantly nationwide (Baldwin, 1990). This situation impacted the Utah School for the Deaf. During the legislative session in February 1986, a proposal was made to consolidate the Deaf School and the Blind School onto a single campus. Lawmakers noted that the Deaf School, located at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue in Ogden, was only half-filled. They proposed studying the effects of moving the Deaf School to the Blind School campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard in Ogden (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
A legislative task force was formed during the summer of 1986, specifically to review the details of merging the two state schools. Although the task force lacked the expertise to make a definitive decision, they believed that combining the two campuses would be more cost-effective (UAD Bulletin, November 1986). They learned from Thomas Bannister, the Superintendent of the USDB, that the consolidation could save between $110,000 and $130,000 per year (UAD Bulletin, July 1987). As part of their investigation, Design West in Logan, Utah, received $50,000 in planning funds in February 1988. They were tasked with developing architectural designs for a campus that would accommodate children who are Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, or autistic, should new buildings need to be constructed (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Various scenarios were considered feasible. One group favored closing both Ogden campuses and relocating the schools to Salt Lake City. This option seemed reasonable since most deaf and blind students registered for the schools came from the Salt Lake City area. However, due to an oversight, Salt Lake City was not included as a potential relocation site that the task force studied.
UAD President Dave Mortensen voiced support for another, equally viable idea. He suggested that the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) be constructed on land adjacent to the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (UCCD) facility. USD and UCCD could share the proposed pool and gym, which would primarily serve the school during the day, while UCCD patrons could utilize them in the evenings. President Mortensen argued that having the Deaf School next door would facilitate transitional activities to help students move from school life into adulthood. The study indicated that buying property in Salt Lake City and building new facilities there would be costly. Most of Utah's Deaf students were being mainstreamed into local public school systems and were not attending the state school, making it difficult to justify such a large financial investment (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Officials from both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah School for the Blind strongly opposed the merger. They feared that consolidation would jeopardize the quality of services provided to students. They petitioned the legislature to keep the two schools on separate campuses, encouraging them to seek alternative ways to save money.
Their petition stated that:
- While acknowledging the importance of short-term financial concerns, it's crucial to remember that human factors and long-term finances are equally critical in deciding whether to combine campuses.
- Although enrollment had declined over the past three years at the Deaf School while the extension program was being organized, enrollments were now on the rise and expected to increase for the next four years.
- The building the Blind School would occupy if merged onto the Deaf School campus was too small for their needs. The cost of enlarging it and furnishing it with necessary equipment would exceed the cost of maintaining a separate campus.
- Bringing together Deaf and Blind students would hinder their progress, as the differing disabilities make communication between them challenging (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
The Utah Council of the Blind also voiced objections, sending a letter stating, "Those of us who are blind have never been able to understand why anyone would seek to connect two completely opposite disabilities." They noted that no state deaf or blind programs in the nation had been consolidated since 1912 (Ipaktchian, The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 11, 1986).
The legislative study recommended combining the Deaf and Blind Schools at the Blind School campus in Ogden. It was reasoned that keeping the Blind students on their own campus would be less traumatic for them, as they would face difficulties in adapting to new and different surroundings if their school were relocated.
The vote of the Institutional Council, which oversees the operations and policies of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, followed the conclusions of the Task Force. The vote resulted in a three-to-one recommendation to the Utah Board of Education to locate the Deaf school on the campus of the Blind school. Dennis R. Platt, a Deaf member of the Institutional Council, was the sole vote in favor of keeping the Deaf services at their current site at 846 20th Street in Ogden, citing tradition and a desire to preserve the school's century-old origins (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). This diverse range of perspectives was crucial in the decision-making process.
Dennis R. Platt
Most members of the Institutional Council believed that the Blind school campus on Harrison Blvd. offered the greatest advantages. It provided space for expansion and was situated near Ben Lomond High School, Highland Middle School, and Horace Mann Elementary School, thereby providing opportunities for mainstreaming (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The proposed facility would include classrooms, residential cottages, an administration center, a multipurpose building, and a resource/media center (UAD Bulletin, February 1989).
The merger was approved during the Institutional Council's meeting on September 28, 1988 (Leer, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988, p. A10). On November 11, 1988, the USDB Institutional Council presented its recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. The Utah Deaf community opposed stopping the merger process, delivering a petition to the Board against such actions. Board members Margaret Nelson and Dr. M. Richard Maxwell expressed their desire for both schools to remain in Ogden, arguing that the proposed merger did not adequately consider potential costs. They were joined in this sentiment by Kleda Barker Quigley from the Salt Lake Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, December 1988).
The merger was approved during the Institutional Council's meeting on September 28, 1988 (Leer, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988, p. A10). On November 11, 1988, the USDB Institutional Council presented its recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. The Utah Deaf community opposed stopping the merger process, delivering a petition to the Board against such actions. Board members Margaret Nelson and Dr. M. Richard Maxwell expressed their desire for both schools to remain in Ogden, arguing that the proposed merger did not adequately consider potential costs. They were joined in this sentiment by Kleda Barker Quigley from the Salt Lake Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, December 1988).
Kleda Barker Quigley
Despite this last-minute feedback, both the state school's Institutional Council and the State Board of Education supported the consolidation proposal (UAD Bulletin, October 1988). The Utah State Board of Education approved the consolidation of both schools onto the Blind School campus at 742 Harrison Blvd. in Ogden (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
By July 1988, the Utah legislature approved the merger, making it unsurprising when the legislature voted in September 1988 to consolidate the campuses. This measure included a mandate for state funding to remodel the campus buildings and ensure ongoing general maintenance (UAD Bulletin, October 1987; UAD Bulletin, October 1988). A funding request for the relocation would be submitted to the 1989 session of the Utah Legislature after being reviewed by the state's Division of Facilities Construction Management (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The legislature was expected to approve this funding allocation. The decision to consolidate the two campuses was time-sensitive, as some buildings on both campuses were found to be out of compliance with fire and safety codes (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1). Superintendent Bannister expressed the state's reluctance to invest several hundred thousand dollars in bringing the buildings on both campuses into compliance. The planned renovations could address code compliance issues since the schools would merge (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
It was a sad day when the Utah School for the Deaf campus closed. This campus, which was over 100 years old, had a rich history. The property and buildings were set to be transferred to the Ogden City School District (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
The merger proposal was an emotional issue for many people. While the Utah Deaf community did not want to see the Deaf school campus abandoned, justifying a separate campus was challenging, given the small student population. There were fewer than ten Deaf students in the residential program, while approximately 100 students attended day schools at both sites. The combined residential students numbered about 40, with disabilities so severe that the regular school system could not educate them.
It was reassuring to know that the merger of the two campuses would not result in the blending of the Deaf and blind programs themselves (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988).
In 1989, Superintendent Bannister left Utah for a new position at the Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. Assistant Superintendent Lee Robinson stated that Thomas Bannister's legacy would include the consolidation of the Deaf and Blind schools onto one campus, utilizing both schools as state resource centers (UAD Bulletin, December 1989).
In 1990, David West succeeded Thomas Bannister as Superintendent of the USDB. David was a Deaf educator and administrator with experience in various state Deaf schools.
By July 1988, the Utah legislature approved the merger, making it unsurprising when the legislature voted in September 1988 to consolidate the campuses. This measure included a mandate for state funding to remodel the campus buildings and ensure ongoing general maintenance (UAD Bulletin, October 1987; UAD Bulletin, October 1988). A funding request for the relocation would be submitted to the 1989 session of the Utah Legislature after being reviewed by the state's Division of Facilities Construction Management (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The legislature was expected to approve this funding allocation. The decision to consolidate the two campuses was time-sensitive, as some buildings on both campuses were found to be out of compliance with fire and safety codes (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1). Superintendent Bannister expressed the state's reluctance to invest several hundred thousand dollars in bringing the buildings on both campuses into compliance. The planned renovations could address code compliance issues since the schools would merge (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
It was a sad day when the Utah School for the Deaf campus closed. This campus, which was over 100 years old, had a rich history. The property and buildings were set to be transferred to the Ogden City School District (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
The merger proposal was an emotional issue for many people. While the Utah Deaf community did not want to see the Deaf school campus abandoned, justifying a separate campus was challenging, given the small student population. There were fewer than ten Deaf students in the residential program, while approximately 100 students attended day schools at both sites. The combined residential students numbered about 40, with disabilities so severe that the regular school system could not educate them.
It was reassuring to know that the merger of the two campuses would not result in the blending of the Deaf and blind programs themselves (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988).
In 1989, Superintendent Bannister left Utah for a new position at the Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. Assistant Superintendent Lee Robinson stated that Thomas Bannister's legacy would include the consolidation of the Deaf and Blind schools onto one campus, utilizing both schools as state resource centers (UAD Bulletin, December 1989).
In 1990, David West succeeded Thomas Bannister as Superintendent of the USDB. David was a Deaf educator and administrator with experience in various state Deaf schools.
David West
Integration of Public Schools and the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
The Institutional Council, which governs the operations of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), was central to the debate over their integration. In June 1989, the Council received a petition signed by twenty-five parents of children attending the Utah School for the Deaf. By September of that year, the parents requested the transfer of their children to a designated public elementary school. They believed that their children would benefit more from social and cultural interactions with peers who could hear. John Galli, an Ogden resident and parent representative, explained, "We're not talking mainstreaming; we're talking integration" (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
The parents wanted their kids to be educated by teachers and administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf, but in classrooms located at a public school. This arrangement would enable their children to engage in lunch, recess, and regular education classes alongside their hearing peers. Superintendent Bannister speculated that the parents might have been reacting to terms like "school for the deaf" or "state institution," which could carry negative connotations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) forms (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
In response to the request for integration, administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf engaged in discussions with various school districts about the possibility of offering USD extension classes in their schools (UAD Bulletin, October 1989). However, the Utah Association for the Deaf warned that Deaf students might feel isolated in a public school setting. Drawing from their childhood experiences of feeling excluded in public schools, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson argued that Deaf children are happiest when they are together, warning that they would quickly form a distinct Deaf clique (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
This discussion prompted Shirley Horton Platt, a Utah Deaf community member and Deaf mentor at the Utah School for the Deaf, to express her deep concerns regarding the emotional and social well-being of Deaf students:
"There has always been a solid front in the deaf community. It has existed since Laurent Clerc, a deaf man, [helped Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet] begin the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, CT, in 1817. The deaf community, with its own culture, history, and language, has been a frontrunner in establishing long, successful organizations of, by, and for the deaf, as compared to other disabled groups. Other disabled groups in sports, for example, (i.e., Paralympics) did not begin organizing until the 1970s and later.
Still, hearing people try to tell us what to do, how to do it, how to live our lives, and how to educate "our" children. If we deaf adults are bitter, it is NOT because our parents were never told about sign language or deaf schools, and thus never had that option to consider. My deaf sister and I are certainly not bitter towards our family. My parents now realize that many things they had to do in the past were not right, especially regarding our education in public school.
We are fed up with seeing "our" deaf children repeatedly used as guinea pigs in the state of Utah while different groups test different theories and systems. These are kids' lives you are playing with; they are not laboratory animals to be tested on a whim. Giving birth to a deaf child doesn't give one the experience or know-how to deal with or educate a deaf child. Proven research has repeatedly stated that deaf children do better with deaf peers and role models in schools for the Deaf. What's more, our deaf school is NOT an institution in the antiquated sense that language implies – it is a ridiculous stigma, and these parents just don't want it known that their children are there. They are embarrassed – but why? These are NOT little imitation hearing children. These are deaf children who will ALWAYS be Deaf, so let them be.
If the parents feel the program needs changing, why not start at USD, where even some teachers are not totally educated in deafness and the Deaf culture; where our sign language is abused to the point that teachers make up signs, use wrong concepts, and destroy the meaning and beauty of American Sign Language; where there is a program coordinator who many of us feel does not even support the program and is not impartial but blatantly supports an oral philosophy; where former students have left because there is no sports program anymore or because of the former superintendents; and now where parents want to pull out an entire elementary program to give their children a dream world of what could but never will be, promoted by a few misguided individuals; and yet, sadly, USD is the place where many successful deaf Utahans grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, not with unhappy memories of their abuse by cruel former school administrators, but instead of their large association and social life with other deaf children and adult role models.
Superintendent Thomas Bannister is the best thing that has ever happened to this school, so why not work to rebuild it?"
Shirley H. Platt
Ogden
(Platt, UAD Bulletin, August 1989, p. 2)
The parents wanted their kids to be educated by teachers and administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf, but in classrooms located at a public school. This arrangement would enable their children to engage in lunch, recess, and regular education classes alongside their hearing peers. Superintendent Bannister speculated that the parents might have been reacting to terms like "school for the deaf" or "state institution," which could carry negative connotations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) forms (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
In response to the request for integration, administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf engaged in discussions with various school districts about the possibility of offering USD extension classes in their schools (UAD Bulletin, October 1989). However, the Utah Association for the Deaf warned that Deaf students might feel isolated in a public school setting. Drawing from their childhood experiences of feeling excluded in public schools, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson argued that Deaf children are happiest when they are together, warning that they would quickly form a distinct Deaf clique (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
This discussion prompted Shirley Horton Platt, a Utah Deaf community member and Deaf mentor at the Utah School for the Deaf, to express her deep concerns regarding the emotional and social well-being of Deaf students:
"There has always been a solid front in the deaf community. It has existed since Laurent Clerc, a deaf man, [helped Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet] begin the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, CT, in 1817. The deaf community, with its own culture, history, and language, has been a frontrunner in establishing long, successful organizations of, by, and for the deaf, as compared to other disabled groups. Other disabled groups in sports, for example, (i.e., Paralympics) did not begin organizing until the 1970s and later.
Still, hearing people try to tell us what to do, how to do it, how to live our lives, and how to educate "our" children. If we deaf adults are bitter, it is NOT because our parents were never told about sign language or deaf schools, and thus never had that option to consider. My deaf sister and I are certainly not bitter towards our family. My parents now realize that many things they had to do in the past were not right, especially regarding our education in public school.
We are fed up with seeing "our" deaf children repeatedly used as guinea pigs in the state of Utah while different groups test different theories and systems. These are kids' lives you are playing with; they are not laboratory animals to be tested on a whim. Giving birth to a deaf child doesn't give one the experience or know-how to deal with or educate a deaf child. Proven research has repeatedly stated that deaf children do better with deaf peers and role models in schools for the Deaf. What's more, our deaf school is NOT an institution in the antiquated sense that language implies – it is a ridiculous stigma, and these parents just don't want it known that their children are there. They are embarrassed – but why? These are NOT little imitation hearing children. These are deaf children who will ALWAYS be Deaf, so let them be.
If the parents feel the program needs changing, why not start at USD, where even some teachers are not totally educated in deafness and the Deaf culture; where our sign language is abused to the point that teachers make up signs, use wrong concepts, and destroy the meaning and beauty of American Sign Language; where there is a program coordinator who many of us feel does not even support the program and is not impartial but blatantly supports an oral philosophy; where former students have left because there is no sports program anymore or because of the former superintendents; and now where parents want to pull out an entire elementary program to give their children a dream world of what could but never will be, promoted by a few misguided individuals; and yet, sadly, USD is the place where many successful deaf Utahans grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, not with unhappy memories of their abuse by cruel former school administrators, but instead of their large association and social life with other deaf children and adult role models.
Superintendent Thomas Bannister is the best thing that has ever happened to this school, so why not work to rebuild it?"
Shirley H. Platt
Ogden
(Platt, UAD Bulletin, August 1989, p. 2)
Shirley Horton Platt
Superintendent Thomas Bannister played a key role in the decision-making process regarding the education of Deaf children and was supportive of the parents' wishes. The Utah Deaf community raised concerns, but ultimately, the decision to grant parents' wishes stood. The Deaf children involved were consequently enrolled in nearby school districts.
