Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977
Comprehensive Study
of Deaf Education in Utah

Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner

Published in 2012
Updated in 2024

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

Author's Note

As a parent of two Deaf children, my passion for deaf education comes from my personal journey. My father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, also sparked my interest and shared with me the history of deaf education in Utah, including its oral and mainstreaming impact. This inspired me to meticulously document the controversial events of that era. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be able to advocate for my kids without knowing the history. My studies at the Gallaudet School Social Work Program further deepened my understanding of the complexities of education, legislation, and policy. Moreover, my role on the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind has truly empowered me to advocate for my children and others in Utah who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled. This platform has given me the strength and voice to make a difference.

The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind is a state school that promotes inclusivity by serving a diverse student population of Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind, Low Vision, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled individuals. When we discuss deaf education, we will primarily refer to the 'Utah School for the Deaf.' On the other hand, when we talk about the entire state school, we will use the term "Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind."

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Utah School for the Deaf underwent significant changes. The dual-track program and the two-track program, divided into an oral department and a sign language department, significantly impacted the lives of Deaf students and their families. To avoid confusion, we refer to the "dual-track program" from the 1960s and the "two-track program" from the 1970s on our education webpages. These programs will help us understand how these changes have affected students, teachers, administrators, and the Utah Association for the Deaf.

The "Deaf Education in Utah" webpages contain repetitive and overlapping sections, similar to those on other education webpages. The introductions to each section are also similar, and they will directly get to the point of the webpage's topic.

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

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

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

Enjoy!
Jodi Becker Kinner

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's
Comprehensive Study
Comes to Light

I want to express my gratitude to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, a 1954 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, for his role in sharing Dr. Jay J. Campbell's important advocacy for the Utah Deaf community with me in 2006. In 1977, Dr. Campbell, Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, presented his "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehension Study" to the Utah State Board of Education. In this presentation, he made crucial recommendations aimed at enhancing the relationship between the oral and sign language departments of the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite the opposition from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a staunch advocate for oral and mainstream education at the Utah State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Campbell's perseverance and dedication to his cause are admirable, as detailed on this webpage. Thirty years later, in 2007, I was intrigued by his study and asked Ken if I could see a copy of the book. He dug Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study book out of the dust and handed it to me.

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah

Thank you, Ken, for sharing the history of deaf education in Utah with me and bringing Dr. Campbell's book out of dust. Without him, this history website would not have been possible. In addition to the two books by Dr. Campbell in their care, I'd like to thank my mother-in-law, Ilene Coles Kinner, for giving me the other book, which I had previously donated from Ken to the George Sutherland Archives at Utah Valley University for preservation.

Thank you, Ken and Ilene, for caring for Dr. Campbell's books and keeping them safe all these years!

Jodi Becker Kinner

Kenneth L. Kinner, 2011

Acknowledgment

I, too, would like to express my gratitude to my colleague, Julie Hesterman Smith, an interpreter, who, through a family friend, had a connection with Dr. Jay J. Campbell, whom I was intrigued to meet. This connection allowed me to interview him and delve deeper into his study on July 1, 2007. Dr. Campbell's work had a profound impact on me, and meeting him and his wife, Beth Ann, who is a Child of Deaf Adults (CODA) and an interpreter, was a privilege. Dr. Campbell's legacy as a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community lives on, even after his passing on January 3, 2020, at the age of 96.

If you want to learn more about Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, I invite you to explore this webpage. It offers a comprehensive overview of his critical research, which was the product of collaborative efforts between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader in the Utah Deaf community, and other neutral researchers who worked closely with Dr. Campbell. Despite its prevention implementation to strengthen the Utah School for the Deaf, I found it educational and fascinating, and I hope you will, too. Enjoy exploring the depths of Dr. Campbell's research!

Thank you so much, Julie, for introducing me to Dr. Campbell and his wife, Beth Ann!

Jodi Becker Kinner

Julie Hesterman Smith

Like Ken and Julie, I would also like to thank Dr. Jay J. Campbell for his support and investment in his "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehension Study," which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf. This initiative aimed to address the internal and external controversy surrounding the use of oral and sign language. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent member of the Utah Deaf community and a strong advocate for sign language and the state school for the deaf, led the Utah Association for the Deaf in a significant dispute that shaped deaf education history. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, on the other hand, advocated for oral and mainstream education. Dr. Jay J. Campbell, husband of sign language interpreter Beth Ann Stewart Campbell and Deputy Superintendent at the time, played a significant role in this controversy. This conflict was a turning point in the history of deaf education, and Dr. Campbell, a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community, left an enduring impact.

In 1977, Dr. Jay J. Campbell conducted his "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study" to resolve and address the ongoing controversy between oral and sign language in Utah. Despite facing challenges, Dr. Campbell completed his research on February 15, 1977, and submitted it to the Utah State Board of Education on April 14, 1977. In his study, Dr. Campbell presented findings, ideas, and recommendations to improve the education system at the Utah School for the Deaf, including proposing more fair evaluation and placement systems. However, his findings were strongly opposed by Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a staunch advocate of oral education and mainstreaming, along with other oral advocates and parents, who argued that sign language was not a suitable means of education for the deaf. This disagreement led to a deep controversy that still resonates in the field of deaf education today.

Regrettably, Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study faced opposition, and his efforts to improve education through fair assessment and placement procedures ultimately failed. Nonetheless, his two-year study, initially buried and forgotten, resurfaced in 2007 and gained recognition as a valuable source of information. Notably, his study continues to shape the future of deaf education, offering hope for a fairer system and emphasizing the long-lasting impact of his work. The enduring influence of Dr. Campbell's study, which continues to be a guiding light in the field of deaf education, demonstrates the lasting value of his research and the potential for positive change.

Dr. Campbell passed away in 2020. I regret not recording his interview, during which he discussed his experience advocating for the Utah Deaf community, conducting a comprehensive study on deaf education, and overcoming obstacles with his opponent, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, and his oral advocates.

Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your unwavering support and dedication to our community. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we are deeply grateful for all you have done. Your work has left an indelible mark on the field of deaf education, and we will always remember and honor your legacy.

