Dr. Jay J. Campbell
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. UAD Bulletin, June 1973
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Published in 2012
Updated in 2021
Published in 2012
Updated in 2021
Note
The introductory sections will be repeated throughout the education webpages, but the content will move quickly to the topic matter. Thank you for taking the time to read the history of Deaf Education in Utah.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 USD Comprehensive Study
The Implementation of the Dual Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, known as the "Father of Mainstreaming," Utah's movement toward mainstreaming evolved steadily in the 1960s throughout his mainstreaming campaign, before the phrase became popular with the passage of Public Law 94-142, commonly known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 1975. He was a hard-core oralist and one of the top oral leaders in the country. As the father of a Deaf daughter, Colleen (b. 1954), he was also a powerful voice for oral and mainstream education. According to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf man who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s, no one could match Dr. Bitter's persistent oral/mainstreaming philosophy. At every opportunity, Dr. Baldwin recalled his attacks on residential schools and his adamant opposition to the popular use of sign language in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter campaigned for oral and mainstream education for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students and had a long-standing feud with the Utah Association of the Deaf, especially with Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf community leader in Utah. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson were both recognized as gigantic figures and had animosity toward each other.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. The Utah Eagle, 1961
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, which was founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to be in favor of this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The dual-track educational system was approved by the Utah State Board of Education on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
By the time the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Oral Program, according to USD, must have a mindset that is "pure oral." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
By the time the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Oral Program, according to USD, must have a mindset that is "pure oral." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
All of these changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
Barbara Schell Bass @ Robert Bonnel
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities, with the exception of sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened.
In the wake of the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and oral advocates suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) was orchestrating the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education looked into the matter but couldn't find any connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
The oral method was used for the first six years of a student's education. After six years, a committee meeting was convened to determine whether the child should remain in the oral program or be transferred to the simultaneous communication program (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
In the wake of the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and oral advocates suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) was orchestrating the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education looked into the matter but couldn't find any connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
The oral method was used for the first six years of a student's education. After six years, a committee meeting was convened to determine whether the child should remain in the oral program or be transferred to the simultaneous communication program (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
The Implementation of the The Two-Track Program
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which was supervised by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Ned C. Wheeler
However, parents were not given a clear picture of their child's educational and communication choices (Campbell, 1977). Inappropriate placement tactics were widely practiced, despite policies issued by the Utah State Board of Education in 1970, 1977, and 1998 USDB Communication Guidelines requiring USD to give parents with a full variety of options. Despite the new program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study
In 1966, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Jay J. Campbell, then Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community, to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf. During his supervision, he observed the ongoing battle between Oral Advocate Dr. Bitter and Sign Language Advocate Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, as well as the conflict between the two USD programs over communication methodologies. In order to strengthen the USD program, Dr. Campbell launched a Deaf Education research project in 1975, which was approved by the Utah State Board of Education (Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
The gap between the educational training provided at the Utah School for the Deaf and the vocational training available to Utah Deaf individuals was addressed in the report. The following details were included:
The report also included policy proposals for the USDE to consider (Campbell, 1977).
After a two-year study and collaboration with outside neutral researchers, Dr. Campbell completed the report on February 15, 1977. The study, which was based on data collected between 1960 and 1977, included students who were mainstreamed in school districts as well as those who attended the Utah School for the Deaf. He hoped that his research would help settle the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, as well as to address the internal conflicts of the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977).
The gap between the educational training provided at the Utah School for the Deaf and the vocational training available to Utah Deaf individuals was addressed in the report. The following details were included:
- An analysis of research on communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- A study of deaf children in Utah school districts,
- A sample of opinions of parents of older students at the Utah School for the Deaf,
- Comments from professional staff,
- Letters/materials received from national leaders and educators of the deaf,
- Perceptions and recommendations from former USD students,
- Professional interpreters for the deaf, and
- Professional counselors for the deaf.
The report also included policy proposals for the USDE to consider (Campbell, 1977).
After a two-year study and collaboration with outside neutral researchers, Dr. Campbell completed the report on February 15, 1977. The study, which was based on data collected between 1960 and 1977, included students who were mainstreamed in school districts as well as those who attended the Utah School for the Deaf. He hoped that his research would help settle the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, as well as to address the internal conflicts of the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson @ Gallaudet University Archives
The students' poor educational achievement was noted in the study, which was attributed to conflicts between the two educational ideologies. The needs of the Deaf child were being downplayed in the debate. Other issues that revealed were a shortage of teacher's aides and tutors at USD, and teachers felt the strain of educating children of various ages, linguistic proficiency, and cognitive skills in one classroom. "In most classes, there is a marked difference in ability levels between students," one teacher said. A teacher may be required to teach at two or more levels at the same time. A capable assistant can assist the teacher in making the most of the students' time by carrying out particular instructional activities with a portion of the class while the teacher instructs the rest. Using assistant workers can enhance the amount of language input received by each student throughout the day, in addition to boosting the real amount of instruction time for teaching students" (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared to work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. To make matters worse, the larger numbers of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental affect on USD's ability to deliver quality education over the the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to successfully educate the Deaf. Interactions between Deaf and hearing students were relatively limited in the mainstreamed setting. Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with, according to the study (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Campbell's investigation revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared to work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. To make matters worse, the larger numbers of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental affect on USD's ability to deliver quality education over the the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to successfully educate the Deaf. Interactions between Deaf and hearing students were relatively limited in the mainstreamed setting. Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with, according to the study (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell signing his speech “Humanizing Education” and Beth Ann Stewart signing her rendition in signs of “I.” There Be Peace on Earth at convention banquet. UAD Bulletin, November 1973
Dr. Campbell included a letter from one of the respondents in his research. He thought it included important observations and suggestions.