During the 1990 legislative session, the Institutional Council provided a fact sheet about the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind to legislators, aiming to demonstrate that the state schools served not just the city of Ogden. However, the political climate was not entirely favorable to the USDB. Representative Haze Hunter, chair of the appropriations subcommittee on capital facilities and general government, questioned the justification for spending $8.1 million on the consolidation. He inquired, "Do we really want to spend $8.1 million on 35 students?" (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
At that time, there were 35 residential Deaf students on the school campus and about 45 to 50 students at the Utah School for the Blind. In comparison, there were 916 Deaf and blind students throughout the state attending the extension programs of the USDB, which were housed in local public schools (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
As Shirley Horton Platt noted, the Utah School for the Deaf alums were saddened to watch the school change over the years. The school had provided them with a fully accessible environment that supported their language, communication style, literacy, academic, social, and emotional development. The Deaf school also offered the necessary support services to help them become educated, successful, and contributing adults. They were sad that future Deaf children wouldn't have the same fond memories of the school.
During the 1990 legislative session, the Institutional Council provided a fact sheet about the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind to legislators, aiming to demonstrate that the state schools served not just the city of Ogden. However, the political climate was not entirely favorable to the USDB. Representative Haze Hunter, chair of the appropriations subcommittee on capital facilities and general government, questioned the justification for spending $8.1 million on the consolidation. He inquired, "Do we really want to spend $8.1 million on 35 students?" (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
At that time, there were 35 residential Deaf students on the school campus and about 45 to 50 students at the Utah School for the Blind. In comparison, there were 916 Deaf and blind students throughout the state attending the extension programs of the USDB, which were housed in local public schools (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
As Shirley Horton Platt noted, the Utah School for the Deaf alums were saddened to watch the school change over the years. The school had provided them with a fully accessible environment that supported their language, communication style, literacy, academic, social, and emotional development. The Deaf school also offered the necessary support services to help them become educated, successful, and contributing adults. They were sad that future Deaf children wouldn't have the same fond memories of the school.
Groundbreaking for the New
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Facility
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Facility
The groundbreaking ceremony for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind was a major event in the school's history. It took place on October 1, 1991, at the campus located at 742 Harrison Boulevard in Ogden. The Utah legislature allocated $8.4 million for the first phase of the new 91,000-square-foot facility. This integrated school is designed to include an educational resource center, outreach services, educational support services, a distribution center, administrative offices, a media library, a cafeteria, conference rooms, and residential cottages for students.
The one-hour ceremony showcased the widespread support for the project, with numerous state and local school officials, members of the legislature, representatives from the governor's office, the Ogden City Council, and the teacher training program at Utah State University in attendance, along with many members of the Utah Deaf community, teachers, and students. Jean Greenwood Thomas served as an interpreter during the event.
Jack Wheeler, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, spoke about the school's history. He reminisced about the days when the Utah School for the Deaf was self-sufficient, with its barn and garden, recalling fond memories of his time at school.
David West, Superintendent of USDB, discussed the efforts that went into making the concept of a new consolidated school a reality. He assured the attendees that the schools for the Deaf and the Blind will maintain their independence, despite sharing the same campus.
The ceremony also provided an opportunity to reflect on the rich history of the USDB. At 107 years old, the school has seen generations of students pass through its doors. Kenneth C. Burdett, who was present, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 75 years ago, demonstrating the school's enduring legacy. Dr. Thomas Clark, also in attendance, shared that his father, John H. Clark, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 105 years ago, further emphasizing the school's deep roots in the community.
As the shovels broke ground, students released a multitude of red, white, and blue balloons into the sky, marking the occasion (UAD Bulletin, October 1991; UAD Bulletin, November 1991).
The one-hour ceremony showcased the widespread support for the project, with numerous state and local school officials, members of the legislature, representatives from the governor's office, the Ogden City Council, and the teacher training program at Utah State University in attendance, along with many members of the Utah Deaf community, teachers, and students. Jean Greenwood Thomas served as an interpreter during the event.
Jack Wheeler, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, spoke about the school's history. He reminisced about the days when the Utah School for the Deaf was self-sufficient, with its barn and garden, recalling fond memories of his time at school.
David West, Superintendent of USDB, discussed the efforts that went into making the concept of a new consolidated school a reality. He assured the attendees that the schools for the Deaf and the Blind will maintain their independence, despite sharing the same campus.
The ceremony also provided an opportunity to reflect on the rich history of the USDB. At 107 years old, the school has seen generations of students pass through its doors. Kenneth C. Burdett, who was present, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 75 years ago, demonstrating the school's enduring legacy. Dr. Thomas Clark, also in attendance, shared that his father, John H. Clark, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 105 years ago, further emphasizing the school's deep roots in the community.
As the shovels broke ground, students released a multitude of red, white, and blue balloons into the sky, marking the occasion (UAD Bulletin, October 1991; UAD Bulletin, November 1991).
Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 Utah School for the Deaf Senior
Did You Know?
When the Ogden City School District took over the former Utah School for the Deaf buildings, it marked a significant transformation in the institution's history. Driggs Hall became the new office building, symbolizing change and progress. Although Woodbury Hall remains unused, it still stands on campus today as a reminder of the school's past (this building was demolished in 2012). The Main Building underwent renovations to accommodate additional offices and classrooms, reflecting the school's growth. The Vocational Building serves a distinct purpose, yet it is also an integral part of the school's evolving narrative.
In 1986, a group of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf, recognizing the importance of their alma mater's history, requested permission from the school district to tour the 100-year-old buildings. Nostalgia hit the alums as they fondly recalled their school days. After their reunion in 1986, they were asked not to request any more tours. Now, as the custodians of their school's history, they rely on old photographs and stories shared among themselves to relive their wonderful school experiences (Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion, 2009).
In 1986, a group of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf, recognizing the importance of their alma mater's history, requested permission from the school district to tour the 100-year-old buildings. Nostalgia hit the alums as they fondly recalled their school days. After their reunion in 1986, they were asked not to request any more tours. Now, as the custodians of their school's history, they rely on old photographs and stories shared among themselves to relive their wonderful school experiences (Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion, 2009).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Receive New Classrooms
Receive New Classrooms
Originally, the plans for the new facility, finalized in 1987, did not include classrooms. At that time, USDB Superintendent David West reported that Deaf students were moving out of Utah. Officials at the Utah School for the Deaf continued to work towards integrating children with disabilities into regular education schools whenever possible (UAD Bulletin, May 1993). However, the school's mission and changing student needs led to the decision to incorporate classrooms into the new facility.
During the 1993 Legislative Session, Superintendent West requested Phase II funding for the nearly completed facility on Harrison Boulevard. This funding would enable the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to finish the new facility by adding 21 classrooms and associated offices, expanding the dining area, and constructing a community room for both the Deaf and Blind (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Initially, the USDB request ranked 38th on the legislative priority list, but it was subsequently moved into the top 20. On February 17, it reached 15th place. If the Phase II request had been in the top ten when it went through the House and Senate executive appropriations committees, it would have received funding. The move was crucial, as Superintendent West faced a crisis regarding where to place Deaf and Blind campus students for the next few years. Although Phase II encountered a difficult passage through the legislature, it ultimately passed (UAD Bulletin, March 1993).
From March to April 1993, the entire administrative personnel and the education resource center relocated to the new facility. However, the Deaf and Blind students and their teachers remained on the 20th Street campus. The Ogden School District, which owned the USDB campus located at 20th and Monroe Boulevard, intended to utilize that space. Teachers and Deaf students were uncertain about how long they would remain at the old campus, as the eventual move depended on the progress of the Phase II construction (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
During the 1993 Legislative Session, Superintendent West requested Phase II funding for the nearly completed facility on Harrison Boulevard. This funding would enable the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to finish the new facility by adding 21 classrooms and associated offices, expanding the dining area, and constructing a community room for both the Deaf and Blind (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Initially, the USDB request ranked 38th on the legislative priority list, but it was subsequently moved into the top 20. On February 17, it reached 15th place. If the Phase II request had been in the top ten when it went through the House and Senate executive appropriations committees, it would have received funding. The move was crucial, as Superintendent West faced a crisis regarding where to place Deaf and Blind campus students for the next few years. Although Phase II encountered a difficult passage through the legislature, it ultimately passed (UAD Bulletin, March 1993).
From March to April 1993, the entire administrative personnel and the education resource center relocated to the new facility. However, the Deaf and Blind students and their teachers remained on the 20th Street campus. The Ogden School District, which owned the USDB campus located at 20th and Monroe Boulevard, intended to utilize that space. Teachers and Deaf students were uncertain about how long they would remain at the old campus, as the eventual move depended on the progress of the Phase II construction (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and
the Blind Move to a New Campus
the Blind Move to a New Campus
The new campus is a state-of-the-art facility tailored to the unique needs of its students. It includes a comprehensive educational resource library that provides technology and supplies for teachers of Deaf and Blind students placed in public schools throughout the state. The facility also offers hearing and vision testing services, computer learning labs, and conference rooms. The Parent Infant Program has a dedicated area on the new campus for teaching new parents how to support their Deaf or Blind infants.
The facility was meticulously designed with the students' needs in mind. For instance, there are no stairs in the buildings to ensure accessibility for students in wheelchairs. The swimming pool serves academic, recreational, and therapeutic purposes. The gymnasium features a multipurpose room with a stage for student theater productions and other events. A water fountain located in a key corridor produces the sound of flowing water, helping Blind students and staff navigate the building. Similarly, a clock with an audible tick is placed in another key hallway for the same purpose. One wing of the central facility is designated for students with autism, while another wing, located near the nurse's office, houses students with multiple disabilities.
Several cottages were built to create a homelike atmosphere for students living on campus. Each cottage can accommodate up to six students, offering a comfortable and supportive living environment. At that time, approximately 35 students lived at the school during the week (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
The facility was meticulously designed with the students' needs in mind. For instance, there are no stairs in the buildings to ensure accessibility for students in wheelchairs. The swimming pool serves academic, recreational, and therapeutic purposes. The gymnasium features a multipurpose room with a stage for student theater productions and other events. A water fountain located in a key corridor produces the sound of flowing water, helping Blind students and staff navigate the building. Similarly, a clock with an audible tick is placed in another key hallway for the same purpose. One wing of the central facility is designated for students with autism, while another wing, located near the nurse's office, houses students with multiple disabilities.
Several cottages were built to create a homelike atmosphere for students living on campus. Each cottage can accommodate up to six students, offering a comfortable and supportive living environment. At that time, approximately 35 students lived at the school during the week (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Ogden, Utah. Source: Control, Inc.
Did You Know?
Many students transferred out of the Utah School for the Deaf within three years due to the poor quality of education. Their goal was to locate a better educational experience and greater social opportunities elsewhere. These students were:
Eileen Lunsford was the only one from this group to remain at the school until she graduated in 1989.
- Don Cochran – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1985
- Jan Williams – California School for the Deaf, Fremont – 1985
- Lisa Cochran – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1986
- Penny Simmons – Oregon School for the Deaf – 1986
- Darrie Duncan Albers – Oregon School for the Deaf – 1986
- Duane Kinner – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1986
- Paula Micolichek – Layton High School – 1987
- Mike Roach – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1987
- Tammy Guldager – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1987
- Debbie Fulton – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1987
- Jared Williams – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1988
Eileen Lunsford was the only one from this group to remain at the school until she graduated in 1989.
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Becomes a State Institutional Resource
Becomes a State Institutional Resource
In 2001, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a member of the USDB Institutional Council at the time, observed that Utah had a different approach to Deaf education. Unlike other states that favored state residential schools, Utah prioritized mainstreaming, which involved integrating most Deaf and hard-of-hearing children into public schools. Only a small number of students lived on campus, marking a distinctive feature of Utah's educational system (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, which was specifically designed to address their educational needs within the public school system. Besides its primary function, the Utah School for the Deaf provided educational and consulting services to non-USD students who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing in public schools. This multifaceted role led the state of Utah to designate the Utah School for the Deaf as a state institutional resource, offering expertise to any educational programs serving Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; McAllister, 2002).
Before 2005, only a small number of students resided on the residential campus located at 742 Harrison Blvd in Ogden, despite its attractive facilities, which included classrooms and cottages with bedrooms. This school accounted for approximately 10% of the state's Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population.
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, which was specifically designed to address their educational needs within the public school system. Besides its primary function, the Utah School for the Deaf provided educational and consulting services to non-USD students who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing in public schools. This multifaceted role led the state of Utah to designate the Utah School for the Deaf as a state institutional resource, offering expertise to any educational programs serving Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; McAllister, 2002).
Before 2005, only a small number of students resided on the residential campus located at 742 Harrison Blvd in Ogden, despite its attractive facilities, which included classrooms and cottages with bedrooms. This school accounted for approximately 10% of the state's Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: On the Green, January 11, 1982
Ronald J. Nelson, who served as president of the UAD in 2002 and was the spouse of Kristi Lee Mortensen, as well as a great-nephew of former USDB Superintendent Boyd E. Nelson, noted that the USD underwent a transformation during his tenure. The school's mission was redefined to position it as a statewide educational resource, marking its evolution from a traditional school to a state agency focused on broader educational support. This change in status had a profound impact on USDB's service delivery. No longer competing with school districts for state educational funding, USDB was able to offer services to any school that requested assistance, including the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf, a charter school in Salt Lake City at that time. President Nelson observed that this shift enabled the USDB to allocate its resources more effectively, thereby enhancing its focus on serving students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, December 2002).
However, classifying the deaf and blind state schools as an agency rather than a traditional school came with significant drawbacks. As previously mentioned, USDB was not allowed to compete with school districts for legislative funding. Unlike local school districts, USDB did not have a local tax base to support its budget due to its status as an agency. If the legislature imposed financial restrictions on all Utah state agencies, it could result in a reduction in the USDB's budget. This situation might result in insufficient funding for educational programs, potentially putting USDB in violation of federal laws and the Utah Special Education Code (Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 2001). Additionally, USDB's classification as a state agency has resulted in reduced accountability for the education it provides. For instance, the test scores of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in self-contained classrooms were combined with scores from other special education students in the public school housing those classrooms. This situation posed a challenge in effectively assessing the quality of education that USDB students receive.
However, classifying the deaf and blind state schools as an agency rather than a traditional school came with significant drawbacks. As previously mentioned, USDB was not allowed to compete with school districts for legislative funding. Unlike local school districts, USDB did not have a local tax base to support its budget due to its status as an agency. If the legislature imposed financial restrictions on all Utah state agencies, it could result in a reduction in the USDB's budget. This situation might result in insufficient funding for educational programs, potentially putting USDB in violation of federal laws and the Utah Special Education Code (Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 2001). Additionally, USDB's classification as a state agency has resulted in reduced accountability for the education it provides. For instance, the test scores of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in self-contained classrooms were combined with scores from other special education students in the public school housing those classrooms. This situation posed a challenge in effectively assessing the quality of education that USDB students receive.
Ronald J. Nelson
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires all states to provide a continuum of appropriate educational placement options for children with disabilities. Utah needed to maintain its state residential school. Like school districts, USD could receive federal financial support under IDEA. Lawrence M. Siegel, a special education attorney specializing in Deaf education, stated that there should be no legal or financial disincentives for placing these children in specialized schools (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
While Utah's approach to Deaf education emphasizes mainstreaming, it differs from that of other states. 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. Consequently, the Utah School for the Deaf primarily focused on oral methods of instruction, reflecting this interpretation. However, the IEP team plays a critical role in assessing educational placement options that cannot be overstated. This team should make comprehensive choices that cater to each student's unique needs.