Jodi Becker Kinner

Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: The Salina Sun, May 21, 1970

Insightful Remarks from Beth Ann
Stewart Campbell Shed Light on her husband,
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's Research

Beth Ann Stewart Campbell shared a crucial insight at the interpreting workshop at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. Her husband, Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who was presented at the workshop, had conducted research on oral versus total communication in deaf education from 1975 to 1977. His findings, which supported total communication, showed great promise for improving deaf education. However, his research was reportedly concealed by the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf, a missed opportunity to enhance deaf education in Utah. She also noted that I shed light on this issue and interviewed Dr. Campbell about his study in 2007. Beth Ann expressed surprise at the reemergence of this issue, highlighting the importance of raising awareness. She mentioned that there were tough times (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010). The following details the history of Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and the obstacles that prevented it from enhancing deaf education in Utah.

We are very grateful to Beth Ann for her inspiring advocacy for the Utah Deaf community. Her experiences as an interpreter during the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act era, her firsthand experience with the deaf education battles during the Bitter/Sanderson era, and her continued advocacy were truly enlightening. During the interview, she mentioned the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language, but she believed it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter/Sanderson era. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend her workshop due to personal reasons. I want to express my heartfelt thanks to Julie Hesterman Smith, my co-worker, for making Beth Ann's presentation accessible to me.

Thank you, Beth Ann, for interpreting and advocating for our causes!

Jodi Becker Kinner

Beth Ann Stewart Campbell

Did You Know?

Norman Williams, a 1962 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and father of two Deaf daughters, Penny and Jan, remembers finding Dr. Campbell's Comprehensive Study in the trash can at the Utah State Office of Education a few years after the fateful presentation. He had heard a lot about this research and was overjoyed to 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. 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.

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

His daughter, Colleen, was born deaf in 1954, which was another reason for his dedication to the advancement of both oral and mainstream education. Dr. Bitter supported the idea of mainstreaming for all Deaf and hard of hearing children for two main reasons: his own Deaf daughter and his internship experience at the Lexington School for the Deaf. During his master's degree studies, he interned at Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school, and was shocked to see young children having to leave their parents for a week, often crying and screaming. His role as a father of a Deaf child, as well as his experience, inspired him to advocate for mainstreaming, allowing Deaf children to attend local public schools at home (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

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

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 education, and no one was more persistent than him in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin also recalled how Dr. Bitter criticized the popular use of sign language, arguing that it hindered the development of oral skills and enrollment in residential settings, which he believed isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990).

Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin

Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the oral and mainstreaming movements sparked a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, a group comprised mainly of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf community leader in Utah who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch supporter of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giants was due to the ongoing dispute over oral and sign language in Utah's deaf educational system. Their struggle was akin to a chess game, with each maneuvering politically to gain the upper hand in the deaf educational system. 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, who opposed anyone who stood in the way of his goals of promoting oral and mainstream education, had formally requested the job removal of Dr. Robert Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language. He believed they were interfering with his mission. Additionally, he expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's television interpretation of news in sign language, feeling it did not align with his educational goals. He also asked Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and respected committee chairperson, to resign because she invited representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, which he saw as a shift from the committee's focus. The Utah Association for the Deaf, in the face of Dr. Bitter's opposition, demonstrated remarkable resilience, marking a significant turning point in their history and inspiring others with their strength and determination.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson

Dr. Bitter has had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. His journey began at the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator. His passion for education led him to become a director and professor in the Teacher Training Program, where he focused primarily on oral education under the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. Dr. Bitter also served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.

Dr. Bitter believed strongly in oralism, which is the belief that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. He was so committed to this idea that he included it in his teaching methods for the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah. To support this cause, he founded the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970 and the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters in 1981 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).

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 surprised by the revolutionary changes at the Utah School for the Deaf, which introduced the dual-track program, also commonly known as the "Y" system. The unexpected change had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, evoking a 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; Wight, 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 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, 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. Parents and Deaf students did not have the 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.

The "Y" System of the Dual-Track Program Starting in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf

As a result of the "Y" system's implementation, the Utah School for the Deaf had to undergo significant changes. The school had to hire more oral teachers and establish speech as the primary mode of communication, shifting the focus of the learning environment. 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 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; Wight, 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).

On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track program, which led to the division of the Ogden campus into two parts during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). The dual-track program 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; Wight, 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.

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

During the 1962–63 school year, some changes were made at the Utah School for the Deaf without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were surprised to find out about the changes. These changes 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).

Barbara Schell Bass. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell

The Implementation
of the The Two-Track Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf

The dual-track program's "Y" segregation system, which separated oral and sign language students, caused dissatisfaction and led to protests. High school students raised concerns about this system, but the school administration dismissed their objections. In 1962 and 1969, the students went on strike to oppose the new dual-track policy because they felt it created a "wall" that prevented oral and sign language students from interacting with each other. Despite the students' outcry, the school administration continued the dual-track policy.

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.

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 (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.

Another round of students' acts of resistance during the 1969 walkout protest against the continued enforcement of "Y" social segregation in the dual-track program was a defining moment in history, echoing the 1962 student protest at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite not achieving the desired results, they found new ways to voice their discontent. Some sign language students boldly crossed the oral department hallway, while others took the simultaneous communication department route. This act of defiance broke the "Y" system rule, which had designated these spaces as 'off-limits' in order to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even confronted their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). For nearly a decade, the Utah Association for the Deaf, in collaboration with the Parent-Teacher-Student Association, comprised supportive parents who advocated for sign language and fought against the "Y" system. Despite years of dismissal and opposition, their unwavering determination and resilience in the face of social segregation are truly admirable.

Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, when faced with a challenging situation, sought assistance from his boss, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Campbell, a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community. Motivated by his concern for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new instrument system that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). His dedication and commitment to the cause are genuinely inspiring.

Ned C. Wheeler, who became deaf at the age of 13 and graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1933, was the chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council. He proposed the "two-track program" in response to various events, including Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association to the "Y" system policy. On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy, paving the way for the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program with choices, eliminating the "Y" system. This program allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their deaf child aged between 2 1/2 and 21, marking a significant shift in deaf education (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).