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
As a result of agreeing to this letter, Dr. Campbell proposed that the "two track system" be continued in completely separate projects in order to address internal/external issues, remove competitiveness, and relieve tension between the two programs. He was also in support of each program having its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students.
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
As a result of agreeing to this letter, Dr. Campbell proposed that the "two track system" be continued in completely separate projects in order to address internal/external issues, remove competitiveness, and relieve tension between the two programs. He was also in support of each program having its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's Comprehensive Study
During the study, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to conduct a survey of USD alumni to confirm their sentiments about the education they got at the school. The survey compared graduates from the USD prior to 1948, those who had graduated 1948 to 1959, and those who graduated 1960 to 1977. The results showed a marked difference in feelings. Those that graduated prior to 1949 seemed to like school, understood the teachers, and liked the administrators much better than those who graduated from 1960 to 1977. The results of the students graduating between 1949 and 1959 fell between the two other categories (Sanderson, 1977).
Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as a result of the research:
Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as a result of the research:
- Restructure and strengthen the programs to reduce the competition and tension and meet the children’s educational needs through a fair placement process,
- Improve the evaluation of each student in relation to communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- Provide periodic evaluations of all students and, if needed, recommendations for transfer,
- Provide aid and education to parents as they make decisions regarding placement,
- Set up an early intervention program for deaf toddlers and preschoolers,
- Improve curriculum and offer vocational courses for skill-building targeted to obtain employment,
- Encourage teachers and parents to become involved with the deaf community and have the right attitude towards the deaf,
- Include the state evaluative process for deaf children in school districts under the direction of USD and make recommendation along the spectrum of placements,
- Keep up with the research on services and education trends,
- Coordinate the educational research of USD with research from other states, and
- Reconsider and rewrite USD policies to clarify their intent and ensure that they reflect a coherent and consistent policy (Campbell, 1977).
Education of Deaf Stirs Debate:
No Educational Action Taken
No Educational Action Taken
The Utah State Board of Education had been hearing speakers arguing over the appropriate methods for Deaf Education and proposals to separate the two programs for the past three months, as detailed far below (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). The State Board was reminded of how much time and effort had gone into debating whether to use oral or total communication approaches. They believed it would be more beneficial to focus their efforts on strengthening both programs (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings as well as recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke to the Utah State Board of Education as well. More than 300 parents of oral deaf children were in attendance. Dr. Bitter scolded both groups for their never-ending debates over which method was the most effective. He challenged them to put their differences aside and work together to improve the quality of Deaf Education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter emphasized that because parents have the right to select on their children's education, they are entitled to know about the educational options available for their Deaf children (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Dr. Bitter told the Board that he valued Dr. Barnett's and Dr. David Nelson's opinions. Their reports may be useful in the current investigation. However, he believed that much of the information gathered did not reflect current requirements, difficulties, trends, or answers to Utah's problems and concerns. Dr. Bitter argued that some of Dr. Campbell's proposals were lacking in sufficient field input and documentation. He also said that inaccurate assumptions had been made about deaf mainstreamed students enrolling full-time in some school districts.
Much of Dr. Bitter's criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February 1977 report to the State Board, which is detailed below. Dr. Sanderson's population and sample procedures were questioned by him for their validity and reliability. There was a lot of confusion. Dr. Sanderson was alleged to have advocated for two separate schools for the two educational approaches, with the Total Communication department remaining on the Ogden USD campus. Others argued that the two prior reports showed that the Ogden campus's orientation program for parents of new students was biased in favor of the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter asked the State Board to postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings as well as recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke to the Utah State Board of Education as well. More than 300 parents of oral deaf children were in attendance. Dr. Bitter scolded both groups for their never-ending debates over which method was the most effective. He challenged them to put their differences aside and work together to improve the quality of Deaf Education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter emphasized that because parents have the right to select on their children's education, they are entitled to know about the educational options available for their Deaf children (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Dr. Bitter told the Board that he valued Dr. Barnett's and Dr. David Nelson's opinions. Their reports may be useful in the current investigation. However, he believed that much of the information gathered did not reflect current requirements, difficulties, trends, or answers to Utah's problems and concerns. Dr. Bitter argued that some of Dr. Campbell's proposals were lacking in sufficient field input and documentation. He also said that inaccurate assumptions had been made about deaf mainstreamed students enrolling full-time in some school districts.