Despite Utah's interpretation of LRE, Attorney Siegel emphasized in 2000 that decisions regarding the educational placement of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students should prioritize communication-driven factors. This issue extends beyond educational rights; it also encompasses fundamental human rights. According to Attorney Siegel, Deaf and hard-of-hearing students share the same universal need for language and communication as any other individual. Therefore, this essential requirement should serve as the foundation for all educational decisions.
The educators made a misguided choice by placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the public school system, assuming it is the least restrictive environment, while overlooking the importance of language and communication accessibility needs for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The IEP documentation is a legal instrument that dictates all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should thoroughly assess the student's language and communication accessibility needs before making any placement decisions (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
While Utah's approach to Deaf education emphasizes mainstreaming, it differs from that of other states. 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. Consequently, the Utah School for the Deaf primarily focused on oral methods of instruction, reflecting this interpretation. However, the IEP team plays a critical role in assessing educational placement options that cannot be overstated. This team should make comprehensive choices that cater to each student's unique needs.
Despite Utah's interpretation of LRE, Attorney Siegel emphasized in 2000 that decisions regarding the educational placement of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students should prioritize communication-driven factors. This issue extends beyond educational rights; it also encompasses fundamental human rights. According to Attorney Siegel, Deaf and hard-of-hearing students share the same universal need for language and communication as any other individual. Therefore, this essential requirement should serve as the foundation for all educational decisions.
The educators made a misguided choice by placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the public school system, assuming it is the least restrictive environment, while overlooking the importance of language and communication accessibility needs for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The IEP documentation is a legal instrument that dictates all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should thoroughly assess the student's language and communication accessibility needs before making any placement decisions (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney. Source: Child Law Group
The Commission on Education of the Deaf is
Assigned to Study the Status of Deaf Education in the
United States and Make Recommendations
Assigned to Study the Status of Deaf Education in the
United States and Make Recommendations
Since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has observed a concerning decline in the quality of educational services available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children nationwide. The individual states' interpretation of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision and its inappropriate application to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students largely contribute to this decline. The situation is a critical issue that requires immediate attention.
In the February 1989 issue of The NAD Broadcaster, Gary Olsen published an article titled "Definitely Ours." Gary Olsen highlighted several rights denied to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their parents in his article, "Definitely Ours."
Within the national Deaf community, public schools were regarded as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf children. As an increasing number of Deaf children were placed into mainstream education, many felt isolated from their Deaf peers and lacked access to Deaf adult role models. This isolation hindered their ability to acquire American Sign Language during their formative school years (Erting et al., 1989).
On a national scale, legislators and educators recognized the low academic achievement levels of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986, establishing the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED). The Commission's task included assessing the state of Deaf education in the United States and proposing innovative solutions (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
The Babbidge Committee, which predates COED by 22 years, was appointed by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in March 1964 and headed by Homer Babbidge, Jr. The Babbidge Report, submitted in 1965, found significant weaknesses in the educational system for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, concluding that it was failing to prepare Deaf children for full participation in society (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000). The report even referred to the oral education of Deaf students as a "dismal failure" (Deaf Jam website).
In the February 1989 issue of The NAD Broadcaster, Gary Olsen published an article titled "Definitely Ours." Gary Olsen highlighted several rights denied to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their parents in his article, "Definitely Ours."
- The right of parents to be informed about all educational placement options and learning strategies available for their child at the start of their child's education and at every Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting.
- The right of the child to receive full support services at any chosen placement, ensuring they are not deprived of essential services. This includes having teachers and aides with competent communication skills, access to qualified interpreters (when in mainstream classes), deaf and hard-of-hearing awareness programs for both teachers and students in regular education settings, speech therapists trained in deafness, and programs that promote deaf heritage. Children should also have the opportunity to interact with peers with whom they can communicate directly.
- The right of the child to have a "barrier-free" language environment, where every child can continuously and openly receive and express communication.
- The right of the child to have knowledgeable individuals overseeing educational programs, ensuring that those in various administrative positions within school districts possess the requisite background knowledge and certification in programs related to deafness.
- The right of the child to attend programs with sufficient size to create an appropriate educational and social environment for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (UAD Bulletin, April 1989, p. 6).
Within the national Deaf community, public schools were regarded as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf children. As an increasing number of Deaf children were placed into mainstream education, many felt isolated from their Deaf peers and lacked access to Deaf adult role models. This isolation hindered their ability to acquire American Sign Language during their formative school years (Erting et al., 1989).
On a national scale, legislators and educators recognized the low academic achievement levels of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986, establishing the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED). The Commission's task included assessing the state of Deaf education in the United States and proposing innovative solutions (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
The Babbidge Committee, which predates COED by 22 years, was appointed by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in March 1964 and headed by Homer Babbidge, Jr. The Babbidge Report, submitted in 1965, found significant weaknesses in the educational system for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, concluding that it was failing to prepare Deaf children for full participation in society (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000). The report even referred to the oral education of Deaf students as a "dismal failure" (Deaf Jam website).
The 'Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf' book published in February 1988
Frank G. Bowe chaired the COED Committee and later became known as the Father of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The COED committee met for over eighteen months, involving a significant number of Deaf individuals. The President and Congress received their report, titled Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, on February 4, 1988. The 144-page report expressed dissatisfaction with the state of Deaf education and contained numerous findings and recommendations at the national level. It concluded that the educational experiences of Deaf individuals in the United States were defined by inappropriate priorities and insufficient resources (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, 1988; Commission on Education of the Deaf, 1988; UAD Bulletin, June 1988).
The COED made it clear that the educational status of Deaf children nationwide was unacceptable. The report called for fundamental changes in the provision of educational services to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These recommendations included adjustments to the application of the guidelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). COED expressed concern that states' interpretations of the IDEA law had led to too many Deaf and hard-of-hearing children being placed in mainstream public schools rather than in special schools or centers specifically designed for the Deaf. COED emphasized that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) should focus more on educational content and ensuring that students understand the material being taught, rather than merely on placement options. Furthermore, COED emphasized the need to pay increased attention to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students who are not college-bound (Deseret News, March 21, 1988, p. A2).
The report requested that the U.S. Department of Education clarify the definition of "Least Restrictive Environment," as mandated by the IDEA (Baldwin, 1990; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006). The IDEA law itself does not use the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion." These phrases emerged as states tried to interpret what the law required for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
COED critiqued the education system for failing to recognize and utilize American Sign Language (ASL) and the Deaf community as vital resources for educating Deaf children. The report stated:
Almost unrecognized is the legitimate status of American Sign Language (ASL) as a full-fledged native minority language to which all of the provisions of the Bilingual Education Act should apply. Also too seldom recognized is the need for a deaf child to have other deaf children as part of his or her peer group and to be exposed to deaf adults (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, 1988, p. 9).
The COED made it clear that the educational status of Deaf children nationwide was unacceptable. The report called for fundamental changes in the provision of educational services to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These recommendations included adjustments to the application of the guidelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). COED expressed concern that states' interpretations of the IDEA law had led to too many Deaf and hard-of-hearing children being placed in mainstream public schools rather than in special schools or centers specifically designed for the Deaf. COED emphasized that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) should focus more on educational content and ensuring that students understand the material being taught, rather than merely on placement options. Furthermore, COED emphasized the need to pay increased attention to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students who are not college-bound (Deseret News, March 21, 1988, p. A2).
The report requested that the U.S. Department of Education clarify the definition of "Least Restrictive Environment," as mandated by the IDEA (Baldwin, 1990; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006). The IDEA law itself does not use the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion." These phrases emerged as states tried to interpret what the law required for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
COED critiqued the education system for failing to recognize and utilize American Sign Language (ASL) and the Deaf community as vital resources for educating Deaf children. The report stated:
Almost unrecognized is the legitimate status of American Sign Language (ASL) as a full-fledged native minority language to which all of the provisions of the Bilingual Education Act should apply. Also too seldom recognized is the need for a deaf child to have other deaf children as part of his or her peer group and to be exposed to deaf adults (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, 1988, p. 9).
Frank G. Bowe. Source: Deaf Life
W. David Mortensen, president of UAD, proposed that the USDB Institutional Council form a committee to review the report from the Commission on Education of the Deaf. See the letter below. USDB Superintendent Thomas Bannister appointed four Deaf individuals to serve on the 16-member committee: W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Ronald J. Nelson, and Dennis R. Platt. Although Dave felt that having only one-fourth representation of Deaf members was unfair, he accepted the situation (UAD Bulletin, January 1989; UAD Bulletin, February 1989). The committee developed recommendations for the State Department of Education based on its analysis of the COED's Toward Equality report. Their goal was to raise awareness and influence changes in state laws regarding the education of Deaf children in both residential and mainstream placements.
On September 7, 1989, the Institutional Council accepted all the recommendations from the USDB committee and passed them unanimously. The Institutional Council presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education in October 1989. Despite this study and its recommendations, no changes were made to Utah Deaf Education policies (UAD Bulletin, October 1988, p. 4).
On September 7, 1989, the Institutional Council accepted all the recommendations from the USDB committee and passed them unanimously. The Institutional Council presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education in October 1989. Despite this study and its recommendations, no changes were made to Utah Deaf Education policies (UAD Bulletin, October 1988, p. 4).
W. David Mortensen's Commission on Education of the Deaf to the USDB Institutional Council on October 3, 1988
W. David Mortensen's Commission on Education of the Deaf to the USDB Institutional Council on October 3, 1988
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson: Mainstreaming Is Not
the Answer for All Deaf Children
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, 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; however, Dr. Sanderson, a respected member, expressed his concerns about mainstreaming issues in the UAD Bulletin, which was published in February 1992. He stated that mainstreaming is not the answer for all Deaf children. He raised several critical issues regarding the practice and conduct of the Utah School for the Deaf, as listed below.
Dr. Sanderson argued against mainstreaming all Deaf children in the 1992 UAD Bulletin. As an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he worked with and advocated for hundreds of Deaf individuals. He witnessed firsthand the outcomes of various educational programs and philosophies, observing both the successes and failures of teenagers and adults. He assisted many in furthering their education and training, helping them secure jobs. Dr. Sanderson understood the emotional investment Deaf parents have in their children, recognizing their desire for a "normal" education in nearby schools, similar to that of their hearing peers. He noted that many parents, not just a few, realized that public school programs had consistently underserved their children, both educationally and socially, from the start. He emphasized the importance of individualized education plans, which can provide reassurance and confidence in the adaptability of the educational system.
- 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 based.
Dr. Sanderson argued against mainstreaming all Deaf children in the 1992 UAD Bulletin. As an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he worked with and advocated for hundreds of Deaf individuals. He witnessed firsthand the outcomes of various educational programs and philosophies, observing both the successes and failures of teenagers and adults. He assisted many in furthering their education and training, helping them secure jobs. Dr. Sanderson understood the emotional investment Deaf parents have in their children, recognizing their desire for a "normal" education in nearby schools, similar to that of their hearing peers. He noted that many parents, not just a few, realized that public school programs had consistently underserved their children, both educationally and socially, from the start. He emphasized the importance of individualized education plans, which can provide reassurance and confidence in the adaptability of the educational system.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Furthermore, Dr. Sanderson believed that Utah needs to make more efforts to investigate the outcomes of oral or total communication in mainstream programs. He observed that the term "research" raised concerns among school personnel and parents, and he was both amazed and dismayed that many seemed afraid of facts. He believed that conducting further research would improve our understanding of the programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. Emphasizing unbiased and comprehensive research can empower educators and parents, reassuring them that decisions are based on solid evidence. If research reveals that a program is experiencing difficulties—whether related to oral, total communication, or a mainstream model—the state will be better positioned to address and resolve these issues.
Robert R. Sanderson. 'Mainstreaming Is Not The Answer For All Deaf Children.' Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992
Dr. Sanderson was clear in stating that he does not dispute parents' rights to choose a program for their Deaf children based on fair information. He strongly opposed improper, biased, and one-sided material lacking research support. He stressed the importance of parental choice, which can make parents feel respected and valued, knowing that their input is crucial in the education of Deaf children. He empathized with parents facing 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 seventh grade. He returned to his old class because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada, at that time. Despite his classmates' and teachers' efforts, he was unable to overcome the obstacles. His teachers and principal recommended that he attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He noted that his time at USD, in a residential setting from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to become a serious and disciplined student. Therefore, Dr. Sanderson believed that a Deaf child could have a positive educational experience if they received an education aligned with their natural abilities and perceptual positioning, along with the support of parents and teachers. He emphasized the importance of avoiding limiting the child by prolonging unsuitable situations once it becomes clear that the child is not thriving.
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 seventh grade. He returned to his old class because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada, at that time. Despite his classmates' and teachers' efforts, he was unable to overcome the obstacles. His teachers and principal recommended that he attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He noted that his time at USD, in a residential setting from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to become a serious and disciplined student. Therefore, Dr. Sanderson believed that a Deaf child could have a positive educational experience if they received an education aligned with their natural abilities and perceptual positioning, along with the support of parents and teachers. He emphasized the importance of avoiding limiting 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 closely align with those from 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 specific communication, language, and educational needs rather than adopting a generic or "one-size-fits-all" approach.
The 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. This includes special schools, such as those for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. They expressed concern over a recent trend in the United States to eliminate special schools from the educational continuum, deeming this unacceptable and potentially harmful to a child's development. The CEASD believes that this trend contradicts the intent of IDEA.
When people hear the term 'least restrictive environment,' they often assume it means placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in a classroom with peers who do not have disabilities. However, LRE can also refer to a 'language-rich environment,' as defined in the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, which the CEASD endorsed in their Position Paper from February 2007. The concept of LRE is crucial in Deaf education because it ensures that the educational environment is optimally conducive to each student's learning and development, taking their communication, language, and educational needs into account.
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 U.S. Department of Education, needed to clarify the concept of a 'least restrictive environment.' Dr. Baldwin's statement was significant, as it underscored ongoing debates and the necessity for clarity in Deaf education. The LRE concept has been highly debated in this field, with state schools for the deaf often considering 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 includes decisions about placement. The CEASD further explains that Deaf schools are specifically designed to educate children who are Deaf or have hearing loss. For many students, including those at various grade levels, a Deaf school can be the least restrictive setting, enabling them to achieve successful educational outcomes.
The 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. This includes special schools, such as those for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. They expressed concern over a recent trend in the United States to eliminate special schools from the educational continuum, deeming this unacceptable and potentially harmful to a child's development. The CEASD believes that this trend contradicts the intent of IDEA.
When people hear the term 'least restrictive environment,' they often assume it means placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in a classroom with peers who do not have disabilities. However, LRE can also refer to a 'language-rich environment,' as defined in the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, which the CEASD endorsed in their Position Paper from February 2007. The concept of LRE is crucial in Deaf education because it ensures that the educational environment is optimally conducive to each student's learning and development, taking their communication, language, and educational needs into account.
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 U.S. Department of Education, needed to clarify the concept of a 'least restrictive environment.' Dr. Baldwin's statement was significant, as it underscored ongoing debates and the necessity for clarity in Deaf education. The LRE concept has been highly debated in this field, with state schools for the deaf often considering 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 includes decisions about placement. The CEASD further explains that Deaf schools are specifically designed to educate children who are Deaf or have hearing loss. For many students, including those at various grade levels, a Deaf school can be the least restrictive setting, enabling them to achieve successful educational outcomes.