Ned C. Wheeler

However, while supervising the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell noticed that parents were often unaware of their children's educational and communication options (Campbell, 1977). Despite the Utah State Board of Education releasing policies in 1970, 1977, and 1998, the Utah School for the Deaf's Communication Guidelines did not provide parents with a wide range of choices. This lack of clarity resulted in ineffective placement tactics due to the prevalent oral bias.

Two-Track Program With Communication Method Choices at the Utah School for the Deaf

Dr. Jay J. Campbell Shares his
Comprehensive Study
on the Education of the Deaf in Utah

In 1966, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a respected individual and advocate for the Utah Deaf community, to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf. During his tenure from 1966 to 1977, he witnessed the ongoing controversy between Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who supported sign language. Furthermore, Dr. Campbell observed a conflict on communication methods between the Oral Program and the Total Communication Program, both within and outside the Utah School for the Deaf. In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's study project on deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).

Dr. Campbell's study, a significant contribution to the field of deaf education, focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard of hearing children and develop a comprehensive and inclusive education system for these students. The study focused primarily on the following areas:

An analysis of research on communication methods used in educating the deaf,
A study of deaf children in Utah school districts,
A sample of opinions of parents of older students at the Utah School for the Deaf,
Comments from professional staff,
Letters/materials received from national leaders and educators of the deaf,
Perceptions and recommendations from former USD students,
Professional interpreters for the deaf, and
Professional counselors for the deaf.

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah

After an extensive two-year study period, Dr. Campbell, in collaboration with external researchers, presented his comprehensive report on February 15, 1977. This study, spanning from 1960 to 1977, included students from both mainstream school districts and the Utah School for the Deaf. The report aimed to settle the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, address the internal conflicts at the Utah School for the Deaf, and provide policy proposals for the Utah State Board of Education to consider (Campbell, 1977).

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah

The report showed that students' poor academic performance was due to conflicts between two educational ideologies. Unfortunately, this debate overlooked the education and language needs of Deaf children. Other issues included a shortage of teacher aides and tutors at the Utah School for the Deaf, and teachers felt overwhelmed by educating children of varying ages, language skills, and cognitive abilities in one classroom. One teacher pointed out that there was a significant difference in ability levels between students in most classes, and sometimes a teacher had to teach at different levels at the same time. However, a capable assistant could help the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher instructs the rest. Utilizing assistants can increase the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize instructional time for teaching students (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).

Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with additional disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. Interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited in the mainstream setting. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).

Dr. Jay J. Campbell signing his speech “Humanizing Education” and Beth Ann Stewart signing her rendition in signs of “I.” There Be Peace on Earth at convention banquet. Source: UAD Bulletin, November 1973

Observation of a Two-Track System
at the Utah School for the Deaf

Dr. Campbell conducted a study on the two-track program and the conflict it caused at the Utah School for the Deaf. The study included a letter from a respondent, which contained important observations and suggestions. Based on observations and suggestions in the letter, Dr. Campbell proposed a 'two-track system' in separate schools to solve internal and external conflicts, eliminate competition, and alleviate tensions between the two programs. He recommended that each program have its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students to avoid competition and tensions between the two programs. At the time, two oral and sign language coordinators reported to the principal, who favored oral education. This has had a negative impact on the sign language department, prompting a request to the Utah State Board of Education for the separation of two schools. The letter in the following section provides a better understanding of the challenges surrounding the dual-track program.

A Letter Detailing the Impact of the Dual-Track Program

“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.

I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.

I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.

I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.

Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.

The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.

…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.

I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.

I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.

I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).

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

As part of a study, the Utah State Office of Education assigned Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to conduct a survey of the alums of the Utah School for the Deaf to confirm their experience regarding the education they received there. The survey compared the opinions of graduates who completed their studies at the school before 1948, those who graduated between 1948 and 1959, and those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results revealed a significant difference in the alums' views. Graduates who completed their studies before 1949 had a more positive experience at the school; they understood their teachers better and enjoyed the administrators more than those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results for the students who graduated between 1949 and 1959 fell between the two categories (Sanderson, 1977).

Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:

Restructure and strengthen the programs to reduce the competition and tension and meet the children’s educational needs through a fair placement process,
Improve the evaluation of each student in relation to communication methods used in educating the deaf,
Provide periodic evaluations of all students and, if needed, recommendations for transfer,
Provide aid and education to parents as they make decisions regarding placement,
Set up an early intervention program for deaf toddlers and preschoolers,
Improve curriculum and offer vocational courses for skill-building targeted to obtain employment,
Encourage teachers and parents to become involved with the deaf community and have the right attitude towards the deaf,
Include the state evaluative process for deaf children in school districts under the direction of 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).

Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah

Education of Deaf Stirs Debate:
No Educational Action Taken

In the past three months, from February to April 1977, the Utah State Board of Education listened to heated debate on appropriate methods for deaf education. Speakers passionately argued over proposals to separate the two programs at the Utah School for the Deaf (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Caught between oral and total communication conflicts, the Utah State Board of Education wanted to strengthen both programs rather than their disputes (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).

On April 14, 1977, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He shared his findings, ideas, and recommendations for improving education at the Utah School for the Deaf, advocating for more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977). His study made a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on deaf education, offering a positive outlook for the school's programs in the future. However, Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, strongly opposed Dr. Campbell's research, as it indicated that Deaf children excel academically in sign language. Dr. Bitter, a defender of oral and mainstream education, expressed his opposition to the Utah State Board of Education in the presence of more than 300 parents of orally Deaf children who supported his views. He also scolded both oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over the most effective approach. He challenged them to work together to enhance the quality of deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter stressed the importance of providing parents with options for their children and preserving their rights to make decisions concerning their children's education (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977). He also spoke against Dr. Campbell's research, stating that it contained falsehoods and unfounded conclusions about the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs across the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978).

