Deaf Education History in Utah

The Deaf Education
History in Utah

Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara & Valerie G. Kinney
Contributing Editing by Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz

Published in 2007
Updated in 2025

Author's Note

Working on the document "The Deaf Education History in Utah" has given me a profound appreciation for the Utah Association of the Deaf and its unwavering advocacy for improved Deaf education and services. The document, which includes their names, serves as a testament to the significant contributions of key individuals. I am in awe of the Utah Association for the Deaf and all of its advocates for safeguarding sign language! It's important to note that the intention is not to cast a negative light on the Utah School for the Deaf or any specific parties, but rather to provide a clear historical perspective from the Utah Deaf community and allies, including hearing parents of Deaf children. The absence of a recorded Deaf perspective on the history of Deaf education in Utah highlights its importance and the need for recognition. It also recognizes the tireless efforts of the Utah Association of the Deaf, the Utah Deaf community, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to preserve American Sign Language and the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf.

I am 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,' 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. 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).

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. Bitter's advocacy for the oral and mainstreaming movements sparked a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, a group comprised mainly of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf community leader in Utah who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch supporter of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giants was due to the ongoing dispute over oral and sign language in Utah's deaf educational system. Their struggle was akin to a chess game, with each maneuvering politically to gain the upper hand in the deaf educational system. As a top figure in oral deaf education, Dr. Bitter played a significant role in shaping Deaf education policies, advocating for an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, as did the Utah Association for the Deaf, engaged in disagreements during the listening and speaking demonstration panels, picket protests, education committee meetings, and board meetings. Dr. Bitter has also formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, two esteemed advocates for sign language, due to what he perceives as their interference with his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's television interpretation of news in sign language, as he felt it did not align with his educational goals. Finally, he has asked Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee, to resign due to her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, which he perceived as a drift from the committee's focus. Dr. Bitter held significant power as a parental figure and used parental influence and leverage to advocate for oralism, making it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to oppose him. The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience in response to the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter's opposition. This period was a significant turning point in their history and played a crucial role in shaping Deaf education policies. Their strength and determination not only helped them overcome these obstacles but also served to inspire others along the way.

The Utah Association for the Deaf fought tirelessly and eventually passed the responsibility of advancing Deaf education equality in Utah to the next generation. This new generation embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs across different regions: Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. They made significant progress, offering a hopeful glimpse of the bright future that lies ahead.

It is important to recognize the significant impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and oral advocates have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their efforts in oral education are a crucial part of this narrative. As Robert Heinlein famously said, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." Understanding the long-standing political debates in Utah concerning inequalities in Deaf education is both informative and empowering. This knowledge enables us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language and communication, as well as providing them with equal opportunities.

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 Becker Kinner

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 Becker Kinner

The Evolution of
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

"Nothing about us, without us."
~2012 NAD Conference~

A History of Deaf Education
in the United States

Part I

Written & Compiled by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney

Published in 2015
Updated in 2024

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).

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).

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 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

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.

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 Becker Kinner
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney

Published in 2015
Updated in 2024

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:

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).

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).

Laron Pratt as a young man. 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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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).

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).

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. 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).

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.

A New Change in Superintendent
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).

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)."

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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 Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney

Published in 2016
Updated in 2025

Communication Methods of
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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

The First Concept of Mainstreaming
at the Stewart Training Program

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

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).

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).

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).

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

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

The Oral and Mainstreaming
Movement is Flourishing in Utah

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

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).

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).

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).

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

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. 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.

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. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming

Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Dr. Bitter's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who in 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.

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).

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. 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. 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.

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 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 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 Implementation of the Dual-Track Program,
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.

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 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 '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.

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 Effects of the Dual-Track and
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.

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 2 1/2 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.

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).

The Student Protest of 1962

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.

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).

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).

Johnny Murray, a senior Student Council president, and strike leader who opposed the oral and sign language segregation policy, organized a protest with the support of twenty-five high school students from the simultaneous communication program. This program, which allowed students to learn and communicate using both oral and sign language, was a symbol of unity and equality. The students were united in their cause, dedicating a week to preparing for the protest, inscribing 'Strike,' 'Unfair,' and 'Listen to Us' on posters that they propped up with shoe polish and wooden sticks. The Utah School for the Deaf teachers, including the four Deaf teachers, were unaware of the impending strike (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024).

After careful planning, the students executed their protest with precision. On Friday morning, September 14, 1962, they attended a seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and an important figure in the Utah Deaf community. He was not aware of their protest plans. After class, the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their posters. At 8:30 a.m., they marched into the hallway of the Main Building, starting from the gym where their classrooms were located. This demonstrated their strategic planning and unwavering determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).

During a protest, Ronald C. Burdett noticed that his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiled slightly as he began to understand the purpose of the demonstration. However, Kenneth felt hesitant about fully supporting the protest because he was worried about the potential impact on his job. Some of the hearing teachers were shocked and disgusted by the protesting students, believing they were being foolish for going on strike. One teacher, Thomas Van Drimmelen, became angry and attempted to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. In response, Dora B. Laramie, C.M.'s hard-of-hearing mother, shouted at him to stop, yelling, "Don't touch C.M.!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). The students' courage in the face of opposition was truly inspiring.

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 C. 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.

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.

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).

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 were deeply unhappy with this segregation and missed the days when everyone could be together in the same room at the same time. 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 persisted with 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 the integration of 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 own protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who served as the president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The dual-track program's implementation marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.

Utah Association of the Deaf Meets Wilburn N. Ball,
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.

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.

Officers & Members
of the Utah Association of the Deaf

Limited Educational Choices
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.

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.

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.

Did You Know?

In 2005, the Utah School for the Deaf held their 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 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 since the students chose 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).

The Videos of the
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 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.

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.

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.

Nelle Sausedo, a 1967 graduate of the
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.

COMING SOON!

Notes

Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011.

Jodi Becker Kinner, 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.