The Deaf Schools: A Treasure Resource for the State
In 2000, Lawrence M. Siegel, a special education attorney, emphasized the crucial role of state schools for the deaf, which he referred to as a "treasure resource." He urged the state department of education to recognize residential and day schools for the deaf as equitable placement options. Attorney Siegel called for appropriate funding to ensure that every school district has access to these valuable resources. He highlighted that state schools provide expertise in communication and language development for Deaf children, featuring staff who are skilled in communication and offering a comprehensive, communication-rich academic environment (Siegel, 2000).
The Human Right to Language: Communication Access for Deaf Children written by Special Education Attorney Lawrence M. Siegel. Source: Gallaudet University Press
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Child's Bill of Rights
In 1992, the Council of Organizational Representatives made a significant move by presenting a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights during its testimony to the Federal Congress. This pivotal moment marked the request for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the National Education of the Deaf Act (EDA). However, the federal government chose not to include this Bill of Rights in the EDA, leaving it up to each state to develop its own legislation (A Synopsis of the Bill of Rights for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children, 1997).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes, an expert in Deaf Education from the National Association of the Deaf, held a workshop at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont in California. He aimed to assist any group interested in championing a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights in their home state. Dave Mortensen, then president of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD), quickly summoned a team: Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of three Deaf children; Stanley O'Neal, a UAD board member; Kristi Lee Mortensen, a Deaf education advocate; Janice Gillespie, a Deaf representative; and Kenneth L. Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children. They traveled to Fremont for a weekend training focused on strategies for navigating the state legislature and ensuring the Bill of Rights became law (UAD Bulletin, July 1995). Upon returning to Utah, the group attempted to introduce the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into the legislature. Kristi Lee Mortensen later expressed that their difficulties and eventual failure stemmed from Utah's reluctance to embrace change (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes, an expert in Deaf Education from the National Association of the Deaf, held a workshop at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont in California. He aimed to assist any group interested in championing a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights in their home state. Dave Mortensen, then president of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD), quickly summoned a team: Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of three Deaf children; Stanley O'Neal, a UAD board member; Kristi Lee Mortensen, a Deaf education advocate; Janice Gillespie, a Deaf representative; and Kenneth L. Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children. They traveled to Fremont for a weekend training focused on strategies for navigating the state legislature and ensuring the Bill of Rights became law (UAD Bulletin, July 1995). Upon returning to Utah, the group attempted to introduce the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into the legislature. Kristi Lee Mortensen later expressed that their difficulties and eventual failure stemmed from Utah's reluctance to embrace change (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes. Source: The Learning Center for the Deaf
As Chair of the UAD Education Committee, Kristi Lee led collaborative efforts to draft the Utah Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. The teamwork culminated in a comprehensive wish list that outlined desired inclusions for the legislation.
After the development of this Bill of Rights, it was introduced to the Utah legislature in 1996. However, it encountered significant opposition from the Utah School for the Deaf, the Utah State Office of Education, and the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities. These entities argued that the specifics of the bill were redundant, as the federal government had already mandated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Other contributing factors to the bill's failure included Utah's strong tradition of oral education and funding challenges.
- Provide full and equal communication and language access;
- Offer a full range of educational placement options;
- Administer appropriate language assessments for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children;
- Ensure education alongside a sufficient number of peers who share the same language, age, and ability level;
- Provide opportunities for interaction with Deaf and hard-of-hearing adult role models;
- Ensure equal access to all services and programs within their schools;
- Guarantee the availability of qualified and certified personnel capable of communicating directly with Deaf and hard-of-hearing children;
- Affirm the Deaf and hard-of-hearing child's right to equal access to an appropriate education.
After the development of this Bill of Rights, it was introduced to the Utah legislature in 1996. However, it encountered significant opposition from the Utah School for the Deaf, the Utah State Office of Education, and the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities. These entities argued that the specifics of the bill were redundant, as the federal government had already mandated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Other contributing factors to the bill's failure included Utah's strong tradition of oral education and funding challenges.
Kristi Lee Mortensen
In February 1997, several other groups expressed interest in participating in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights legislation. The UAD Education Committee decided to allow these groups to review the Bill of Rights and engage in discussions (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 1997). To facilitate this, the committee postponed introducing the bill to the Utah Legislature in 1997. Helen W. Post, president of the Utah Parent Center and mother of a Deaf daughter, Anne Post Fife, played a role in halting the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights after UAD had put in extensive work.
During a meeting of the UAD Education Committee, members questioned Helen about her decision to halt the bill. She explained that the UAD could not address all the necessary changes on its own. As a parent, she felt the responsibility was too enormous for one person to bear. Similarly, the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah State Office of Education could not manage the issue by themselves, nor could the legislature enact effective changes without collaboration. Helen stressed the importance of all these entities working together. Kristi Lee concurred, stating that obtaining 'buy-in' from various groups was essential. The legislature was unlikely to have passed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into law without a collective effort.
During a meeting of the UAD Education Committee, members questioned Helen about her decision to halt the bill. She explained that the UAD could not address all the necessary changes on its own. As a parent, she felt the responsibility was too enormous for one person to bear. Similarly, the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah State Office of Education could not manage the issue by themselves, nor could the legislature enact effective changes without collaboration. Helen stressed the importance of all these entities working together. Kristi Lee concurred, stating that obtaining 'buy-in' from various groups was essential. The legislature was unlikely to have passed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into law without a collective effort.
Helen W. Post, Director of Utah Parent Center. Source: YouTube
The following month, on March 15, 1997, the UAD held a conference on the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. The presenters were Dr. Innes, Chairman of the NAD Deaf Education Committee, and G. Leon Curtis, the NAD Region IV representative (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, March 1997). Both focused on demonstrating how the Bill of Rights could benefit Deaf and hard-of-hearing children under current state laws. Meanwhile, Kristi Lee and the UAD Deaf Education Committee began working on their version of the bill. However, in the fall of 1997, Dr. Innes requested that the bill be put on hold due to the federal reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which took effect in June 1997 and included amendments that could contradict the UAD's bill proposal. It was necessary to study these amendments and their implications for children who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing. If the UAD had pushed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights through the 1998 Legislative Session without this understanding, it could have caused complications. Kristi Lee and the UAD agreed to wait until the NAD determined how to interpret the reauthorization's effects on Deaf children, after which Dr. Innes could plan another training session. There was speculation that Gallaudet University would host training in 1998 (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4).
While these agencies believed that the IDEA addressed the language needs outlined in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, the law at that time did not consider language acquisition or preferred communication methods. The Utah State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf argued that they were already providing an appropriate education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Their united opposition ultimately persuaded legislators to take no action on the matter.
Kristi Lee observed that IEP teams had traditionally placed Deaf children in schools based primarily on their ability to hear and speak, a practice she referred to as the "Utah way." Numerous recent studies indicated significant issues arising from the incorrect placement of Deaf children. One consequence of these misguided placements was that many children reached adulthood requiring extensive support from mental health counselors. Often, these children lacked an adequate education, which hindered their ability to secure employment, resulting in their reliance on government assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Additionally, some children fell behind in developing communication skills due to insufficient placement that did not promote their language development (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Kristi Lee stated, "We already know that it is very difficult for a full-grown adult to acquire new learning compared with a very young person who is in a language-communication educational environment where they experience no obstacles in communication and learning" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4). She felt that the Utah School for the Deaf viewed the Bill of Rights as a threat, not wanting to accept changes to their long-standing methods of teaching the Deaf. Did the Utah School for the Deaf realize the significant impact of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, which would apply to every school system in the state, not just the state school? (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2006).
Following the 2003 legislative session, Dr. Lee Robinson, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, drafted a document outlining the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights. This document was completed on October 7, 2003. However, Kristi Lee pointed out that children and their families had access to only a limited number of these services. She advocated for the bill to be enacted through legislation rather than remaining merely a part of the school's mission (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005). Below, the Utah School for the Deaf outlines the policy for the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights.
While these agencies believed that the IDEA addressed the language needs outlined in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, the law at that time did not consider language acquisition or preferred communication methods. The Utah State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf argued that they were already providing an appropriate education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Their united opposition ultimately persuaded legislators to take no action on the matter.
Kristi Lee observed that IEP teams had traditionally placed Deaf children in schools based primarily on their ability to hear and speak, a practice she referred to as the "Utah way." Numerous recent studies indicated significant issues arising from the incorrect placement of Deaf children. One consequence of these misguided placements was that many children reached adulthood requiring extensive support from mental health counselors. Often, these children lacked an adequate education, which hindered their ability to secure employment, resulting in their reliance on government assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Additionally, some children fell behind in developing communication skills due to insufficient placement that did not promote their language development (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Kristi Lee stated, "We already know that it is very difficult for a full-grown adult to acquire new learning compared with a very young person who is in a language-communication educational environment where they experience no obstacles in communication and learning" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4). She felt that the Utah School for the Deaf viewed the Bill of Rights as a threat, not wanting to accept changes to their long-standing methods of teaching the Deaf. Did the Utah School for the Deaf realize the significant impact of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, which would apply to every school system in the state, not just the state school? (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2006).
Following the 2003 legislative session, Dr. Lee Robinson, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, drafted a document outlining the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights. This document was completed on October 7, 2003. However, Kristi Lee pointed out that children and their families had access to only a limited number of these services. She advocated for the bill to be enacted through legislation rather than remaining merely a part of the school's mission (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005). Below, the Utah School for the Deaf outlines the policy for the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights.
On January 13, 2006, Dr. Innes, then the Director of the Gallaudet Leadership Institute, returned to Utah to review the UAD's Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights. His presentation included an overview of Deaf education in the United States, with a specific focus on Utah. He discussed several critical issues that were being addressed nationwide:
Dr. Innes emphasized the importance of passing a Bill of Rights in Utah, citing that existing federal laws did not provide sufficient legal language to adequately support the needs of Deaf children. The bill needed to highlight the necessity of communication. The current proposal from the UAD only focused on accessibility without clearly defining specific needs. If well-written, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights could help parents evaluate whether their child's educational placement is appropriate. This clarity would also enable the IEP team to better assist families (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Although parents of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children were eager to utilize the proposed bill aimed at expanding their children's learning environments, the Deaf Child's Bill ultimately fell through due to the complexities of the Deaf educational system in Utah (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2007). Nevertheless, this Bill of Rights has the potential to address the unique communication needs of each Deaf child, which will significantly influence their educational placements. Their preferred modes of communication and language will drive their instructional environments. This focus on individualized communication strategies is crucial for fostering an inclusive educational environment. By recognizing the diverse needs of these children, educators can design more effective learning experiences that promote both academic success and personal growth.
- Increasing language and communication access;
- Improving accessibility for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to encourage free-flowing interactions with both Deaf and hearing peers; and
- Ensuring more certified educators in Deaf Education to create a supportive environment for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
Dr. Innes emphasized the importance of passing a Bill of Rights in Utah, citing that existing federal laws did not provide sufficient legal language to adequately support the needs of Deaf children. The bill needed to highlight the necessity of communication. The current proposal from the UAD only focused on accessibility without clearly defining specific needs. If well-written, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights could help parents evaluate whether their child's educational placement is appropriate. This clarity would also enable the IEP team to better assist families (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Although parents of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children were eager to utilize the proposed bill aimed at expanding their children's learning environments, the Deaf Child's Bill ultimately fell through due to the complexities of the Deaf educational system in Utah (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2007). Nevertheless, this Bill of Rights has the potential to address the unique communication needs of each Deaf child, which will significantly influence their educational placements. Their preferred modes of communication and language will drive their instructional environments. This focus on individualized communication strategies is crucial for fostering an inclusive educational environment. By recognizing the diverse needs of these children, educators can design more effective learning experiences that promote both academic success and personal growth.
An Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual
Teaching Method in Utah
Part IV
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Contributing Edited by Valerie G. Kinney and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2014
Updated in 2025
Teaching Method in Utah
Part IV
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Contributing Edited by Valerie G. Kinney and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2014
Updated in 2025
The Utah School for the Deaf Is Reluctant to Implement
the Bilingual/Bicultural Education
the Bilingual/Bicultural Education
As previously mentioned in Part III, total communication programs gained popularity in the United States during the 1970s because educators of Deaf children believed that this approach addressed their visual needs. However, questions arose about whether these children were truly acquiring language. In response, linguists and educators from the United States, Sweden, France, and Denmark began researching to determine if bilingual education could be effectively applied to the education of Deaf children. Consequently, a consensus emerged among these professionals that the natural sign language of Deaf communities should be utilized in educational settings for Deaf children. Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of hiring more culturally Deaf teachers. These teachers would not only serve as language models but also as positive role models for the Deaf students under their guidance. Their native use of the language could bridge the acquisition gap that hearing parents or teachers could not fill.
In 1981, a major victory was achieved when Sweden passed a law granting Deaf individuals the right to a bilingual education. In this context, schools for Deaf children adopted Swedish Sign Language as their primary language of instruction (Erting et al., 1989). Sweden was the first country to officially recognize Swedish Sign Language as the first language of Deaf individuals. Ten years later, in 1991, the Danish government followed suit, mandating Danish Sign Language as the language of instruction for their Deaf students (Timmermans, 2003).
In the United States, the bilingual-bicultural movement was initiated in 1989 at The Learning Center for the Deaf, a private school located in Framingham, Massachusetts. This marked the beginning of a gradual transformation in Deaf education. In 1990, the Indiana School for the Deaf became the first state school to implement a bilingual program. Other state schools for the Deaf soon followed this trend. This Bi-Bi movement, as it has come to be known, emerged after 30 years of research and documentation underscoring the necessity of using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom for Deaf children, serving both as the language of instruction and as a means for Deaf children to learn written English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010).
While these positive changes were taking place in Deaf education in the early 1990s, the Utah School for the Deaf continued to refuse the bilingual approach. Their existing programs were categorized as oral and total communication programs, which had been in place for many decades. However, these methods did not address the concerns of the Utah Deaf community regarding literacy among Deaf students. Local Deaf community members questioned whether these two mutually exclusive programs truly met their language and communication needs. At that time, parents enrolling their Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf had to choose between the two options, and many were unhappy with these choices (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). As research on American Sign Language gained prominence, Deaf professionals, Utah Deaf community members, and some parents began asking, "Why couldn't [ASL] be used [in Deaf classrooms]?" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, December 1, 2007).
Among those families was the O'Hara family. In 1992 and 1995, the O'Hara family requested that the Utah School for the Deaf implement a bilingual-bicultural program for their child (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). This initiative was fueled by Bronwyn O'Hara, the hearing mother, who had read research studies and engaged with local Deaf community leaders from 1987 to 1995. With their assistance, she began to realize that both the oral and total communication approaches had significant linguistic shortcomings. She was determined that her Deaf children should not attend school without access to language. Bronwyn shared the literature she gathered on the Bi-Bi approach, the importance of ASL, Deaf adult language models, Deaf role models, and Deaf peers with the Utah School for the Deaf administrators. She also established the Support Group for Deaf Education to disseminate this information among other parents. Steven W. Noyce, the program director, labeled her as an extremist and a zealot for her efforts. He actively discouraged other parents from getting in touch with her.
In 1981, a major victory was achieved when Sweden passed a law granting Deaf individuals the right to a bilingual education. In this context, schools for Deaf children adopted Swedish Sign Language as their primary language of instruction (Erting et al., 1989). Sweden was the first country to officially recognize Swedish Sign Language as the first language of Deaf individuals. Ten years later, in 1991, the Danish government followed suit, mandating Danish Sign Language as the language of instruction for their Deaf students (Timmermans, 2003).
In the United States, the bilingual-bicultural movement was initiated in 1989 at The Learning Center for the Deaf, a private school located in Framingham, Massachusetts. This marked the beginning of a gradual transformation in Deaf education. In 1990, the Indiana School for the Deaf became the first state school to implement a bilingual program. Other state schools for the Deaf soon followed this trend. This Bi-Bi movement, as it has come to be known, emerged after 30 years of research and documentation underscoring the necessity of using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom for Deaf children, serving both as the language of instruction and as a means for Deaf children to learn written English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010).