While Dr. Bitter may advocate for dual options, the oral program was, in reality, the first choice for parents and Deaf children. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sanderson, and the Utah Association for the Deaf all underlined this sharp contrast, having witnessed the harsh realities of Deaf students failing the oral program and moving on to the total communication program. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson have encountered countless parents who, when advised to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program, were unaware of other choices, such as total communication. Dr. Campbell began his studies because he was deeply committed to finding solutions that would benefit both groups, offering a hopeful future for deaf education in Utah.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962

Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 23, 1964

Dr. Bitter harshly criticized Dr. Sanderson's survey of the Utah School for the Deaf alums, which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education. He raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's population and sample procedures, which caused a lot of confusion. Some people alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that the previous 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). In this regard, Dr. Bitter requested the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).

During his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution (Bluhm, Grant Bitter, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught up in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson, and he also had to exercise caution to avoid jeopardizing his job as the school administrators supported Dr. Bitter.

Dr. Walter D. Talbot. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1970

During a board meeting, Peter Vlahos, an Ogden-based lawyer and a parent of a Deaf daughter, presented a compelling argument. He stated that Utah is fortunate to have both methods of education available to Deaf children, but it was unfortunate that they were almost always in conflict. He added that he was proud of his daughter's accomplishments and questioned why proving one approach was better than the other should take precedence over educating children. Peter also mentioned that two-thirds of Deaf schoolchildren's parents requested the removal of Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles over oral students. The presentation was heated, with over 300 parents supporting the oral method and cheering Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos as they presented their arguments (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).

A group of parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, citing its inconclusive nature. Also, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Those attendees were Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd Perkins, Dennis Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.

Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:

Removing Dr. Campbell from his position;
Assigning him to another position; or
Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were intimidated by some of the state's programs (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal sparked a firestorm of tension. The Deaf group fiercely opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and wild, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating situation, Dr. Talbot asked the Deaf community members to leave the room (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Disagreements still exist about what the Deaf people did during the meeting, as different versions of what happened differ.

The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, despite the controversy surrounding his analysis, which included data from independent researchers, they disregarded all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). This decision had consequences, as Dr. Campbell's plan crumbled down, including a two-year study to improve education through fair assessment and placement procedures. His plan was buried and forgotten (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).

A New Parent Infant Program
Orientation is Formed
at the Utah School for the Deaf

The mental trend of the "Y" system in the two-track program, with prevalent oral bias, had a significant impact, restricting parental choices for their Deaf children's education and communication. In the 1970s, Dr. J. Jay Campbell aimed to provide fair information through the Parent Infant Program Orientation, but Dr. Bitter opposed his efforts. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research (Campbell, 1977; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

The Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a key advocate for the ASL/English bilingual safeguard, criticized this biased approach and challenged for unbiased and equal information. Finally, in 2010, Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, an oral advocate and former university student of Dr. Bitter, as well as a long-time teacher and school director, developed the Parent Infant Program Orientation to provide parents with fair and balanced information. However, the majority of Deaf children born to parents still had to choose an "either/or" selection between ASL/English bilingual (which replaced total communication) or listening and spoken language (which replaced oral) options for their children's education and communication, leading to the expansion of the listening and spoken program.

Steven W. Noyce. Source: Twitter

Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, requested on February 10, 2011, that the Utah School for the Deaf implement the guidelines titled "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" to address 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 clarified that the Deaf National Agenda does not exclusively rely on ASL but instead emphasizes the holistic development of each child, supporting both ASL and spoken language, unlike the current system's "either/or" approach. Jeff 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 an oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who want both options. Superintendent Noyce remained silent about the subject. The "Y" system mental trend in the two-track program with prevalent oral bias persisted until Joel Coleman, superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, and Michelle Tanner, associate superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf, took action. Creating the Hybrid Program in 2016 was a significant step towards removing the requirement for parents to choose between the two programs "either/or." Their innovative approach is crucial and brings hope for unbiased and equal information. More information about the hybrid program can be found at the end of this webpage.

Jeff W. Pollock

To sum up, Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a prominent figure in Utah's oralism and mainstreaming movement, which has significantly impacted deaf education in Utah since 1962. Despite the new two-track program and the school's option guidelines, his efforts led to a decrease in the number of Deaf students attending Ogden's residential school, which also resulted in a decline in the quality of education. The mainstreaming approach gained popularity but left many alums heartbroken. 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. When the Teacher Training 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). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a Specialization in Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes American Sign Language classes, it still emphasizes Listening and Spoken Language more. This ongoing influence reflects the lasting impact that Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, continues to have on deaf education in Utah. If you want to learn more about the evolving mainstreaming movement, you can visit the 'Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspectives' webpage on this website.

The Parent Teacher Association
of the Utah School for the Deaf is Divided Over Communication Philosophy

Before I delve into the debate between the advocates of oral and total communication at the Utah State Board of Education in the section at the end of the webpage, I'd like to provide some context regarding an earlier dispute in the PTA meetings, which Dr. Jay J. Campbell witnessed. The disagreement eventually led to a proposal to create separate campuses for oral and total communication at the state board meetings, which was not implemented primarily due to the strong opposition from Dr. Grant B. Bitter and his influential oral advocates.

Controversy at the
Parent Teacher Association Functions

During the 1969–1970 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) faced tensions and divisions. Deaf parents gathered in Ogden, Utah, for regular PTA meetings, using sign language to communicate and participate. However, the parents who favored rigorous spoken communication felt uncomfortable watching them sign. This situation sparked conflict between PTA President Linda C. Harrop, a parent of a Deaf child named Troy, who favored oral instruction, and PTA Vice President Kenneth L. Kinner, a parent of two Deaf children named Deanne and Duane, who backed the simultaneous communication philosophy. There were also disagreements regarding the philosophy of communication and the structure of the meeting. The front row was off-limits to Deaf parents. Oral parents requested that Deaf parents sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to prevent others, especially young oral children, from seeing the sign language. As a precaution, parents covered their children with their coats to ensure that they did not see any signs. Deaf parents who advocated sign language were unable to express concerns about educational matters. They felt oppressed, which had an impact on the students who had to deal with battles between two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

Kenneth L. Kinner

The Parent Teacher
Association Divides

During a Parent-Teacher Association meeting in the spring of 1970, a group of parents, Deaf representatives, and Utah School for the Deaf faculty discussed visiting Deaf schools in other states. They recommended visiting either Missouri or California. The majority of proponents of oral education chose to visit the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton and the Central School for the Deaf in St. Louis, while supporters of Simultaneous Communication preferred to go to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in Santa Ana, and the Buena Park Program for the Deaf in Orange County. When the group couldn't decide where to travel, they asked Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for advice. He would make the final decision. Dr. Talbot chose California after considering the budget because it was closer to Utah and less expensive.