Much of Dr. Bitter's criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February 1977 report to the State Board, which is detailed below. Dr. Sanderson's population and sample procedures were questioned by him for their validity and reliability. There was a lot of confusion. Dr. Sanderson was alleged to have advocated for two separate schools for the two educational approaches, with the Total Communication department remaining on the Ogden USD campus. Others argued that the two prior reports showed that the Ogden campus's orientation program for parents of new students was biased in favor of the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter asked the State Board to postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
Dr. Walter D. Talbot. The Utah Eagle, April 1970
"While Utah is fortunate to have both methods of education, it is unfortunate that we are almost always at conflict," Peter Vlahos, an Ogden attorney and parent of a Deaf daughter, told the State Board. I'm incredibly proud of anything my daughter accomplishes. Why should we be preoccupied with proving one approach is superior to another when we should be concerned with educating our children" (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977)? Vlahos concluded that two-thirds of the Deaf schoolchildren's parents requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not be permitted to continue in prominent roles over oral students. The oralism-supporting parents in the crowd applauded Dr. Bitter and Mr. Vlahos and gave them a standing ovation (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
These parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, claiming that it was inconclusive. Because of their dissatisfaction with Dr. Campbell's research findings, they demanded that he be fired from his position (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). In addition to the approximately 300 parents in attendance, there were between 50 and 60 Deaf individuals in attendance as well. Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, proposed three options to Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction: 1. Removing Dr. Campbell from his position, 2. Assigning him to another position, or 3. Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were being intimidated through some of the state's programs. Dr. Talbot responded to Dr. Bitter's appeal by announcing that the State Board had decided to reassign Dr. Campbell to a different position within the State Office of Education. Deaf group became agitated and stomped their feet on the floor. They were very emotional, according to Dr. Bitter, and the meeting was wild. He was terrified that he would be killed during the ordeal. Dr. Talbot asked the members of the Deaf community to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).(Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The reports and supporting documentation were accepted by the Board. Despite Dr. Campbell's analysis, which contained data from independent researchers, the State Board did not take any of his recommendations into consideration (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). As a result, Dr. Campbell’s plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
These parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, claiming that it was inconclusive. Because of their dissatisfaction with Dr. Campbell's research findings, they demanded that he be fired from his position (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). In addition to the approximately 300 parents in attendance, there were between 50 and 60 Deaf individuals in attendance as well. Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, proposed three options to Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction: 1. Removing Dr. Campbell from his position, 2. Assigning him to another position, or 3. Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were being intimidated through some of the state's programs. Dr. Talbot responded to Dr. Bitter's appeal by announcing that the State Board had decided to reassign Dr. Campbell to a different position within the State Office of Education. Deaf group became agitated and stomped their feet on the floor. They were very emotional, according to Dr. Bitter, and the meeting was wild. He was terrified that he would be killed during the ordeal. Dr. Talbot asked the members of the Deaf community to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).(Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The reports and supporting documentation were accepted by the Board. Despite Dr. Campbell's analysis, which contained data from independent researchers, the State Board did not take any of his recommendations into consideration (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). As a result, Dr. Campbell’s plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
A New USD Orientation is Formed
Since the incident at the 1977 Utah State Board of Education meeting, the trend at USD of establishing inappropriate placement procedures continued partly due to unshared information until the Parent Infant Program (PIP) Orientation at USD was formed in 2010 under the administration of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, an oral proponent and a long-serving teacher/director of the Utah School for the Deaf, to give fair, balanced options to parents of Deaf children. The new adjustments in the PIP that were finally taking place after being advocated by Dr. Campbell in the 1970s to develop an orientation that Dr. Bitter opposed. Parents, despite the 2010 orientation, nevertheless still had to choose between the two options. It was a "either/or" situation.
Steven W. Noyce @ Twitter
On February 10, 2011, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, Jeff Pollock, requested that the guidelines titled, "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" be implemented in USD to help solve the philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. One of the members of the Advisory Council wondered if the Deaf National Agenda was solely based on ASL. He said no, since it looks at the complete child and each child individually, and it supports both ASL and spoken language, rather than "either/or" as the system is currently set up. Pollock then addressed Superintendent Noyce in the eyes and stated that the USD has reverted to the inefficient "Y" system of the last 30-40 years, with oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who desire both. Superintendent Noyce was deafeningly silent on the subject. It wasn't until Michelle Tanner, the future USD Associate Superintendent, was brought in to take charge of this matter in 2014. More information is available in "The Creation of the Hybrid Program" section.