While these positive changes were taking place in Deaf education in the early 1990s, the Utah School for the Deaf continued to refuse the bilingual approach. Their existing programs were categorized as oral and total communication programs, which had been in place for many decades. However, these methods did not address the concerns of the Utah Deaf community regarding literacy among Deaf students. Local Deaf community members questioned whether these two mutually exclusive programs truly met their language and communication needs. At that time, parents enrolling their Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf had to choose between the two options, and many were unhappy with these choices (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). As research on American Sign Language gained prominence, Deaf professionals, Utah Deaf community members, and some parents began asking, "Why couldn't [ASL] be used [in Deaf classrooms]?" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, December 1, 2007).
Among those families was the O'Hara family. In 1992 and 1995, the O'Hara family requested that the Utah School for the Deaf implement a bilingual-bicultural program for their child (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). This initiative was fueled by Bronwyn O'Hara, the hearing mother, who had read research studies and engaged with local Deaf community leaders from 1987 to 1995. With their assistance, she began to realize that both the oral and total communication approaches had significant linguistic shortcomings. She was determined that her Deaf children should not attend school without access to language. Bronwyn shared the literature she gathered on the Bi-Bi approach, the importance of ASL, Deaf adult language models, Deaf role models, and Deaf peers with the Utah School for the Deaf administrators. She also established the Support Group for Deaf Education to disseminate this information among other parents. Steven W. Noyce, the program director, labeled her as an extremist and a zealot for her efforts. He actively discouraged other parents from getting in touch with her.
Steven W. Noyce served as the program director for the Utah Schools for the Deaf, overseeing all Deaf children outside of Salt Lake City and Ogden. He maintained that the goal of USD's programs was "to teach [Deaf students] English, not ASL." Steven further stated, "Schools need to teach English because that is what will determine a Deaf person's success" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). He informed Bronwyn that the materials she provided over the eight years they lived in Utah filled three very thick file folders. Nevertheless, despite the research studies she presented, he remained firm in his opposition to using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
Bronwyn expressed her disappointment, stating, "I am unhappy with the school system and have tried to figure out the right framework to solve this problem." In her view, "the administration has a personal bias against the idea of a visual language. The school is definitely not a 'barrier-free environment" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). At that time, USD Superintendent David West acknowledged that the new bilingual/bicultural approach would address a gap in the school's program; however, he was not yet ready to implement it (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). Two of the critical challenges at this time were that 1) few current USD teachers knew ASL, and 2) USD teachers and administrators were not trained in the bilingual-bicultural approach for educating Deaf children (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1).
To highlight the benefits of ASL for Deaf students, a local Deaf professional, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, shared her insights with the Utah School for the Deaf through reports presented in person to the Institutional Council, the governing body of the Utah School for the Deaf. Among many points, she explained that Deaf children who learn ASL as their first language develop enhanced language skills, which help them learn English more effectively. She stated, "A Deaf child does need exposure to English early in life, but his/her visual needs overwhelm what English can offer" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). Despite this influx of information, the Utah School for the Deaf administration did not take any steps toward implementing this fundamental program change.
Bronwyn expressed her disappointment, stating, "I am unhappy with the school system and have tried to figure out the right framework to solve this problem." In her view, "the administration has a personal bias against the idea of a visual language. The school is definitely not a 'barrier-free environment" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). At that time, USD Superintendent David West acknowledged that the new bilingual/bicultural approach would address a gap in the school's program; however, he was not yet ready to implement it (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). Two of the critical challenges at this time were that 1) few current USD teachers knew ASL, and 2) USD teachers and administrators were not trained in the bilingual-bicultural approach for educating Deaf children (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1).
To highlight the benefits of ASL for Deaf students, a local Deaf professional, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, shared her insights with the Utah School for the Deaf through reports presented in person to the Institutional Council, the governing body of the Utah School for the Deaf. Among many points, she explained that Deaf children who learn ASL as their first language develop enhanced language skills, which help them learn English more effectively. She stated, "A Deaf child does need exposure to English early in life, but his/her visual needs overwhelm what English can offer" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). Despite this influx of information, the Utah School for the Deaf administration did not take any steps toward implementing this fundamental program change.
During the early 1990s, while the O'Hara family was advocating for their child, Ellen, a handful of schools for the deaf in the nation began adopting the bilingual/bicultural educational approach (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). In 1995, like many other families before them, the O'Hara family moved to Indiana to enroll Ellen in a school that embraced the bilingual/bicultural approach. This "two-language" strategy made more sense to them than the options available in Utah. Below is a summary written by Bronwyn O'Hara about her struggle with the Utah School for the Deaf's educational system during the eight years they lived in Utah from 1987 to 1995.
One Family’s Story
It was June 1987 when we, the O’Hara family, moved from Idaho to Utah. We had one deaf pre-teen daughter, one hard of hearing son, two hearing children, and a deaf toddler. Educational access to sign language for the two deaf children was not available through the Utah public school system. Turning to the school for the deaf as the logical place to get appropriate services, it was quite a shock to find inadequate services.
For our 2-year-old daughter, I requested a signing Parent-Infant Program (PIP) advisor and was told there were none. Skip Reese, the PIP director at the time, told me that this program, though inadequate at present, was a lot better than it had been 20 years ago, as if that made the inadequacies okay. I called Thomas Clark, who founded the SKI-HI program that provided the basis for the USD PIP program. I wanted him to help me get the services my daughter needed. He counseled me to watch the movie Persuasion and apply the principles therein to my deaf toddler’s situation. That really was no help.
For my seventh grader, there was no signing classroom nor could I get an interpreter via her Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The answers I received from USD made our family feel that our deaf children would not receive the education they needed.
How could knowing that the current program, bad as it was and better than the supposedly horrible program of twenty years ago, help with our children’s educational needs of today? Our deaf children needed these better services now. They couldn’t stop growing up in order to wait for educational improvements.
As a result of these insufficient answers, our family went in search of the local Deaf community. We became well acquainted with many of the active deaf leaders in both Provo and Salt Lake City. Thus, began our years of being tutored and mentored in Deaf culture and language by the Deaf community. This continued for the next 8 years. In the Provo-Orem area, the most influential person for us was Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz. The second most influential person was Julie Gergely Eldredge. Without them, we could never have understood our deaf children’s needs or the principles of how language is acquired.
In the meantime, as I interfaced with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), I eagerly shared the educational articles and research studies that I’d received from the Deaf community leaders/professionals. I thought the school would welcome this information. I had the belief that the administration would want to improve their school and increase the options they offered to parents. I attended innumerable USDB Institutional Council meetings, copied and mailed on-going information to my children’s program coordinator, Steve Noyce, and used my children’s IEP meetings as a forum to discuss these articles with the educators of the deaf and ask for services. For a brief period I convinced Noyce to allow an ASL story time for the Total Communication classroom in Orem once a week. To fund this, I wrote and got a grant from a local Art organization to pay the storytellers, Nannette Hix and Julie Eldredge. However, when the grant came to an end, the story time was discontinued. Steve told me that USD didn’t want to have to pay the storytellers, even though the storytellers could have legitimately been classified as educational specialists. Nor did USD want to apply for another grant so that the ASL story time could continue. I was very disappointed in Steve’s lack of support. I felt he didn’t see the value in deaf artisans being showcased for their storytelling talent nor see that the children and teachers in the classroom were benefiting from this experience.
In the 8 years we lived in Utah, I wrote innumerable letters to Utah State legislators, members of the Utah State Board of Education, the Utah State Special Education director, Steve Kukic, and USDB’s Institutional Council members. I advocated for sign language classes for parents, which was possible through the IEP but was never organized nor offered by the deaf school. At my insistence but right before our family moved out-of-state, USDB did put in a toll-free phone line so parents could call the school without paying long-distance fees. This WATTS line was discontinued after about a year.
After 5 years of striving to work with those in charge of the USD program and seeing that the deaf educational programs remained inadequate, I decided it was time to network with other parents. The more parents asking for the same thing could create a need that the school administrators would have to address. One person could easily be ignored but not a whole group of parents. I created the Support Group for Deaf Education with the intent to help other parents become as informed about the educational needs of their deaf child (ren) as I had become. I set up organized parent meetings, guest speakers, and a monthly newsletter. After the first year and a half of holding meetings, I discontinued the meetings and only mailed out the monthly newsletter. The meetings and newsletters helped parents learn how to tell stories to their children, teach their children manners, understand the inequality of the deaf academic program in Utah, what the term ‘bilingual’ meant, how a child learns language, how the brain develops, what hearing parents could learn from deaf parents, and some reviews of Utah Special Education law. In order to reach as many parents of deaf children as possible in the state, I wrote an article for publication in the Utah Parent Center newsletter (Utah Parent Center April 1991) explaining the purpose of this parent group. I wanted parents to know of this resource.
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) validated my efforts by sending me to an educational conference in Nebraska and also to a workshop held at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont. The one at CSD-Fremont was put on by Gallaudet University and conducted by Dr. Jay Innes. During the educational overhaul Utah went through in the late 1980’s, I was able to bring information from this conference/workshop to the Utah COED committee during their public forums. This information focused on a deaf child’s need for language, deaf peers, deaf adult role-models, and direct access to teachers without the use of interpreters. This was to highlight a deaf child’s need for American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
I found that USDB Superintendent David West was sympathetic to my requests for change and for language-based access to education. However, he was unable to overhaul the state school system. He couldn’t overcome the entrenched Oral/Aural and Total Communication programs. He didn’t stay long in Utah, leaving for a position at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont where ASL was the language of instruction. I felt it was a sad day when we lost Superintendent West. I believe he could have started the process of change and would have been a valuable advocate.
As I gained more understanding about ASL and the need for the deaf school to have competent instructors, during one of my daughter’s IEP meetings, I asked Steve Noyce for my daughter’s classroom instruction to be via ASL. He told me that there were no teachers to hire. I asked him why didn’t the deaf school tell the local universities what kind of teachers to train so USDB could hire them? He explained that the University of Utah only trained teachers in the Oral method. I don’t remember what he said about Utah State University. Steve didn’t advocate for any changes nor mention how such changes could be brought about.
As the years went by, all of these discussions seemed to fall on ‘deaf’ hearing ears. Our family began to feel desperate. Our children’s prime learning years were being lost in the environment of the Utah State Deaf School where American Sign Language was not the language of instruction. The programs at USD were either Total Communication or Oral/Aural. Those two were not expected to be successful with a deaf child. We felt a sense of urgency that was not shared by our program coordinator, Steve Noyce. Our oldest deaf daughter, Molly, was high school age and the younger one, Ellen, was beginning early elementary school. It was a time of decision for our family.
I made one last attempt to find a solution by consulting with the Legal Center for the Handicapped in Salt Lake City. I wanted to find out how to defend my deaf children’s right to language. Hearing parents don’t think about whether their children have language in school. In comparison the deaf school children were being deprived of language in both the Oral/Aural program and the Total Communication program. I thought this Center could help me pull together a lawsuit to force USDB to provide my children a language of instruction that was a bonafide language rather than Signing Exact English (S.E.E.), Conceptually Accurate Signed English (C.A.S.E.) or Pidgin Signed English (P.S.E.). American Sign Language was a true language that was also compatible with their deafness. I reasoned that if hearing school peers have access to their language of spoken/written English in the classroom, why couldn’t my children have access to their language of sign in their classroom too? My deaf children’s language was American Sign Language, which was not being supplied by the school. In fact, USD was withholding their language from them. In the Total Communication setting, the school was using a variety of non-language signing modalities for instruction. These modalities could not provide educational access and should be judged as inappropriate in achieving any of the educational IEP goals for my deaf children. My reasoning was that it would be through American Sign Language that my children would be able to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) that was guaranteed in law.
The lawyer at the Legal Center was sympathetic but he explained they did not and could not get involved with a ‘language’ issue. That had never been brought up before. Their specific work was focused on workplace discrimination, not with civil rights or educational discrimination in the school setting. At the time, I knew of no other legal resource that would take the school to court over this issue of determining what was an appropriate educational language for deaf school children, specifically my deaf children.
My desperation mounted. In my discussions with Steve Noyce, I came to realize that USD was governed by two basic educational principles. The two principles used as criteria for meeting deaf children’s classroom needs were 1) the child had to fail before the school was mandated by law to change that child’s program and 2) the course material offered at USD was remedial-based only. With two very bright deaf children to educate, there was no possibility of failing. They would compensate for the language deprivations they encountered in the program. There was nothing else I could use to create a need for change. In desperation, we decided our daughters had to attend a school outside of Utah. The California School for the Deaf-Fremont had the highest academic rating among the Utah Deaf community and was suggested as a good place to send our daughters. This was arranged.
Molly, a high school junior, was back in Utah in a month. Not wanting to strike up frustrating dealings with USDB again, I approached the Special Education director, Tom Hudson, in our local Nebo school district. He refused to provide a sign language interpreter in Molly‘s classroom. The public school didn’t have to provide any special services, if the student wasn’t failing. This sounded similar to what the deaf school told me. I was surprised at this but countered his refusal by saying I would send Molly to school without her hearing aid. Then she would need a sign-language interpreter. He said he could take the family to court for withholding from Molly what she needed for academic success. It struck me as such a double standard! The school could withhold what Molly needed but I couldn’t! He implied that he could successfully make the charges of willfully withholding something for Molly's educational needs be upheld in court because we, the parents, had already been giving Molly the use of a hearing aid. I wasn’t sure where my legal standing was in the face of that threat. Instead I asked Tom what was the legal age in Utah for taking the GED (General Equivalency Degree) exam. He told me age 17.
Finding that the local community college, Utah Valley Community College, provided sign language interpreters without a fuss, Molly decided to take the GED on her 17th birthday, two months later, and she moved right into the college realm of education.
Ellen remained at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont for her 2nd and 3rd grade years. Looking back, Ellen says this educational opportunity was a ’turning-point’ for her. Her ‘eyes were opened’ to realizing that she was smart and that she had potential. But two years was all we could manage, and Ellen was brought back to USDB for 4th grade. One and a half frustrating years later, it was at this juncture that we decided to look for a school that had a Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy already in place. We couldn’t wait for Utah to ‘catch up’ with the advances in Deaf Education. The Bi-Bi philosophy combined the educational instruction in ASL with the teaching of written English, as well as including options for spoken English. We wanted Ellen to have the education, language models, and peer interactions that she deserved. Just as her hearing peers had public-funded education in their ’native’ language, she should too. Based on all the research findings along with the level of success we wanted for our youngest daughter, the school that seemed to meet Ellen’s needs best was the Indiana School for the Deaf in Indianapolis, Indiana. The family moved in February 1995 while Ellen was in 5th grade.
Over the intervening years of 1995-2009, there have been some strides of improvement at USD, notably the addition of the Deaf Mentor program as part of the Parent-Infant Program (PIP) and the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf under USDB
Bronwyn O’Hara
December 1, 2007
Second editing-August 27, 2009
Third editing-January 17, 2013
Fourth Editing-September 27, 2013
Fifth Editing-May 2014
For our 2-year-old daughter, I requested a signing Parent-Infant Program (PIP) advisor and was told there were none. Skip Reese, the PIP director at the time, told me that this program, though inadequate at present, was a lot better than it had been 20 years ago, as if that made the inadequacies okay. I called Thomas Clark, who founded the SKI-HI program that provided the basis for the USD PIP program. I wanted him to help me get the services my daughter needed. He counseled me to watch the movie Persuasion and apply the principles therein to my deaf toddler’s situation. That really was no help.