W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner were among the Deaf individuals selected to participate. Two USD employees, Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator of the Utah School for the Deaf, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator, accompanied them. Parents were also there, but PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.

W. David Mortensen

While visiting the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, a group of individuals toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association for the Deaf. The simultaneous communication group hoped that the oral group would have an open mind and recognize the value of sign language. When the oral parents inquired with Dr. Lawrence about the enrollment of any students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One of the students revealed that despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, California, he did not receive the education he needed. He further stated that at the California School for the Deaf, he found greater happiness and received a better education.

Dr. Lawrence R. Newman. Source: Iowa Association of the Deaf website

After the tour, the Utah Oral supporters returned home, while the Simultaneous Communication Advocates, driven by their unwavering commitment, stayed an extra day to take an unofficial tour of the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in the Santa Ana Unified School District, California. This program initially used an oral method from 1948 until September 19, 1968, when it adopted the Total Communication approach during the Total Communication Movement. This was due to a failed oral program (Educating Deaf Children by Total Communication, 1970). Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, known as the "Father of Total Communication," led their visit. The curriculum left a profound impression on the group, and they were particularly disappointed with the absence of the oral group, as they wished to witness the academic achievements of the total communication method and gain a comprehensive understanding of the program.

Dr. Roy K. Holcomb. Source: Deaf Life, December 1998

After returning to Utah, both groups gathered to share their impressions and insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, stated, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded him. From the perspective of sign language advocates, Boyd's remark made it seem like the oral supporters weren't interested in what they observed at the California School for the Deaf. It was clear in their minds how to teach the Deaf children before they went on this trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Grant B. Bitter criticized the total communication movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign language and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research. He expressed disappointment that deaf education, including in California, had adopted a total communication system despite the existence of exemplary oral programs. He gave a brief history of the use of sign language in the majority of deaf residential schools, with the exception of Utah. In the 1960s, many state schools began using a simultaneous communication approach. However, Dr. Bitter, with the approval of the Utah State Board of Education, advocated for preserving parental rights and options in deaf education. This included supporting total communication, sign language, or auditory/oral approaches. When Robert Tegeder became superintendent in 1959, he shifted the focus from the complete sign language system to teaching oral communication at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter believed this was beneficial because other state schools for the deaf did not provide such options, making Utah unique. However, the Utah Association for the Deaf opposed these changes, leading to years of controversy between Dr. Bitter and the association. This controversy arose from differing views on the most effective methods of deaf education and the rights of parents to choose these methods (Bluhm, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).

J. Boyd Nielson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1969

At the Utah School for the Deaf, the PTA attempted to discuss how parents could get more involved in school activities. However, parents could not work together due to an ongoing controversy surrounding the communication method approach. A group of parents who supported sign language met with Della L. Loveridge, State Representative for the 8th District, a close friend of W. David Mortensen's mother, to discuss their concerns about the challenges facing the PTA. Della, a trusted advisor and good friend of Lila Bjorklund, the state PTA president, advised them to start their own PTA (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). For instance, on May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the internal conflicts within the PTA, exposing deep divisions among the parents. According to the report, parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of being excluded from decision-making at PTA meetings, not only on the Ogden residential campus 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 father described the resistance he encountered when attempting to transition his child from the Oral Program to the Simultaneous Communication Program towards the end of his elementary school years. On June 25, 1970, Representative Loveridge's advice led to the formation of a separate PTA group for parents and teachers who supported sign language.

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

Parents of Deaf Form
Separate PTA Organization

On June 25, 1970, over 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community formed their own PTA due to philosophical differences in education. This event was historic and took place in Ogden, Utah. This new PTA became the third in the Utah School for the Deaf (USD), 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 through the Utah School for the Deaf. The first USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA when this third PTA was established.

Jack W. Hendrickson served as the first president of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA) in Salt Lake City, Utah, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was elected treasurer, Karen Williams as historian, and Harriet Hendrickson as secretary (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 26, 1970; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA comprised Deaf parents, USD teachers and students, and supportive friends. Its members were both Deaf and hearing individuals who were interested in addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). The PTSA quickly made an impact by speaking out against the Dual-Track Program and advocating for educational reform. They supported the option for parents to choose between oral and total communication methods for their children's education from the outset. This stance opposed the "Y" system, which had also been opposed by the Utah Association for the Deaf and supportive parents for nearly ten years.

The newly formed PTSA successfully influenced school policies. Many parents were skeptical of USD's Dual-Track Program, as highlighted in a February 1968 article in The Utah Eagle titled "New Developments in Utah's Educational Programs for the Deaf." After a long battle, the Utah State Board of Education finally approved a new policy on December 28, 1970. This policy allowed the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, giving parents the choice of either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years. The previous section, "The Implementation of the Two-Track Program," outlined this achievement. The Parent-Teacher Student Association worked tirelessly to achieve this new "Two-Track Program," which was a victory.

Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Association
of the Deaf Undergoes Changes

The decision of the USD Parent-Teacher-Student Association to join Gallaudet College's TRIPOD Parent Associations of the Deaf in 1976 was a significant milestone in the history of deaf education. Operation TRIPOD, which was launched by Gallaudet College on May 17, 1970, aimed to involve Deaf parents in the rehabilitation process. This initiative was a collaborative effort that brought together vocational rehabilitation specialists, parents, and schools to enhance the quality of deaf education. The program welcomed participation from different states, and its first leaders were Kenneth L. Kinner, the president, and Carol White Mathis, the vice president. Their dedication was evident as they took turns driving to meetings in Salt Lake City or Ogden every three months (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

In late 1976, due to long commutes, the TRIPOD members decided to split into two groups: the Salt Lake TRIPOD and the Ogden TRIPOD. These two organizations remained active throughout the 1980s. As mainstreaming became more common, some parents joined PTAs in public schools. The TRIPOD group eventually faded away as the Deaf children of the parent members graduated or transferred to an out-of-state residential school. A similar fate befell the Oral Program's Extension Department's PTA. The majority of oral Deaf students attended a local public school, which allowed their parents to participate in the PTA (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

Carol White Mathis

Controversy at the Utah State
Board of Education

Since 1962, there has been a controversy between advocates of total communication and oral communication about the best way to teach Deaf children. The February, March, April, and August 1977 presentations before the Utah State Board of Education did not resolve Utah's longstanding controversy over the educational needs of Deaf students. Over the past few months, advocates of both oral and total communication programs have made their arguments. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, argued in favor of the oral approach, while Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf Services counselor, supported the total communication program. Although they agreed that Deaf students should have access to all methods of instruction, it was clear that they each advocated for their own approach. I have included a list of the board meetings where both sides presented their arguments, akin to a chess game.

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, an advocate for total communication, presents his separation of two programs on behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf to the Utah State Board of Education on February 18, 1977

President W. David Mortensen of the Utah Association for the Deaf led over 100 Deaf people seeking better education into the Utah State Board of Education meeting room in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 18, 1977. They gathered to advocate for improving deaf education (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who represented the Utah Association for the Deaf, was a spokesperson for the board. He said in front of the board members, "Tomorrow's world, with its great technological advances, will require even more education for deaf individuals to compete in marketplace jobs. When we look around the world and see the millions of people who can hear and talk normally, we realize that their education, not their speech, enables them to succeed" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).

W. David Mortensen. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell

The Utah Association for the Deaf made three recommendations for the board to consider, as follows:

Divide the Utah School for the Deaf at Ogden into two distinct schools: one for total communication and another for oral communication. The Total Communication Division should be located on the current Ogden campus, and the Oral Division should have a separate campus. The rationale for this recommendation was conflicts between philosophies and teaching approaches.
A professional team should evaluate each deaf child and recommend a specific program for them.
The State Board should develop a long-range research program to determine the needs of and the best method of instruction for the Deaf children in the state (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).

Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah State Board of Education, highlighting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system faced significant literacy challenges. He emphasized that integrating Deaf children into the regular education system would place them in hopeless competition with hearing students. Furthermore, he conveyed the concerns of both himself and the Utah Association of the Deaf about the high turnover rates of teachers and dormitory counselors at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as concerns about the overall quality of education (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson

Moreover, Dr. Sanderson stated that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading skills ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade, emphasizing the importance of teaching reading, writing, and math in deaf classes. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the more comprehensive curriculum. Dr. Sanderson also emphasized the importance of education in the lives of Deaf individuals, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to acknowledge the significance of the three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in enhancing opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly stated that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).

Dr. Sanderson made a final statement against the defenders of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose his speech if he learns sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson asserted. "When our speech is poor, it is because of deafness, not because of sign language (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).

Gene Stewart, an advocate for total communication, speaks a scathing indictment of the Utah School for the Deaf at the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977

Gene Stewart, the only hearing child of a Deaf family, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, and the Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf spoke a scathing indictment of the oral advocacy group's dominance at the Utah School for the Deaf in a meeting before the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977. He accused the Ogden residential school of providing inadequate educational training to Deaf children. He also added that "very few deaf children go to college. In fact, practically none." By reaching the postsecondary level, they will have no further educational opportunities. We keep turning them out up there, but they don't even know the English language (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).

Gene went on to say that deaf education in Utah needed improvement because very few of Utah's Deaf students went to college compared to Deaf students in other states. He pointed out that part of the problem is that the program at the Utah School for the Deaf is "detrimental" due to two distinct instructional philosophies that exist on the campus. He said one philosophy fights the other, and the students often shift from one program to another (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).

To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students, demonstrating their lack of language skills and asking how they could read lips or learn to write English without knowing the language, as in "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 added that the average reading grade for a high school graduate from the Utah School for the Deaf is 4th or 5th. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).

Gene Stewart. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970

The oral advocates felt that the oral approach would better equip deaf people to function in a hearing society and that if allowed to learn sign language, they would be more likely to gravitate to a deaf subculture. The total communication advocates disputed this claim and urged that too-long insistence on the oral method delays learning. They also urged that the total communication method more often gets quicker and more permanent results. Both groups preferred that the classes be separated or the students be converted to all oral or in total. The board questioned Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter about potential solutions to reconcile the two groups. Dr. Sanderson saw no immediate resolution. Dr. Bitter proposed the creation of an advisory commission to act as arbiter and coordinator. Dr. Sanderson opposed the idea. Joan Burnside, the board chairperson, stated that the board would be satisfied if all options and programs were made available, and parents should be able to select the program they want for their children (Deseret News, March 20, 1977, p. 4).

Dr. Campbell agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf's proposal to split the Utah School for the Deaf into two separate schools. His argument was clear and compelling. He presented evidence that children at the Utah School for the Deaf were not receiving a satisfactory education and that the fundamental skills needed significant improvement. His solution was to recommend separate schools, as oral and total communication wanted it, and their goals were distinct. Oralists focused on teaching the child to speak, while totalists prioritized teaching basic skills with speaking as a secondary emphasis (Deseret News, March 19, 1977).

The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for total communication education and urged the state board to establish two schools with different instructional philosophies. Despite the board's request for a study, they have not taken any action (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).