Despite the Two-Track program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since 1962. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. From 1962 until 1987, he was in position of 'power' for 25 years. Dr. Bitter exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed away in 2000, his spirit lives on in the field of Deaf Education.
Despite the Two-Track program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since 1962. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. From 1962 until 1987, he was in position of 'power' for 25 years. Dr. Bitter exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed away in 2000, his spirit lives on in the field of Deaf Education.
Jeff Pollock, Deaf Advocate
The Parent-Teacher Association of USD
Has Split Over Communication Methods
Has Split Over Communication Methods
Controversy at Parent Teacher Association Functions
Kenneth L. Kinner
The Utah School for the Deaf Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) encountered a unique challenge in the 1969-1970 school year that parents could never foresee. As Deaf parents gathered in Ogden, Utah for regular PTA meetings, disagreements emerged over how to communicate at these meetings. Parents who agreed with the philosophy of the strict oral approach, including Linda C. Harrop, PTA president and parent of a Deaf child, Troy. Kenneth L. Kinner, PTA Vice-President and parent of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, was one of the parents who supported the philosophy of simultaneous Communication approach. There were disputes over how the meetings should be conducted. Deaf parents were not allowed to sit in the front row at the time. They were instructed to sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter so that the sign language would not be visible to others, particularly the small children who were oral. Oral Deaf children were covered with their parents' coats as a precaution, so they wouldn't see any sign language. Parents who preferred simultaneous communication were also unable to voice concerns regarding educational matters. In that sense, they were undoubtedly repressed. Students who were deaf were not the only ones who faced communicative and ideological barriers. Their parents were also afflicted (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The Parent Teacher Association Divides
W. David Mortensen
During a Parent-Teacher Association meeting in the spring of 1970, a group of parents, Deaf representatives, and Utah School for the Deaf staff discussed taking out-of-state Deaf school tours. It was suggested that they visit Missouri or California. The Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton, Missouri, and the Central School for the Deaf in St. Louis, Missouri, were chosen by the majority of the oral proponents to be visited. Simultaneous Communication supporters wished to visit the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, California, the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in Santa Ana, California, and/or the Buena Park Program for the Deaf in Orange County, California. When the group couldn't agree where to go, they turned to Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for guidance. He'd be the one to make the final decision. Talbot chose California after reviewing the budget because it was closer to Utah and less expensive to travel there.
Among the Deaf people chosen to go were W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two USD employees, Boyd Nielson, USD Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, Assistant USD Oral Coordinator. Parents were also there, but PTA president Linda C. Harrop was unable to attend due to her pregnancy.
Among the Deaf people chosen to go were W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two USD employees, Boyd Nielson, USD Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, Assistant USD Oral Coordinator. Parents were also there, but PTA president Linda C. Harrop was unable to attend due to her pregnancy.
Dr. Lawrence R. Newman @ Iowa Association of the Deaf website
While touring the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, they went to a high school mathematics lesson taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman. He was the president of the National Association of the Deaf at the time. The Simultaneous Communication group hoped that the Oral group would have an open mind and see the value of sign language.
The oral parents asked Dr. Lawrence if any students were in the oral program. He said, “Don’t ask me. Ask the students.” One of the students responded by saying he had attended the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, California but didn’t get the education he needed. At the Riverside School for the Deaf, he said he discovered more happiness and received a better education.
Dr. Roy K. Holcomb @ Deaflife website
After touring the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the Utah Oral proponents headed home, while the Simultaneous Communication members of the group stayed an extra day to go on an unofficial tour of the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in the Santa Ana Unified School District, California. Intriguingly, the school used an oral method from 1948 until September 19, 1968, when it switched to the Total Communication approach. This happened during the ‘movement' of Total Communication (Educating Deaf Children by Total Communication, 1970). Their visit was led by Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, known as the "Father of Total Communication." The group was blown away by the curriculum and wished that the oral group had stayed with them to see what the oral approach could accomplish academically.
J. Boyd Nielson. The Utah Eagle, October 1969
When they returned to Utah, the group met together to discuss regarding their impressions and observations from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson asserted, "I believe Deaf children can talk." The supporters of the oral method applauded. That statement indicated to the signing advocates that the oral supporters had been unresponsive to anything they had seen at the California School for the Deaf in action. Before going on this trip, oral proponents held an "iron-clad" view of Deaf Education.