For my seventh grader, there was no signing classroom nor could I get an interpreter via her Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The answers I received from USD made our family feel that our deaf children would not receive the education they needed.
How could knowing that the current program, bad as it was and better than the supposedly horrible program of twenty years ago, help with our children’s educational needs of today? Our deaf children needed these better services now. They couldn’t stop growing up in order to wait for educational improvements.
As a result of these insufficient answers, our family went in search of the local Deaf community. We became well acquainted with many of the active deaf leaders in both Provo and Salt Lake City. Thus, began our years of being tutored and mentored in Deaf culture and language by the Deaf community. This continued for the next 8 years. In the Provo-Orem area, the most influential person for us was Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz. The second most influential person was Julie Gergely Eldredge. Without them, we could never have understood our deaf children’s needs or the principles of how language is acquired.
In the meantime, as I interfaced with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), I eagerly shared the educational articles and research studies that I’d received from the Deaf community leaders/professionals. I thought the school would welcome this information. I had the belief that the administration would want to improve their school and increase the options they offered to parents. I attended innumerable USDB Institutional Council meetings, copied and mailed on-going information to my children’s program coordinator, Steve Noyce, and used my children’s IEP meetings as a forum to discuss these articles with the educators of the deaf and ask for services. For a brief period I convinced Noyce to allow an ASL story time for the Total Communication classroom in Orem once a week. To fund this, I wrote and got a grant from a local Art organization to pay the storytellers, Nannette Hix and Julie Eldredge. However, when the grant came to an end, the story time was discontinued. Steve told me that USD didn’t want to have to pay the storytellers, even though the storytellers could have legitimately been classified as educational specialists. Nor did USD want to apply for another grant so that the ASL story time could continue. I was very disappointed in Steve’s lack of support. I felt he didn’t see the value in deaf artisans being showcased for their storytelling talent nor see that the children and teachers in the classroom were benefiting from this experience.
In the 8 years we lived in Utah, I wrote innumerable letters to Utah State legislators, members of the Utah State Board of Education, the Utah State Special Education director, Steve Kukic, and USDB’s Institutional Council members. I advocated for sign language classes for parents, which was possible through the IEP but was never organized nor offered by the deaf school. At my insistence but right before our family moved out-of-state, USDB did put in a toll-free phone line so parents could call the school without paying long-distance fees. This WATTS line was discontinued after about a year.
After 5 years of striving to work with those in charge of the USD program and seeing that the deaf educational programs remained inadequate, I decided it was time to network with other parents. The more parents asking for the same thing could create a need that the school administrators would have to address. One person could easily be ignored but not a whole group of parents. I created the Support Group for Deaf Education with the intent to help other parents become as informed about the educational needs of their deaf child (ren) as I had become. I set up organized parent meetings, guest speakers, and a monthly newsletter. After the first year and a half of holding meetings, I discontinued the meetings and only mailed out the monthly newsletter. The meetings and newsletters helped parents learn how to tell stories to their children, teach their children manners, understand the inequality of the deaf academic program in Utah, what the term ‘bilingual’ meant, how a child learns language, how the brain develops, what hearing parents could learn from deaf parents, and some reviews of Utah Special Education law. In order to reach as many parents of deaf children as possible in the state, I wrote an article for publication in the Utah Parent Center newsletter (Utah Parent Center April 1991) explaining the purpose of this parent group. I wanted parents to know of this resource.
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) validated my efforts by sending me to an educational conference in Nebraska and also to a workshop held at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont. The one at CSD-Fremont was put on by Gallaudet University and conducted by Dr. Jay Innes. During the educational overhaul Utah went through in the late 1980’s, I was able to bring information from this conference/workshop to the Utah COED committee during their public forums. This information focused on a deaf child’s need for language, deaf peers, deaf adult role-models, and direct access to teachers without the use of interpreters. This was to highlight a deaf child’s need for American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
I found that USDB Superintendent David West was sympathetic to my requests for change and for language-based access to education. However, he was unable to overhaul the state school system. He couldn’t overcome the entrenched Oral/Aural and Total Communication programs. He didn’t stay long in Utah, leaving for a position at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont where ASL was the language of instruction. I felt it was a sad day when we lost Superintendent West. I believe he could have started the process of change and would have been a valuable advocate.
As I gained more understanding about ASL and the need for the deaf school to have competent instructors, during one of my daughter’s IEP meetings, I asked Steve Noyce for my daughter’s classroom instruction to be via ASL. He told me that there were no teachers to hire. I asked him why didn’t the deaf school tell the local universities what kind of teachers to train so USDB could hire them? He explained that the University of Utah only trained teachers in the Oral method. I don’t remember what he said about Utah State University. Steve didn’t advocate for any changes nor mention how such changes could be brought about.
As the years went by, all of these discussions seemed to fall on ‘deaf’ hearing ears. Our family began to feel desperate. Our children’s prime learning years were being lost in the environment of the Utah State Deaf School where American Sign Language was not the language of instruction. The programs at USD were either Total Communication or Oral/Aural. Those two were not expected to be successful with a deaf child. We felt a sense of urgency that was not shared by our program coordinator, Steve Noyce. Our oldest deaf daughter, Molly, was high school age and the younger one, Ellen, was beginning early elementary school. It was a time of decision for our family.
I made one last attempt to find a solution by consulting with the Legal Center for the Handicapped in Salt Lake City. I wanted to find out how to defend my deaf children’s right to language. Hearing parents don’t think about whether their children have language in school. In comparison the deaf school children were being deprived of language in both the Oral/Aural program and the Total Communication program. I thought this Center could help me pull together a lawsuit to force USDB to provide my children a language of instruction that was a bonafide language rather than Signing Exact English (S.E.E.), Conceptually Accurate Signed English (C.A.S.E.) or Pidgin Signed English (P.S.E.). American Sign Language was a true language that was also compatible with their deafness. I reasoned that if hearing school peers have access to their language of spoken/written English in the classroom, why couldn’t my children have access to their language of sign in their classroom too? My deaf children’s language was American Sign Language, which was not being supplied by the school. In fact, USD was withholding their language from them. In the Total Communication setting, the school was using a variety of non-language signing modalities for instruction. These modalities could not provide educational access and should be judged as inappropriate in achieving any of the educational IEP goals for my deaf children. My reasoning was that it would be through American Sign Language that my children would be able to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) that was guaranteed in law.
The lawyer at the Legal Center was sympathetic but he explained they did not and could not get involved with a ‘language’ issue. That had never been brought up before. Their specific work was focused on workplace discrimination, not with civil rights or educational discrimination in the school setting. At the time, I knew of no other legal resource that would take the school to court over this issue of determining what was an appropriate educational language for deaf school children, specifically my deaf children.
My desperation mounted. In my discussions with Steve Noyce, I came to realize that USD was governed by two basic educational principles. The two principles used as criteria for meeting deaf children’s classroom needs were 1) the child had to fail before the school was mandated by law to change that child’s program and 2) the course material offered at USD was remedial-based only. With two very bright deaf children to educate, there was no possibility of failing. They would compensate for the language deprivations they encountered in the program. There was nothing else I could use to create a need for change. In desperation, we decided our daughters had to attend a school outside of Utah. The California School for the Deaf-Fremont had the highest academic rating among the Utah Deaf community and was suggested as a good place to send our daughters. This was arranged.
Molly, a high school junior, was back in Utah in a month. Not wanting to strike up frustrating dealings with USDB again, I approached the Special Education director, Tom Hudson, in our local Nebo school district. He refused to provide a sign language interpreter in Molly‘s classroom. The public school didn’t have to provide any special services, if the student wasn’t failing. This sounded similar to what the deaf school told me. I was surprised at this but countered his refusal by saying I would send Molly to school without her hearing aid. Then she would need a sign-language interpreter. He said he could take the family to court for withholding from Molly what she needed for academic success. It struck me as such a double standard! The school could withhold what Molly needed but I couldn’t! He implied that he could successfully make the charges of willfully withholding something for Molly's educational needs be upheld in court because we, the parents, had already been giving Molly the use of a hearing aid. I wasn’t sure where my legal standing was in the face of that threat. Instead I asked Tom what was the legal age in Utah for taking the GED (General Equivalency Degree) exam. He told me age 17.
Finding that the local community college, Utah Valley Community College, provided sign language interpreters without a fuss, Molly decided to take the GED on her 17th birthday, two months later, and she moved right into the college realm of education.
Ellen remained at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont for her 2nd and 3rd grade years. Looking back, Ellen says this educational opportunity was a ’turning-point’ for her. Her ‘eyes were opened’ to realizing that she was smart and that she had potential. But two years was all we could manage, and Ellen was brought back to USDB for 4th grade. One and a half frustrating years later, it was at this juncture that we decided to look for a school that had a Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy already in place. We couldn’t wait for Utah to ‘catch up’ with the advances in Deaf Education. The Bi-Bi philosophy combined the educational instruction in ASL with the teaching of written English, as well as including options for spoken English. We wanted Ellen to have the education, language models, and peer interactions that she deserved. Just as her hearing peers had public-funded education in their ’native’ language, she should too. Based on all the research findings along with the level of success we wanted for our youngest daughter, the school that seemed to meet Ellen’s needs best was the Indiana School for the Deaf in Indianapolis, Indiana. The family moved in February 1995 while Ellen was in 5th grade.
Over the intervening years of 1995-2009, there have been some strides of improvement at USD, notably the addition of the Deaf Mentor program as part of the Parent-Infant Program (PIP) and the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf under USDB
Bronwyn O’Hara
December 1, 2007
Second editing-August 27, 2009
Third editing-January 17, 2013
Fourth Editing-September 27, 2013
Fifth Editing-May 2014
Did You Know?
When Bronwyn O'Hara was labeled an extremist and a zealot by Steven W. Noyce, she was not the only one affected by his remarks. One parent remarked, "There has been a concerted effort by many members of the Utah School for the Deaf administrative staff to prevent parents from networking, to keep parents in conflict with one another, and to keep parents uninformed about the current findings in Deaf Education" (UAD Bulletin, February 1996, p. 12).
The Creation of the Utah Deaf Bilingual and the Bicultural Conference
Led to the Establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Led to the Establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The 1997 Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This significant event was made possible through the collaborative efforts of the Utah Deaf community, led by Shirley Hortie Platt, a dedicated Deaf mentor in the Parent Infant Program (PIP) of the Utah School for the Deaf. The PIP is an essential program that provides support and resources to families of Deaf children, assisting them in navigating the unique challenges of raising a Deaf child. Shirley was instrumental in organizing the conference and serving families with Deaf children. Their collective unity and determination were driven by dissatisfaction with the quality of Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf, where Deaf students' academic achievements were inadequate in both specialized and mainstream educational environments.
These concerns were echoed by Gene D. Stewart, a Child of Deaf Adults and a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the deaf, who addressed the Utah State Board of Education in 1977. He famously described the state of Deaf education as being in the "Dark Ages" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). Gene stressed the urgent need for reform, advocating for improved resources and training for educators to better support Deaf students. He highlighted that without significant changes, these students would continue to encounter barriers that hinder their academic and social development.
In response to these challenges, the Utah Association for the Deaf approved Shirley's proposal to create the Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference. The terms "bilingual and bicultural" emphasize the recognition and promotion of both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, alongside Deaf culture, in the education of Deaf children. Shirley chaired the two-day conference, held on April 25–26, 1997, at the Eccles Conference Center in Ogden, Utah, under the supervision of Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh, the director of the Deaf Mentor program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997; Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008). This event became a crucial turning point in the community's history, fostering a deeper understanding of the unique cultural and educational needs of Deaf children. Participants engaged in meaningful discussions, sharing insights and strategies that would shape future educational practices and promote inclusivity within the Deaf community.
These concerns were echoed by Gene D. Stewart, a Child of Deaf Adults and a vocational rehabilitation counselor for the deaf, who addressed the Utah State Board of Education in 1977. He famously described the state of Deaf education as being in the "Dark Ages" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). Gene stressed the urgent need for reform, advocating for improved resources and training for educators to better support Deaf students. He highlighted that without significant changes, these students would continue to encounter barriers that hinder their academic and social development.
In response to these challenges, the Utah Association for the Deaf approved Shirley's proposal to create the Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference. The terms "bilingual and bicultural" emphasize the recognition and promotion of both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, alongside Deaf culture, in the education of Deaf children. Shirley chaired the two-day conference, held on April 25–26, 1997, at the Eccles Conference Center in Ogden, Utah, under the supervision of Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh, the director of the Deaf Mentor program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997; Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008). This event became a crucial turning point in the community's history, fostering a deeper understanding of the unique cultural and educational needs of Deaf children. Participants engaged in meaningful discussions, sharing insights and strategies that would shape future educational practices and promote inclusivity within the Deaf community.
Shirley, driven by her fierce desire to bring change, assumed the lead in organizing the conference. She was deeply troubled by the large number of Deaf children in Utah who were unable to communicate effectively, the lack of progress in the Parent Infant Program, and the disregard for the contributions of Deaf mentors. Despite encountering patronizing attitudes from many hearing teachers and administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf, Shirley remained steadfast. She understood that the community needed to act if real change was going to happen (Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008). Thus, she convened meetings with Deaf leaders and advocates to address these issues and brainstorm effective solutions. Together, they devised strategies to ensure that the voices of Deaf mentors were heard and integrated into the program, fostering a more inclusive environment for all families involved.
The conference was an outstanding success, bringing together approximately 400 participants, many of whom traveled from out of state. The insights of distinguished presenters greatly enriched the discussions. Notable speakers included Dr. Lawrence "Larry" Fleischer, Department Chair of Deaf Studies at California State University-Northridge, who discussed Deaf identity; Dr. Martina J. "MJ" Bienvenu, Director of the Language and Culture Center in Gaithersburg, Maryland, who focused on Deaf culture; Dr. Marlon "Lon" Kuntze from the University of California, Berkeley, who delved into language topics; and Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes from Gallaudet University, who shared his expertise in Deaf education. Representatives from the Indiana School for the Deaf, including Diane Hazel Jones, David Geeslin, and Rebecca Pardee, shared their experience in establishing a bilingual-bicultural program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997). The discussions emphasized the need to create an inclusive environment that values both linguistic and cultural diversity within the Deaf community. This collaborative effort aimed to enhance educational outcomes and foster a deeper understanding of Deaf identity among students and educators alike.
Overall, the conference provided an unprecedented platform for shifting mindsets about Deaf individuals and fostered a more inclusive perspective that appreciates the value of Deaf people. This paradigm shift was more than just a goal; it represented a hopeful vision for a more inclusive and understanding society.
The conference was an outstanding success, bringing together approximately 400 participants, many of whom traveled from out of state. The insights of distinguished presenters greatly enriched the discussions. Notable speakers included Dr. Lawrence "Larry" Fleischer, Department Chair of Deaf Studies at California State University-Northridge, who discussed Deaf identity; Dr. Martina J. "MJ" Bienvenu, Director of the Language and Culture Center in Gaithersburg, Maryland, who focused on Deaf culture; Dr. Marlon "Lon" Kuntze from the University of California, Berkeley, who delved into language topics; and Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes from Gallaudet University, who shared his expertise in Deaf education. Representatives from the Indiana School for the Deaf, including Diane Hazel Jones, David Geeslin, and Rebecca Pardee, shared their experience in establishing a bilingual-bicultural program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997). The discussions emphasized the need to create an inclusive environment that values both linguistic and cultural diversity within the Deaf community. This collaborative effort aimed to enhance educational outcomes and foster a deeper understanding of Deaf identity among students and educators alike.