Dark Ages

In response to Gene Stewart's March 17, 1977 charge against the Utah School for the Deaf in the Utah State Board of Education in the Ogden Standard-Examiner newspaper, USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder stated that students on the Ogden residential campus switched from one teaching method to another due to constant conflict and incompatibility between the two educational systems. In addition, he said, "The ultimate decision to teach Deaf children by oral or total communication method belongs to the parents." Gene responded, "The school's philosophy is oral." If the kid fails the oral program, they will be shifted to the other." He continued, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah." "Many schools across the country use the total communication concept alone." Superintendent Tegeder also denied the accusation that the school's oral philosophy is unsubstantiated. When a child does not progress in the oral program, the school will move them from oral to total communication, which is a natural transition. When a child's speech does not develop satisfactorily, the emphasis shifts to a less speech-focused approach. He went on to say that the total communication concept is "hard to define because there's never really been an agreement on what total communication includes." Superintendent Tegedar also stated that he did not want to start a newspaper war, and that it was up to the board to consider establishing two campuses, one for each teaching method. Meanwhile, he emphasized that the school respects parents' wishes (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).

Robert W. Tegeder

Despite facing numerous challenges, the Utah Deaf leaders united to provide better education and services that we now take for granted. In the year 2000, I completed my college degree, was newly married, and moved to Utah, which is my spouse's home state. It was there that I first heard the term "Dark Ages." Initially, I was unaware of its origin until I came across a newspaper article about Gene's "Dark Ages" statement in 1977. That's when I began to comprehend the connection between the harsh realities of deaf education in Utah during what would later become referred to as the "Dark Ages." The term was a stark reminder of the obstacles that the Deaf community in Utah had to endure. Gene's unwavering advocacy for the Utah Deaf community is an inspiration, and his bravery deserves our utmost recognition and respect.

'Method of Teaching Deaf Students Stir Debate.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977, p. 9

The oral and total communication advocates present their case to the Utah State Board of Education on April 14, 1977

The State Board was gathering information to decide whether to create two separate campuses at the deaf school, one for each teaching method: oral and total communication. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart presented an endorsement of the total communication philosophy. The Board heard from proponents of the oral philosophy at the meeting that took place on April 14, 1977, as detailed in the "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study" section above and more in the section below (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).

On April 14, 1977, the Utah State Board of Education met at the Utah School for the Deaf, where 300 oral advocate parents attended the debate. The third debate focused on the two instructional philosophies presented to the Utah State Board of Education, with questions about whether the oral or total communication approach is the most effective method for teaching the deaf, and whether refocusing energy on improving both programs would improve deaf education methods. The most criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February report to the State Board as well as Dr. Campbell's subsequent study. Dr. Sanderson advocated separate schools for the two educational programs while retaining the Ogden residential school for the total communication approach. Dr. Bitter stated that the focus should not be on maintaining one of the two philosophies or identifying which is best for all deaf students, but rather improving the quality of existing deaf programs. He also emphasized the importance of providing parents with choices for their children and protecting their children's rights when making educational decisions. Others claimed that the February and March reports implied that the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility was biased in favor of the oral method. Peter Viahos, an attorney and parent of Deaf daughters, was pleased with the two-state school officers' close alignment with the overall program. However, he argued that this alignment should not grant them administrative control over the oral program. He said, "Utah is fortunate to have both methods of instruction, but it is unfortunate that we have almost constant conflict over which method is best" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22).

John Cummins, 'Deaf Education Method Best Served by 'Re-Channeling Energy.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22

During an emotional delivery, Pete Vlahos observed, "Dr. Campbell may have little interest in what parents have to say here today. He went on to remark, 'The stigma of deafness is so strong that parents do not want any of their associates to know that they have a child in a special school. Parents must keep their immediate relatives, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins from learning that they have a handicapped family member. Likewise, they do not have to admit that they have a handicapped child. I resent that personally (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).

Another parent, Legia Johnson, responded to accusations that the Utah School for the Deaf has shifted some of its children from program to program due to poor achievement, saying, "We resent public statements that our children are poor students." "First and foremost, they are children—not deaf people. They are people with a problem." She also said her own daughter says she is "not handicapped, but inconvenienced (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).

Dr. Bitter expressed concern that Dr. Campbell's study did not include interviews with the parents of the school's students. Pete added in his prepared statements that the parents of two-thirds of the deaf school students he represented had requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not continue to influence oral students. Despite Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson's recommendation to separate the two programs, neither of the two parent groups strongly supported nor opposed the establishment of separate campuses for oral and total schools (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).

Unfortunately, Dr. Bitter, a key decision-maker, blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study. The study was aimed at improving the deaf educational system in Utah and separating the oral and total communication departments with their own administration, teachers, etc., to reduce conflicts between the two groups. Despite this setback, the two-track program continued under the leadership of a principal who advocated for oral education. This principal oversaw both the oral and total communication departments, leading to a power imbalance and a lack of voice for the total communication department. As a result, parents often remained unaware of their full range of communication options, and Deaf students continued to struggle with language deprivation. Gene, a vocal advocate, spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf. His powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.

The oral and total communication advocates
present their case to the Utah State Board of Education
on August 19, 1977

The Utah State Board of Education has heard arguments for both oral and total communication approaches in the February, March, and April meetings. At the board meeting on August 19, 1977, they heard one more argument between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a spokesperson for the totalists, acknowledged that some students who struggle with speech might benefit more from the total approach. The oralists, including Dr. Grant B. Bitter, another spokesperson, made the same concession for their oral program. According to Dr. Bitter, the oral approach emphasizes speaking and lipreading, while the sign language represents concepts rather than words. He went on to say that two teaching philosophies are in conflict across the country and said, "We must get out of the idea that my side is better than your side." Dr. Sanderson elaborated, "My personal choice would not focus on one program or the other but on the child's needs." "However, children learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, and the total approach involves all members of the child's family." The state board did not decide on the presentations (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25). Interestingly, in 2016, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a personalized deaf education placement that aligns with Dr. Sanderson's suggestion of focusing on the child's needs.