While the PTA attempted to address how USD parents could become more involved in the deaf school's affairs, the educational controversy continued to prevent parents from collaborating. Della L. Loveridge, State Representative for the 8th District, met with a group of parents to express their concern about the USD PTA's challenges (Della was W. David Mortensen’s mother’s best friend). She advised that the Simultaneous Communication parents form their own PTA group (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The parents were so divided that the story made it into the local Ogden newspaper on May 28, 1970. A group of parents and teachers who favor sign language met in Ogden to discuss their experiences of being kept out of decision-making at the USD's PTA, according to the report. This occurred not only in Ogden Deaf School, but also in Salt Lake City. One Deaf parent said, “We are not opposed to teaching [the children] to speak. We are opposed to the Salt Lake [extension] schools refusing to teach sign language.” Another parent recounted the opposition he encountered when trying to switch his child from the oral program into the manual or Simultaneous Communication program at the end of his child’s elementary school years.
A meeting was conducted on June 25, 1970, to form a new PTA organization for parents and teachers in the Simultaneous Communication Division (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
While the PTA attempted to address how USD parents could become more involved in the deaf school's affairs, the educational controversy continued to prevent parents from collaborating. Della L. Loveridge, State Representative for the 8th District, met with a group of parents to express their concern about the USD PTA's challenges (Della was W. David Mortensen’s mother’s best friend). She advised that the Simultaneous Communication parents form their own PTA group (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The parents were so divided that the story made it into the local Ogden newspaper on May 28, 1970. A group of parents and teachers who favor sign language met in Ogden to discuss their experiences of being kept out of decision-making at the USD's PTA, according to the report. This occurred not only in Ogden Deaf School, but also in Salt Lake City. One Deaf parent said, “We are not opposed to teaching [the children] to speak. We are opposed to the Salt Lake [extension] schools refusing to teach sign language.” Another parent recounted the opposition he encountered when trying to switch his child from the oral program into the manual or Simultaneous Communication program at the end of his child’s elementary school years.
A meeting was conducted on June 25, 1970, to form a new PTA organization for parents and teachers in the Simultaneous Communication Division (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
State Representative Della L. Loveridge, D-Salt Lake City @ Utah Department of Cultural & Community Engagement
Parents of Deaf Form Separate PTA Organization
Due to philosophical differences on education, over 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community opted to form their own PTA. This historic event occurred on June 25, 1970, at a gathering in Ogden, Utah. This would be USD's third PTA, following the Total Communication (replaced simultaneous communication) PTA in Ogden and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, both of which were formed in Extension classrooms at USB (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970). The first USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA when this third PTA was established.
The name given to this new group was the Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA). Its home base was in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jack W. Hendrickson was the first president of the PTSA. Vice-presidents were chosen as W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy. Treasurer Kenneth L. Kinner was elected. Karen Williams was recruited as historian and Harriet Hendrickson as secretary (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970; (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA was made up of Deaf parents, USD teachers and students, and supporting friends. The club was made up of Deaf and hearing persons who were interested in PTSA's objectives, which were to address the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The Parent-Teacher-Student Association didn't take long to have an impact. They spoke out against the Dual Track Program and advocated for this program to be reformed. They favored the option of choosing between oral and complete communication methods from the start of their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf and parents who supported sign language had been fighting the "Y" system for nearly ten years.
No one had paid attention so far. Finally, the newly formed PTSA was successful in influencing school policies (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The fact that many parents were skeptical of USD's Dual Track Program was highlighted in a February 1968 article in The Utah Eagle titled "New Developments in Utah's Educational Programs for the Deaf” (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). After a long battle, the Utah State Board of Education finally approved a new policy on December 28, 1970, allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, giving parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years, as outlined in the "The Implementation of the The Two-Track Program" section above. Slowly but surely, the Parent Teacher Student Association achieved a new "Two-Track Program," which was a victory.
The name given to this new group was the Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA). Its home base was in Salt Lake City, Utah. Jack W. Hendrickson was the first president of the PTSA. Vice-presidents were chosen as W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy. Treasurer Kenneth L. Kinner was elected. Karen Williams was recruited as historian and Harriet Hendrickson as secretary (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970; (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA was made up of Deaf parents, USD teachers and students, and supporting friends. The club was made up of Deaf and hearing persons who were interested in PTSA's objectives, which were to address the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The Parent-Teacher-Student Association didn't take long to have an impact. They spoke out against the Dual Track Program and advocated for this program to be reformed. They favored the option of choosing between oral and complete communication methods from the start of their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf and parents who supported sign language had been fighting the "Y" system for nearly ten years.
No one had paid attention so far. Finally, the newly formed PTSA was successful in influencing school policies (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The fact that many parents were skeptical of USD's Dual Track Program was highlighted in a February 1968 article in The Utah Eagle titled "New Developments in Utah's Educational Programs for the Deaf” (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). After a long battle, the Utah State Board of Education finally approved a new policy on December 28, 1970, allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, giving parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years, as outlined in the "The Implementation of the The Two-Track Program" section above. Slowly but surely, the Parent Teacher Student Association achieved a new "Two-Track Program," which was a victory.
Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Association
of the Deaf Undergoes Changes
of the Deaf Undergoes Changes
Carol White Mathis
The USD Parent-Teacher-Student Association joined Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Associations of the Deaf in 1976. Operation TRIPOD was launched by Gallaudet College on May 17, 1970. TRIPOD stands for "Towards Rehabilitation Involvement of Deaf Parents." The attempt to improve the quality of Deaf Education was a collaborative effort by vocational rehabilitation specialists, parents, and schools.
This program was established in the states that desired to participate. Kenneth L. Kinner served as the first president of Utah, and Carol White Mathis served as the first vice president. Every three months, members of the group took turns driving to meetings in Salt Lake City or Ogden (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Long commutes reduced participation after a few months, thus TRIPOD members decided to separate into two groups: the Salt Lake TRIPOD and the Ogden TRIPOD, near the end of 1976.
From 1976 through the 1980s, these two organizations remained active. As the mainstreaming trend grew, some parents joined PTAs in public schools. The TRIPOD group eventually fizzled out as the Deaf children of the parent members graduated or transferred to an out-of-state residential school. The Oral Program's Extension Department's PTA met a similar fate. Because the majority of oral Deaf students were placed to a local public school, their parents were able to participate in the PTA (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
This program was established in the states that desired to participate. Kenneth L. Kinner served as the first president of Utah, and Carol White Mathis served as the first vice president. Every three months, members of the group took turns driving to meetings in Salt Lake City or Ogden (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Long commutes reduced participation after a few months, thus TRIPOD members decided to separate into two groups: the Salt Lake TRIPOD and the Ogden TRIPOD, near the end of 1976.
From 1976 through the 1980s, these two organizations remained active. As the mainstreaming trend grew, some parents joined PTAs in public schools. The TRIPOD group eventually fizzled out as the Deaf children of the parent members graduated or transferred to an out-of-state residential school. The Oral Program's Extension Department's PTA met a similar fate. Because the majority of oral Deaf students were placed to a local public school, their parents were able to participate in the PTA (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Tomorrow's World
Utah Association for the Deaf
Appeals for Better Education
Appeals for Better Education
More than 100 Deaf people associated with UAD were crowded into the Utah State Board of Education meeting room in Salt Lake City on February 18, 1977, under the leadership of UAD President W. David Mortensen. They were there to demand that Deaf education be improved (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977). The organization's spokesman was Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Coordinator of Deaf Services. "Tomorrow's world, with its great technology advances, will require even more education for deaf individuals to compete in the market place jobs," he stated. When we look around the world and see the millions of people who can hear and talk normally, we realize that it is their education, not their speech, that enables them to succeed" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Dr. Sanderson addressed UAD's concerns and offered the following three recommendations for the board to consider:
Dr. Sanderson addressed UAD's concerns and offered the following three recommendations for the board to consider:
- The Utah School for the Deaf at Ogden should be divided into two separate schools, one for total communication and one for oral communication. The Total Communication Division should be located on the present Ogden campus and the Oral Division should have another site. Conflicts in philosophies and teaching approaches were given as reasons for this recommendation.
- Each deaf child should be evaluated by a professional team, which would recommend a specific program for that child.
- The State Board should develop a long-range research program to determine the needs of and the best method of instruction for the Deaf children in the state (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Dr. Sanderson reported that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading levels ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade. He advocated for the State Board to place a greater emphasis on reading, writing, and math in deaf classes. He believed that if the Deaf students were taught the fundamentals of academics, they would be able to grasp and comprehend the rest of the curriculum. He stated that education is the most significant factor in a Deaf person's life advancement. Speech is just one of several areas that a Deaf youngster may need to learn. Dr. Sanderson persuaded the State Board of Education of the importance of being able to comprehend, use, and apply academic fundamentals. For a Deaf individual, this was 10,000 times more important than the capacity to speak (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977).
"The use of sign language does not hinder nor prevent the development of speech," Sanderson declared as a final shot to the defenders of the oral curriculum. It is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deception to mislead anxious parents that a Deaf person will lose his speech if he learns sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
"The use of sign language does not hinder nor prevent the development of speech," Sanderson declared as a final shot to the defenders of the oral curriculum. It is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deception to mislead anxious parents that a Deaf person will lose his speech if he learns sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Dark Ages
A Scathing Indictment Against
the Utah School for the Deaf
the Utah School for the Deaf
Gene Stewart, a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor and the hearing son of Deaf parents Wayne and Georgie Mae Bass Stewart, spoke before the Utah State Board of Education in Moab, Utah, on March 17, 1977, and delivered a scathing indictment against the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden. Stewart condemned USD of failing to provide adequate access to education for the state's Deaf children.
Gene Stewart, UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
He said that Utah already had systems in place to identify and diagnose Deaf adults' needs. The public school system failed to educate the youth. He went on to describe a national model Deaf program.