Overall, the conference provided an unprecedented platform for shifting mindsets about Deaf individuals and fostered a more inclusive perspective that appreciates the value of Deaf people. This paradigm shift was more than just a goal; it represented a hopeful vision for a more inclusive and understanding society.
Did You Know?
In January 1992, USDB Superintendent David West, along with his five school program coordinators, traveled to visit several institutions: the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, a program in Belmont, California, and the Idaho State School for the Deaf in Gooding, Idaho. The purpose of this visit was to observe their bilingual programs. For the complete article, see the UAD Bulletin from February 1992.
The Creation of a Bilingual and Bicultural Committee
During the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) conference on June 13–14, 1997, a significant event occurred when Dennis R. Platt, the husband of Shirlie Hortie Platt—who had just been elected as the president of the UAD and was a member of the USDB Institutional Council—established the Bilingual and Bicultural Committee. Additionally, W. David Samuelsen, a UAD member, proposed the appointment of Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz as the chair of this committee. Minnie Mae is a highly respected figure in the Deaf community, a professionally qualified advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, and a Deaf parent of three Deaf children. The UAD approved David Samuelsen's proposal, resulting in a significant change to the Deaf education landscape (David Samuelsen, personal communication, July 26, 2016).
The committee's advocacy for ASL/English bilingual education had a positive impact on the community, providing hope for a brighter future in Deaf education. This initiative promotes cultural identity and enhances communication skills for Deaf students, enabling them to thrive academically and socially. As a result, more families are becoming aware of the benefits of bilingual education, fostering a supportive environment for Deaf children to succeed.
The committee's advocacy for ASL/English bilingual education had a positive impact on the community, providing hope for a brighter future in Deaf education. This initiative promotes cultural identity and enhances communication skills for Deaf students, enabling them to thrive academically and socially. As a result, more families are becoming aware of the benefits of bilingual education, fostering a supportive environment for Deaf children to succeed.
Minnie Mae was inspired by the 1997 Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference, which motivated her to contribute further when she became chair of the Bi-Bi Committee. In her 1990 paper, "Exciting Developments in Deaf Education," she expressed her admiration for the Indiana School for the Deaf's adoption of a bilingual-bicultural approach. It is no surprise that she later co-founded the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS), which she helped establish in 1999. Since its inception, JMS has become a model of optimism and innovation in Deaf education, creating an environment where students can thrive in both their linguistic and cultural identities. Minnie Mae's commitment to enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students has inspired countless others to advocate for similar initiatives across Ogden, Springville, and St. George, Utah.
Throughout their campaign, the UAD committee strategically used the term 'Bi-Bi,' shorthand for 'bilingual-bicultural,' to emphasize their vision of incorporating both ASL and English in Deaf children's education. They aimed to highlight the importance of integrating Deaf culture into their educational experience (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This approach fosters a deeper understanding of both languages and promotes a sense of identity and belonging among Deaf students. By advocating for Bi-Bi education, the UAD committee aimed to create a more inclusive and empowering environment for future generations.
Throughout their campaign, the UAD committee strategically used the term 'Bi-Bi,' shorthand for 'bilingual-bicultural,' to emphasize their vision of incorporating both ASL and English in Deaf children's education. They aimed to highlight the importance of integrating Deaf culture into their educational experience (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This approach fosters a deeper understanding of both languages and promotes a sense of identity and belonging among Deaf students. By advocating for Bi-Bi education, the UAD committee aimed to create a more inclusive and empowering environment for future generations.
The Bi-Bi Committee Meets
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson
One of the committee's primary objectives was to explore the possibility of introducing bilingual-bicultural education to the Utah School for the Deaf, which at the time only offered oral and total communication options (UAD Bulletin, July 1999; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, April 23, 2011). On March 30, 1998, Minnie Mae and Jeff Allen, a father of a Deaf daughter, who were both committee leaders, met with Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. The primary objective of the meeting was to explore the possibility of introducing a Bi-Bi educational option at the Utah School for the Deaf. The committee firmly held the belief that adding a Bi-Bi educational option to the Utah School for the Deaf would be beneficial, especially in light of the Federal Bilingual Education Act of 1988, which protected Deaf students based on their native language and limited English proficiency. Furthermore, in 1994, the Utah State Legislature passed Utah Senate Bill 42, which legally recognized American Sign Language as a language, making it an ideal time for the Bi-Bi Committee to make its request. This recognition not only affirmed the importance of American Sign Language in educational settings but also paved the way for a more inclusive approach to teaching Deaf students. By implementing a Bi-Bi educational model, the Utah School for the Deaf can enhance language acquisition and foster cultural identity among its students, thereby creating a more supportive and effective learning environment.
Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo turned down the proposal to incorporate American Sign Language (ASL) into the curriculum, essentially saying, "No thanks and good luck" (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2010). Despite facing this setback, the Utah Deaf community and the parents of Deaf children stood firm in their support of the Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi) committee (UAD Bulletin, May 1988). This unwavering backing reassured the committee of the community's dedication to advocating for educational reforms that would positively impact Deaf students, providing hope for the future of Deaf education. The Bi-Bi committee persisted in seeking alternative strategies to integrate ASL into the curriculum, believing firmly in the importance of bilingual education for enhancing language acquisition and cultural awareness.
Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo turned down the proposal to incorporate American Sign Language (ASL) into the curriculum, essentially saying, "No thanks and good luck" (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2010). Despite facing this setback, the Utah Deaf community and the parents of Deaf children stood firm in their support of the Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi) committee (UAD Bulletin, May 1988). This unwavering backing reassured the committee of the community's dedication to advocating for educational reforms that would positively impact Deaf students, providing hope for the future of Deaf education. The Bi-Bi committee persisted in seeking alternative strategies to integrate ASL into the curriculum, believing firmly in the importance of bilingual education for enhancing language acquisition and cultural awareness.
The Utah Charter Schools Act Leads to the
Formation of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Formation of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The Bi-Bi Committee held regular meetings every two weeks. Over time, more hearing parents began to attend these meetings. Their increasing participation demonstrates a growing awareness of the importance of providing Deaf children with the best possible education. The Deaf community in Utah supported this cause, recognizing that Deaf children would become the future leaders of the Utah Association of the Deaf. The committee's primary objective was to establish or identify a program or school that educates Deaf students using the "Bi-Bi" approach (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This approach emphasizes bilingualism in both ASL and English, ensuring that Deaf students receive a comprehensive education that respects their language and culture. The committee believed that by fostering this bilingual language environment, they could empower Deaf students to thrive academically and socially.
During its work, the Bi-Bi Committee learned of a charter school bill that the Utah State Legislature was considering. This prompted the committee to focus its efforts on supporting the passage of legislation that would allow for the establishment of charter schools in the state. Ultimately, the Utah Legislature passed the Utah Charter Schools Act at the end of the 1998 legislative session. This act provided the legal framework necessary for the creation of charter schools, including the one proposed by the Bi-Bi Committee (Utah Charter Schools Act, 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This new legislation allowed communities greater flexibility in meeting the needs of their students, paving the way for innovative educational options. Because of this, a number of charter schools started to open up all over the state. Each one was meant to meet certain educational needs and serve a wide range of students.
In May 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee took an essential step by contacting Governor Mike Leavitt's Office and the Utah State Office of Education to apply for a charter school for the deaf. As an opportune time came, in June 1998, the committee initiated the development of a charter school proposal, which the Utah State Board of Education later approved. The mission of this new charter school was to promote ASL as the primary language of communication and instruction. The Bi-Bi Committee submitted their application for Utah Charter Schools for the 1998-1999 academic year on July 17, 1998 (Utah Charter Schools Application 1998-1999, July 17, 1998). The application outlined the vision for a bilingual-bicultural education model, aiming to foster both American Sign Language and English proficiency among students. This innovative approach sought to create an inclusive learning environment that celebrated Deaf culture while equipping students with essential communication skills.
On July 29, 1998, the Utah State Board of Education approved the Bi-Bi educational option, establishing a new standard in Deaf education. This official recognition marks significant progress for Deaf children. Tuacahn High School for the Performing Arts was the first school to receive this approval, followed by a proposal from the Bi-Bi Committee. In November of that year, the Utah Board of Education prepared to approve applications from six additional schools (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). These developments highlight a growing commitment to inclusive education, allowing Deaf students to thrive in an environment that respects both ASL and English. As a result, many educators began to explore innovative teaching methods tailored to meet the diverse needs of their students.
Co-founders Minnie Mae Wilding-Díaz and Jeff Allen collaborated to achieve a vital goal: the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This public charter school began operations in 1999, driven by their shared vision and commitment to Deaf education. Since its founding, the school has focused on creating an inclusive environment that emphasizes both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, ensuring that students become proficient in both languages. This bilingual approach improves communication skills and enhances the cultural identity of Deaf children, empowering them to succeed academically and socially.
During its work, the Bi-Bi Committee learned of a charter school bill that the Utah State Legislature was considering. This prompted the committee to focus its efforts on supporting the passage of legislation that would allow for the establishment of charter schools in the state. Ultimately, the Utah Legislature passed the Utah Charter Schools Act at the end of the 1998 legislative session. This act provided the legal framework necessary for the creation of charter schools, including the one proposed by the Bi-Bi Committee (Utah Charter Schools Act, 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This new legislation allowed communities greater flexibility in meeting the needs of their students, paving the way for innovative educational options. Because of this, a number of charter schools started to open up all over the state. Each one was meant to meet certain educational needs and serve a wide range of students.
In May 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee took an essential step by contacting Governor Mike Leavitt's Office and the Utah State Office of Education to apply for a charter school for the deaf. As an opportune time came, in June 1998, the committee initiated the development of a charter school proposal, which the Utah State Board of Education later approved. The mission of this new charter school was to promote ASL as the primary language of communication and instruction. The Bi-Bi Committee submitted their application for Utah Charter Schools for the 1998-1999 academic year on July 17, 1998 (Utah Charter Schools Application 1998-1999, July 17, 1998). The application outlined the vision for a bilingual-bicultural education model, aiming to foster both American Sign Language and English proficiency among students. This innovative approach sought to create an inclusive learning environment that celebrated Deaf culture while equipping students with essential communication skills.
On July 29, 1998, the Utah State Board of Education approved the Bi-Bi educational option, establishing a new standard in Deaf education. This official recognition marks significant progress for Deaf children. Tuacahn High School for the Performing Arts was the first school to receive this approval, followed by a proposal from the Bi-Bi Committee. In November of that year, the Utah Board of Education prepared to approve applications from six additional schools (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). These developments highlight a growing commitment to inclusive education, allowing Deaf students to thrive in an environment that respects both ASL and English. As a result, many educators began to explore innovative teaching methods tailored to meet the diverse needs of their students.
Co-founders Minnie Mae Wilding-Díaz and Jeff Allen collaborated to achieve a vital goal: the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This public charter school began operations in 1999, driven by their shared vision and commitment to Deaf education. Since its founding, the school has focused on creating an inclusive environment that emphasizes both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, ensuring that students become proficient in both languages. This bilingual approach improves communication skills and enhances the cultural identity of Deaf children, empowering them to succeed academically and socially.
In September 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee established plans to open a new school in the fall of 1999 (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). Before the school opened, the committee proposed three names to honor significant figures in the Deaf community: the Alice Cogswell School, the George Veditz School, and the Jean Massieu School. Each name held historical significance within the community. After conducting a vote, the committee announced that the school would be named after Jean Massieu, a highly respected figure in the Deaf community (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Jean Massieu was known for his advocacy and contributions to Deaf education, inspiring generations of Deaf individuals. The selection of his name honored his legacy and emphasized the school's commitment to fostering a rich understanding of Deaf culture and history.
Jean Massieu was a remarkable figure in Deaf education whose influence extended far beyond France. He attracted many notable visitors, including princes, philosophers, and even the Pope, all of whom were eager to learn from him. One of his students, Laurent Clerc, a Deaf individual who co-founded the first Deaf school in the United States—the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut—in 1817, was greatly influenced by Massieu's teachings and mentorship. Loida R. Canlas from Gallaudet University's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center highlights Massieu's linguistic expertise, which led to the creation of an English-French dictionary in 1808. His successful students, many of whom directed schools for Deaf children in other countries, are a testament to his global impact (UAD Bulletin, June 1998). Jean Massieu's legacy of education and advocacy for the Deaf community continues to resonate to this day, inspiring new generations of educators and learners. The principles he and his students, such as Laurent Clerc, established laid the foundation for modern Deaf education, emphasizing bilingualism and direct communication accessibility. These ideals continue to motivate today's educators and students.
The Utah Charter Schools Act requires all charter schools to operate as nonprofit organizations. In 1998, Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL), was established as a distinct nonprofit entity separate from the Utah Association for the Deaf. UDEAL's main objective was to create, manage, and oversee a new charter school alongside the goal of fundraising (UAD Bulletin, September 1998; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz highlighted the crucial need for an inclusive educational setting that addresses the needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. By emphasizing bilingualism in both ASL and English, UDEAL sought to improve literacy and communication skills, ultimately increasing accessibility and opportunities for all students. This approach aimed not only to empower Deaf and hard-of-hearing students but also to foster cultural awareness and respect among all learners, enriching the overall educational experience. Through innovative teaching strategies and community involvement, UDEAL envisioned a dynamic school environment where diversity was celebrated and every student could flourish.
Jean Massieu was a remarkable figure in Deaf education whose influence extended far beyond France. He attracted many notable visitors, including princes, philosophers, and even the Pope, all of whom were eager to learn from him. One of his students, Laurent Clerc, a Deaf individual who co-founded the first Deaf school in the United States—the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut—in 1817, was greatly influenced by Massieu's teachings and mentorship. Loida R. Canlas from Gallaudet University's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center highlights Massieu's linguistic expertise, which led to the creation of an English-French dictionary in 1808. His successful students, many of whom directed schools for Deaf children in other countries, are a testament to his global impact (UAD Bulletin, June 1998). Jean Massieu's legacy of education and advocacy for the Deaf community continues to resonate to this day, inspiring new generations of educators and learners. The principles he and his students, such as Laurent Clerc, established laid the foundation for modern Deaf education, emphasizing bilingualism and direct communication accessibility. These ideals continue to motivate today's educators and students.
The Utah Charter Schools Act requires all charter schools to operate as nonprofit organizations. In 1998, Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL), was established as a distinct nonprofit entity separate from the Utah Association for the Deaf. UDEAL's main objective was to create, manage, and oversee a new charter school alongside the goal of fundraising (UAD Bulletin, September 1998; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz highlighted the crucial need for an inclusive educational setting that addresses the needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. By emphasizing bilingualism in both ASL and English, UDEAL sought to improve literacy and communication skills, ultimately increasing accessibility and opportunities for all students. This approach aimed not only to empower Deaf and hard-of-hearing students but also to foster cultural awareness and respect among all learners, enriching the overall educational experience. Through innovative teaching strategies and community involvement, UDEAL envisioned a dynamic school environment where diversity was celebrated and every student could flourish.
Kristi Lee Mortensen: "Raising a Child Requires a Village"
During that time, Deaf individuals were concerned about the state of Deaf education in the state of Utah. In the May 1998 issue of the UAD Bulletin, Kristi Lee Mortensen published Part 1 of a series titled "The Deaf's Desires." In her review of Utah's shortcomings in Deaf education, she aimed to encourage the Utah Deaf community to take an active role in addressing these issues. Stressing the importance of community involvement, she quoted First Lady Hillary Clinton's adaptation of the well-known African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." Here, "village" refers to the Deaf community collaborating with the hearing parents of Deaf children. Kristi Lee envisioned addressing the contentious educational issues to improve the quality of education for Deaf children in Utah. She believed that the involvement of the Deaf community in education is not just important but essential. The future leaders of Utah's Deaf community owe this support. Therefore, it was their responsibility to set aside differences and work with hearing parents who genuinely want their Deaf children to receive an education equal to that of hearing children. Many parents agreed that they needed the insights and support of the Deaf community in raising their Deaf children (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998).