The oral and total communication advocates
present their case to the Utah State Board of Education
on November 18, 1977

Hannah P. Lewis, a parent of a grown Deaf son, wrote an impactful article during the November 18 Utah State Board of Education meeting. She discussed the study of total communication and the academic challenges Deaf students face. The Deseret News published her article on November 24, 1977, raising an important question: How many more years would this study require? At the board meeting, Dr. Bitter argued in favor of oral methods, but Hannah, who is deeply empathetic, expressed concern that many Deaf children struggle to master oral methods and are unable to use their voices for communication. Hannah recognizes the importance of sign language in the lives of Deaf students and believes that it is necessary for their communication. Even though she questions whether a person with a voice needs sign language assistance, she believes encouraging and requiring them to speak the words as they sign is critical. She stated that Dr. Bitter was afraid that if the student has the speaking ability but does not use it, they will depend on signs and will not try to use their voice.

Hannah P. Lewis, 'Forum: Letters from our Readers.' Source: Deseret News, November 24, 1977

Hannah shared her story about her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf and came home for a visit. Her son felt "dumb" because he couldn't make people understand him. Hannah assured him that he and his deaf friends were intelligent, and that being deaf was the only barrier to expressing their intelligence. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their community, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as advised by the school superintendent thirty-six years ago. Hannah asserted that they should not allow a dictator to dictate their preferred mode of expression. She stressed the importance of not allowing Dr. Bitter to dictate their preferred mode of expression and highlighted his lack of understanding of the Deaf community's needs by those who can hear. Hannah expressed gratitude for Dr. Sanderson's guidance and support for the deaf over the years, especially his help for her son.

During the political dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter, Hannah stated that Dr. Sanderson has been a guiding light for the deaf all these years and emphasized the need for his continued support. She said, "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years." "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). His Ph.D. proved to be a valuable achievement. After completing his Ph.D., he continued to advocate for the Deaf community, leading to the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003.

During the interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf when he was 11 and grew up in both public school and state school for the deaf, 'knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the Deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the Deaf community was concerned' (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30). Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, collaborated with Dr. Sanderson, who was president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s, in a way that contradicted Dr. Bitter's description of him. He described Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator who was a strong advocate for education. He deeply understood how a Deaf child's K–12 education connects to higher education and ultimately leads to desired employment. As a passionate advocate for young people with leadership potential, Dr. Sanderson made a significant contribution to promoting social, educational, economic, and communal equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). There is no doubt in my mind that Hannah would concur with Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson.

The controversy between oral and total communication at the Utah State Board of Education ended on November 18, 1977. Yet, in the fall of 1977, a controversy arose between the Utah Association for the Deaf and the University of Utah over the use of total communication in their curriculum. Dr. Bitter and the University of Utah rejected the Association's attempts to include total communication in their training program, which led to protests on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education and on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus. The protests were a response to several grievances, including an unfair preference for oral-only education, a bias against the total communication method of teaching, a preference for day schools, a lack of Deaf representation on the Advisory Committee, and a failure to listen to the Utah Association for the Deaf. The protests caught the Utah State Board of Education's attention. In 1985, Utah State University formed a Total Communication Program in response to the UAD's lobbying efforts, later renaming it Bilingual and Bicultural. For additional information on the protests, visit 'Jeff W. Pollock's The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication vs. Oralism at the University of Utah' and 'Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's "Mainstreaming Is Not the Answer"' webpages.

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

In 1977, the Utah Association for the Deaf faced uphill challenges due to the opposition from Dr. Bitter and his supporters of oralism. It was a dark year for them. Nonetheless, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson worked diligently to enhance deaf education in Utah. Their remarkable contributions and unwavering commitment have earned them recognition. Additionally, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parents-Teachers-Students Association fought hard to support the Deaf children, which was an enormous challenge. Although they could not achieve their goals, their persistence and dedication are commendable and deserve respect and admiration.

The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf

The mental trend of the "Y" system in the two-track program with prevalent oral bias persisted, preventing parents from receiving clear information about their children's educational and communication options until Joel Coleman, superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, and Michelle Tanner, associate superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf, took action. After over fifty years of oral advocacy group dominance, starting in 1962, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Michelle Tanner, with the support of Joel Coleman, achieved a significant milestone in 2016 by eliminating and replacing the two-track program with a hybrid program in 2016, creating a more unbiased collaborative environment between the listening and spoken language and the ASL/English bilingual, or a personalized deaf education placement, which ends in 1st grade at the Utah School for the Deaf. The ultimate goal of providing education for Deaf and hard of hearing students is to ensure that parents have access to a range of options and do not feel restricted to a limited choice for their child's education. This program also eliminates the need for parents to make an 'either/or' choice between the two programs. This approach, which introduces American Sign Language (ASL) without forcing students into a placement that isn't effective, has been remarkably successful in reducing language deprivation. Michelle Tanner shared that parents are not just satisfied but thrilled that the Utah School for the Deaf team has moved away from the "Y" system approach and is now working collaboratively to meet the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021). Joel and Michelle are essential administrators who have played a vital role in achieving the objectives of Dr. Jay J. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Their innovative approach is crucial and brings hope for unbiased and equal information. They have shown great support and bravery in improving the system for all parties involved, and their joint efforts have marked a significant step forward in the pursuit of a more inclusive educational system.

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

Dr. Jay J. Campbell’s
Education of the Deaf in Utah:
A Comprehensive Study
February 15, 1977

I have obtained permission from Dr. Jay J. Campbell to share his comprehensive study, which I have now posted in the section below for your viewing pleasure.

Thank you for visiting this webpage!

Jodi Becker Kinner

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

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

A Biography of Dr. Jay J. Campbell

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 the United States Army in Europe from July 22, 1943, to April 27, 1946. He graduated from Burley High School (1943), Ricks College with a BA in Music (1950), the University of Utah with an MS in Music (1951), and an Ed.D. in Educational Administration (1957). Dr. Campbell was Chairman of the Division of Fine Arts at Adams State College, Alamosa, Colorado, from 1953 to 1966. He was appointed Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education in 1966. He was the Utah Coordinator for the study "Designing Education for the Future." He 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. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell

Jay married Beth Ann Moon Stewart of Salt Lake City in 1976, and they were married for 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 of being the first nationally certified interpreter in the United States. She is also a former director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf.

After retirement, they enjoyed escorting 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.

Notes - Coming soon!

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.