Stewart said, “Very few deaf children go on to college. In fact practically none, and by the time I get them at the postsecondary level, they won’t have anything to do with any more schooling…..We keep turning them out up there [at USD], and yet [the students] don’t even know the language of English.” Stewart read letters from Deaf students to demonstrate their lack of language training. He asked, “How can you read lips if you don’t know the words, or how can you learn to write English if you don’t know the language?” He spoke out against the program on the main USD campus in Ogden. Stewart declared, “There is something wrong with the system” (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977).
Stewart said, “Very few deaf children go on to college. In fact practically none, and by the time I get them at the postsecondary level, they won’t have anything to do with any more schooling…..We keep turning them out up there [at USD], and yet [the students] don’t even know the language of English.” Stewart read letters from Deaf students to demonstrate their lack of language training. He asked, “How can you read lips if you don’t know the words, or how can you learn to write English if you don’t know the language?” He spoke out against the program on the main USD campus in Ogden. Stewart declared, “There is something wrong with the system” (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977).
Accusation Stirs Debate
On March 25, 1977, in response to Gene Stewart's claim, USD Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder stated that students on the Ogden campus were being switched from one teaching method to the other since the two educational systems were always at conflict and wouldn't work together. Furthermore, he stated, "The ultimate decision to teach Deaf children via the oral method or total communication method belongs to the parents.”
Stewart promptly countered, “We‘re living in the dark ages in Utah. Many schools throughout the nation are using the total communication concept alone.”
Stewart promptly countered, “We‘re living in the dark ages in Utah. Many schools throughout the nation are using the total communication concept alone.”
USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder
Superintendent Tegeder said the charge that the school’s overall philosophy is oral “simply can’t be substantiated….Kids have been shifted from oral to total communication, but that is natural when a child is not progressing in the oral program. If his speech is not developing satisfactorily, he is shifted to where emphasis is less on speech.” He added that the total communication concept is “hard to define because there’s never really been an agreement as to [what] total communication includes” (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
The State Board was gathering information to decide whether to establish two separate campuses at the Deaf school, one for each teaching method. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart had presented an endorsement of the total communication philosophy. The Board was bound to hear from proponents of the oral philosophy in April. The meeting took place on April 14, 1977, as detailed in the "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study" section above (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
The State Board was gathering information to decide whether to establish two separate campuses at the Deaf school, one for each teaching method. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart had presented an endorsement of the total communication philosophy. The Board was bound to hear from proponents of the oral philosophy in April. The meeting took place on April 14, 1977, as detailed in the "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study" section above (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
Dr. Campbell's Comprehensive Study
Comes to Light
Comes to Light
Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study surfaced as a piece of rich information thirty years later, in 2007. Dr. Campbell's book was brought out of the dust by Kenneth L. Kinner, a 1954 alumnus of the Utah School for the Deaf and Deaf father of two Deaf children. He presented the book to his daughter-in-law, Jodi Becker Kinner, who was captivated by Utah's Deaf Education History.
Kenneth L. Kinner, 2011
Jodi, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children and a Deaf Education advocate, became intrigued in Dr. Campbell's research and wanted to meet him to learn more about it. Fortunately, Julie Hesterman Smith, a colleague, knew Dr. Campbell. He was interviewed by Jodi in the summer of 2007 about his study experience and the fresh insights it provided him. The interview was fantastic and meeting Dr. Campbell and his wife, Beth Ann, CODA and interpreter, was a tremendous privilege.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, 96, passed away on January 3, 2020. He will be remembered as a champion of the Utah Deaf Community.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, 96, passed away on January 3, 2020. He will be remembered as a champion of the Utah Deaf Community.
Julie Hesterman Smith, ASL Interpreter
Did You Know?
Norman Williams, a 1962 USD graduate and father of two Deaf daughters, Penny and Jan, recalls discovering Dr. Campbell's Comprehensive Study in the trash can at the State Office of Education a few years after that fateful presentation. He'd heard a lot about this research. He was overjoyed to finally have the book in his hands (Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010).