In Part 2 of the series, Kristi Lee examined the school environment, emphasizing the significance of Deaf adults as role models for Deaf students. These role models play a crucial role in the educational journey of Deaf students by providing inspiration, guidance, and a sense of belonging. These goals can be achieved by including members of the Deaf community as volunteers in classrooms. They could visit schools or assist with specific activities. Having these community role models available would serve as a priceless educational experience for the children. Kristi Lee encouraged community members to volunteer at schools as often as possible (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1998).
Reflecting on her middle school experience in the 1970s, Kristi Lee recalled the Utah Deaf community's battle to establish the total communication program at the Utah School for the Deaf. She reminded Bulletin readers that Utah was the only state that operated a two-track system: oral and total communication. Kristi Lee noted that times were changing with advancements in technology and increased recognition of American Sign Language and Deaf culture. She believes that Utah's education program for Deaf children should incorporate these aspects (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998). As more studies are conducted on ASL linguistics, professionals increasingly recognize that the Deaf community, with its unique experiences and understanding, can effectively integrate language and culture into the classroom. This integration can lead to significant academic and social improvements for Deaf students, instilling hope and optimism within the community. She concluded with a challenge: "Why don't we stand up and sign strongly, 'Let us be a part of your school curriculum'?" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1998).
To emphasize her point, Kristi Lee urged the Deaf community to unite in the fight for Deaf children's right to a quality education. A good education fosters independence and success in our rapidly changing world (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998).
In Part 3, her final segment, Kristi Lee highlighted the importance of setting high expectations for Deaf children, particularly those that foster the development of future leaders. When the Deaf community, parents, and teachers share common goals for an inclusive environment, Deaf children gain a sense of confidence. She stated, "[The children] will become contributing members of society and inspire the next generation of Deaf children. These benefits will be passed on from generation to generation" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, August 1998). This focus on the potential of Deaf children to become leaders should inspire the community to continue its support and advocacy.
Reflecting on her middle school experience in the 1970s, Kristi Lee recalled the Utah Deaf community's battle to establish the total communication program at the Utah School for the Deaf. She reminded Bulletin readers that Utah was the only state that operated a two-track system: oral and total communication. Kristi Lee noted that times were changing with advancements in technology and increased recognition of American Sign Language and Deaf culture. She believes that Utah's education program for Deaf children should incorporate these aspects (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998). As more studies are conducted on ASL linguistics, professionals increasingly recognize that the Deaf community, with its unique experiences and understanding, can effectively integrate language and culture into the classroom. This integration can lead to significant academic and social improvements for Deaf students, instilling hope and optimism within the community. She concluded with a challenge: "Why don't we stand up and sign strongly, 'Let us be a part of your school curriculum'?" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1998).
To emphasize her point, Kristi Lee urged the Deaf community to unite in the fight for Deaf children's right to a quality education. A good education fosters independence and success in our rapidly changing world (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998).
In Part 3, her final segment, Kristi Lee highlighted the importance of setting high expectations for Deaf children, particularly those that foster the development of future leaders. When the Deaf community, parents, and teachers share common goals for an inclusive environment, Deaf children gain a sense of confidence. She stated, "[The children] will become contributing members of society and inspire the next generation of Deaf children. These benefits will be passed on from generation to generation" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, August 1998). This focus on the potential of Deaf children to become leaders should inspire the community to continue its support and advocacy.
The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Opens Its Doors
Opens Its Doors
After receiving approval from the Utah State Office of Education, the Bi-Bi Committee, comprised of dedicated individuals with expertise in Deaf education, began the process of establishing the charter school. Their efforts included finding a suitable location, securing additional funding, selecting a curriculum, hiring teachers, and purchasing supplies, among other tasks (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). Meanwhile, the UDEAL Board assumed various responsibilities, including fundraising, program development, preparing for Individualized Education Plan meetings, resolving transportation issues, managing building and site concerns, and addressing technology-related matters. The committee and the UDEAL Board closely collaborated to meet the students' needs as the charter school took shape. This partnership strengthened their initiatives and created a sense of community among families, educators, and supporters of Deaf education.
On August 29, 1999, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf opened its doors to 21 students, ranging from preschool to third grade. Since then, JMS has expanded its program by adding one grade each year, and it now offers education from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The school is committed to ensuring complete language accessibility in both American Sign Language and English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This emphasis on bilingual education helped students do well in school and make friends, which was a great way for them to learn about themselves and how to communicate. As JMS continued to grow, it remained dedicated to promoting inclusivity and empowering Deaf students to reach their full potential.
Despite operating as an independent Bi-Bi charter school for six years, JMS has demonstrated remarkable resilience by relying on donations and state funding tied to student enrollment. Unfortunately, the state funding has been insufficient, leading JMS to face financial challenges. The school has nevertheless persisted in offering high-quality instruction. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, which replaced the former bilingual-bicultural option. Additionally, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. Consequently, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to improve their children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
On August 29, 1999, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf opened its doors to 21 students, ranging from preschool to third grade. Since then, JMS has expanded its program by adding one grade each year, and it now offers education from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The school is committed to ensuring complete language accessibility in both American Sign Language and English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This emphasis on bilingual education helped students do well in school and make friends, which was a great way for them to learn about themselves and how to communicate. As JMS continued to grow, it remained dedicated to promoting inclusivity and empowering Deaf students to reach their full potential.
Despite operating as an independent Bi-Bi charter school for six years, JMS has demonstrated remarkable resilience by relying on donations and state funding tied to student enrollment. Unfortunately, the state funding has been insufficient, leading JMS to face financial challenges. The school has nevertheless persisted in offering high-quality instruction. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, which replaced the former bilingual-bicultural option. Additionally, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. Consequently, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to improve their children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and
Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
Part V
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O’Hara and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2019
Updated in 2025
Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
Part V
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O’Hara and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2019
Updated in 2025
COMING SOON!
Notes
Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011.
Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007. Utah Code 53A – 25- 104: Impacts USDB/JMS’s ability to provide services. Paper presented at the 2007 USDB Institutional Council, Salt Lake City, UT.
Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007. Utah Code 53A – 25- 104: Impacts USDB/JMS’s ability to provide services. Paper presented at the 2007 USDB Institutional Council, Salt Lake City, UT.
References
“A Sunday School Organized for the Deaf Mutes.” The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892.
“All Sorts.” The Silent Worker, vol. 13, no. 9 (May 1901): 139.
Bitter, Grant B. “Recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education for the Improvement of Statewide Services for the Hearing Impaired.” Grant B. Dr. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 19, 1977.
Buchanan, Robert M. “Illusion of Equality: Deaf Americans in school and factory: 1850 -1950.” http://books.google.com/books?id=Tahfhls7TKYC&pg=PA28&sig=VbCZINlmYggHd34t9GD_udkD_dY&dq=this+of+utah+school+for+the+Deaf+%221894%22+%22In+1894,+Portland%27s+newspapers+carried+a+series+of+exchanges+that+pitted+American+School+officials+and+Deaf+activists+against+Bell+and+Yale.%22
Chronology of USDB.
Clark, John H. The Eaglet, vol. 1, no. 1 (February 15, 1894): 1-2.
Clarke, Edward, P. “Under Quarantine.” The Utah Eagle, vol ix, no. 2 (October 15, 1897): 12.
“Communication – First Step to Cooperation.” The UAD Bulletin (Spring 1961): 2.
Driggs, Frank, M. “Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XIII, no. 2 (November 1, 1901): 16.
Driggs, Franks, M. “Rules and Regulations.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XVI, no, 9 (June 6, 1905): 140.
Erting, Carol J, Johnson, Robert C., Smith, Dorothy L, & Snider, Bruce D. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture: Papers. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989. http://books.google.com/books?id=bqJxAcmA9yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Deaf+bilingual+education+in+Sweden+and+Denmark+in+1981&source=gbs_sum mary_r&cad=0#PPR26,M1
Evans, David S. A Silent World In The Intermountain West: Records From The Utah School For The Deaf and Blind, 1884-1941. Utah State University: Logan, Utah. 1999.
Fay, Edward Allen. History of the Utah School for the Deaf - History of American Schools for the Deaf. 1817 – 1893. School of Education Library; Stanford University Libraries: The Volta Bureau, 1893.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tjEWAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA10&lpg=RA21-PA10&dq=Frank+M.+Driggs,+Deaf&source=web&ots=il1POQSsle&sig=5L_Ewyv3YcTrbGyafwB4psnD-k0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Frank%20M.%20Driggs%2C%20Deaf&f=false
“For Blind, Deaf, and Dumb.” Deseret News, November 21, 1896.
“From Other Schools.” The Silent Worker, vol. 3, no. 18 (November 28, 1889): 3.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Siler Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Groce, Nora Ellen. Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.
“Henry C. White.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 33, no. 5 (February 1922): 1-2.
Historical and Program Summary Program book.
Kinner Becker, Jodi. “USDB: Update on eligibility protocol.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.11 (April 2008): 1.
Lane, Harlan, Hoffmeister, Robert, & Bahan, Ben. A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996.
“Laron Pratt and HCB at Brighton Ward.” Des News, vol. 49 no. 13 (September 15, 1894): 399.
Metcalf, Frank. “Dr. John R. Park.” The Utah Eagle, vol. xii, no. 2 (October 15, 1900): 12.
Pace, Irma Acord. “A History of the Utah School for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 58, no. 1 (October 1946): 1-33.
Parasnis, Ila. “On interpreting the Deaf Experience Within the Context of Cultural and Language Diversity.” Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Roberts, Elaine M. “The Early History of the Utah School for the Deaf and Its influence in the Development of a Cohesive Deaf Society in Utah, circa. 1884 – 1905.” A thesis presented to the Department of History: Brigham Young University. August 1994.
Sanderson, Robert. G. “The Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 24.11 (April 2001): 4.
Sanderson, Robert.G. “Deaf Opinion Printed in Ogden Newspaper.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001.
Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Random House Publishers, 1994.
Stringham, Doug & Leahy, Anne. ‘Far Away, In the West:’ The Emergence of Utah’s Deaf Community, 1850-1910, January 2013.
“The Kinetoscope and Telephone” The Silent Worker, vol. 12 no. 7 (March 1900): 101. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/32729
Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The Silent Worker, vol. 10 no. 1 (September 1897): 7. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/31945
“Utah School.” American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, vol. 33, no. 1 (January 1888): 72. (Hooper Place).
Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion: 125th Anniversary “Golden Memories of the Deaf, 1884-2009.
Utah School for the Deaf Brochure.
Van Cleve, John Vickery & Crouch, Barry A. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Walker, Rodney W. My Life Story, 2006.
“What is Going On With Our Sister Institutions?” (December 19, 1889). The Silent Worker vol. 3 no. 19 (December 19, 1889): 4. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/30169
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
“With the Advent of Statehood.” The Silent Worker, vol. 8, no. 7 (March 1896): 4.
“All Sorts.” The Silent Worker, vol. 13, no. 9 (May 1901): 139.
Bitter, Grant B. “Recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education for the Improvement of Statewide Services for the Hearing Impaired.” Grant B. Dr. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 19, 1977.
Buchanan, Robert M. “Illusion of Equality: Deaf Americans in school and factory: 1850 -1950.” http://books.google.com/books?id=Tahfhls7TKYC&pg=PA28&sig=VbCZINlmYggHd34t9GD_udkD_dY&dq=this+of+utah+school+for+the+Deaf+%221894%22+%22In+1894,+Portland%27s+newspapers+carried+a+series+of+exchanges+that+pitted+American+School+officials+and+Deaf+activists+against+Bell+and+Yale.%22
Chronology of USDB.
Clark, John H. The Eaglet, vol. 1, no. 1 (February 15, 1894): 1-2.
Clarke, Edward, P. “Under Quarantine.” The Utah Eagle, vol ix, no. 2 (October 15, 1897): 12.
“Communication – First Step to Cooperation.” The UAD Bulletin (Spring 1961): 2.
Driggs, Frank, M. “Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XIII, no. 2 (November 1, 1901): 16.
Driggs, Franks, M. “Rules and Regulations.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XVI, no, 9 (June 6, 1905): 140.
Erting, Carol J, Johnson, Robert C., Smith, Dorothy L, & Snider, Bruce D. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture: Papers. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989. http://books.google.com/books?id=bqJxAcmA9yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Deaf+bilingual+education+in+Sweden+and+Denmark+in+1981&source=gbs_sum mary_r&cad=0#PPR26,M1
Evans, David S. A Silent World In The Intermountain West: Records From The Utah School For The Deaf and Blind, 1884-1941. Utah State University: Logan, Utah. 1999.
Fay, Edward Allen. History of the Utah School for the Deaf - History of American Schools for the Deaf. 1817 – 1893. School of Education Library; Stanford University Libraries: The Volta Bureau, 1893.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tjEWAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA10&lpg=RA21-PA10&dq=Frank+M.+Driggs,+Deaf&source=web&ots=il1POQSsle&sig=5L_Ewyv3YcTrbGyafwB4psnD-k0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Frank%20M.%20Driggs%2C%20Deaf&f=false
“For Blind, Deaf, and Dumb.” Deseret News, November 21, 1896.
“From Other Schools.” The Silent Worker, vol. 3, no. 18 (November 28, 1889): 3.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Siler Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Groce, Nora Ellen. Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.
“Henry C. White.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 33, no. 5 (February 1922): 1-2.
Historical and Program Summary Program book.
Kinner Becker, Jodi. “USDB: Update on eligibility protocol.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.11 (April 2008): 1.
Lane, Harlan, Hoffmeister, Robert, & Bahan, Ben. A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996.
“Laron Pratt and HCB at Brighton Ward.” Des News, vol. 49 no. 13 (September 15, 1894): 399.
Metcalf, Frank. “Dr. John R. Park.” The Utah Eagle, vol. xii, no. 2 (October 15, 1900): 12.
Pace, Irma Acord. “A History of the Utah School for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 58, no. 1 (October 1946): 1-33.
Parasnis, Ila. “On interpreting the Deaf Experience Within the Context of Cultural and Language Diversity.” Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Roberts, Elaine M. “The Early History of the Utah School for the Deaf and Its influence in the Development of a Cohesive Deaf Society in Utah, circa. 1884 – 1905.” A thesis presented to the Department of History: Brigham Young University. August 1994.
Sanderson, Robert. G. “The Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 24.11 (April 2001): 4.
Sanderson, Robert.G. “Deaf Opinion Printed in Ogden Newspaper.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001.
Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Random House Publishers, 1994.
Stringham, Doug & Leahy, Anne. ‘Far Away, In the West:’ The Emergence of Utah’s Deaf Community, 1850-1910, January 2013.
“The Kinetoscope and Telephone” The Silent Worker, vol. 12 no. 7 (March 1900): 101. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/32729
Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The Silent Worker, vol. 10 no. 1 (September 1897): 7. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/31945
“Utah School.” American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, vol. 33, no. 1 (January 1888): 72. (Hooper Place).
Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion: 125th Anniversary “Golden Memories of the Deaf, 1884-2009.
Utah School for the Deaf Brochure.
Van Cleve, John Vickery & Crouch, Barry A. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Walker, Rodney W. My Life Story, 2006.
“What is Going On With Our Sister Institutions?” (December 19, 1889). The Silent Worker vol. 3 no. 19 (December 19, 1889): 4. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/30169
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
“With the Advent of Statehood.” The Silent Worker, vol. 8, no. 7 (March 1896): 4.