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Norman Williams, 2003
Dr. Jay J. Campbell’s research study with recommendations:Education of the Deaf in Utah:
A Comprehensive Study
February 15, 1977
A Comprehensive Study
February 15, 1977
A. FRONT COVER - Education of the Deaf in Utah
B. Study on the Education of the Deaf – Table of Contents
C. Introduction & Statement Problem 1 – 32
D. Study of Deaf Children in Utah School District 33 – 41
E. Sample of Opinions of Parents of Older Students at the Utah School for the Deaf 42 – 74
F. Input from the Professional Staff of the Utah School for the Deaf 75 – 90
G. Letters & Materials Received from National Leaders & Others in the Field of Education for the Deaf 91 – 104
H. Perceptions & Recommendations from Former Students 105 – 135
I. Recommendations from Professional Interpreters of the Deaf 126
J. Recommendations from Professional Counselors of the Deaf 127 – 129
K. Observations by the Writer 130 – 148
L. Report on the Utah School for the Deaf Submitted by Richard G. Keene 149 – 178
M. Conclusions 179 – 187
N. Recommendations 188 – 190
O. Appendix A 191
B. Study on the Education of the Deaf – Table of Contents
C. Introduction & Statement Problem 1 – 32
D. Study of Deaf Children in Utah School District 33 – 41
E. Sample of Opinions of Parents of Older Students at the Utah School for the Deaf 42 – 74
F. Input from the Professional Staff of the Utah School for the Deaf 75 – 90
G. Letters & Materials Received from National Leaders & Others in the Field of Education for the Deaf 91 – 104
H. Perceptions & Recommendations from Former Students 105 – 135
I. Recommendations from Professional Interpreters of the Deaf 126
J. Recommendations from Professional Counselors of the Deaf 127 – 129
K. Observations by the Writer 130 – 148
L. Report on the Utah School for the Deaf Submitted by Richard G. Keene 149 – 178
M. Conclusions 179 – 187
N. Recommendations 188 – 190
O. Appendix A 191
Thank You Note
"Thank you for sending me the "Deaf Education History in Utah” paper you have written. I am very impressed with it and all the work you have done. You are to be commended. I hope that people who really are interested in this subject will take the time to read your paper. As you know, I really don't believe many people ever read it [Comprehension Study]. Thanks for bringing it "out of the dust." Beth Ann and I were really happy to meet with you and get acquainted." ~ Dr. Jay J. Campbell, July 1, 2007
Dr. Campbell's Biography
Dr. Jay Junior Campbell was born in Burley, Idaho on December 29, 1924 to Chesta Marie Rasmussen Campbell and John James Campbell. He served in Europe in the United States Army from July 22, 1943 to April 27, 1946.
He graduated from Burley High School (1943), Ricks College with a BA in Music (1950), University of Utah with an MS in Music (1951) and an Ed.D. in Educational Administration (1957). He was Chairman of the Division of Fine Arts at Adams State College, Alamosa, Colorado from 1953 to 1966. He was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Utah State Board of Education in 1966. He was the Utah Coordinator for the study “Designing Education for the Future” and supervised the three junior colleges and the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind under the State Board of Education.
He graduated from Burley High School (1943), Ricks College with a BA in Music (1950), University of Utah with an MS in Music (1951) and an Ed.D. in Educational Administration (1957). He was Chairman of the Division of Fine Arts at Adams State College, Alamosa, Colorado from 1953 to 1966. He was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Utah State Board of Education in 1966. He was the Utah Coordinator for the study “Designing Education for the Future” and supervised the three junior colleges and the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind under the State Board of Education.
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell
Jay married Beth Ann Moon Stewart of Salt Lake City in 1976 and they were married 43 years. Beth Ann Stewart is a well-known figure in the Utah Deaf community. As a child of Deaf parents, she has the distinction as being the first nationally certified interpreter in the United States and she is also a former director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf.
After retirement, they enjoyed escorting both Deaf and hearing people on tours (Cruises and Bus Tours). They also served as full-time missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Family and Church History Mission for one year starting January 3, 2003. They then served as missionaries at the Utah State Prison from March, 2004 to July 22, 2009. They kept busy reading, Church Work, Utah Daughters of the Pioneers. He conducted “The Messiah” for over 30 years and was the conductor of the “Swanee Singers” Male Chorus for 35 years.
After retirement, they enjoyed escorting both Deaf and hearing people on tours (Cruises and Bus Tours). They also served as full-time missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Family and Church History Mission for one year starting January 3, 2003. They then served as missionaries at the Utah State Prison from March, 2004 to July 22, 2009. They kept busy reading, Church Work, Utah Daughters of the Pioneers. He conducted “The Messiah” for over 30 years and was the conductor of the “Swanee Singers” Male Chorus for 35 years.
Will add more references later
Personal Communication
Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007.
G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978.
Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.
Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010.
References
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Campbell, Jay J. Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, February 15, 1977.
“Dual Method For Teaching Deaf.” Deseret News, December 29, 1970.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
“New Developments in Utah’s Educational Programs for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 79, no. 4 (January 1968): 1 -3.
“Recommendation on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sanderson, Robert G. “Perceptions and Recommendations from Former Students.” Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, 1977. (On reserve, Utah State Achieves: Series 8556).
Wright, Ray. "Deaf Teaching Methods Debated." The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970.
Personal Communication
Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007.
G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978.
Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.
Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010.
References
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Campbell, Jay J. Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, February 15, 1977.
“Dual Method For Teaching Deaf.” Deseret News, December 29, 1970.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
“New Developments in Utah’s Educational Programs for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 79, no. 4 (January 1968): 1 -3.
“Recommendation on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Sanderson, Robert G. “Perceptions and Recommendations from Former Students.” Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, 1977. (On reserve, Utah State Achieves: Series 8556).
Wright, Ray. "Deaf Teaching Methods Debated." The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970.