Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Note
The introductory sections will be repeated throughout the education webpages, but the content will move quickly to the topic matter. Thank you for taking the time to read the history of Deaf Education in Utah.
The Implementation of the Dual Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Commonly Known as "Y" System
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, known as the "Father of Mainstreaming," Utah's movement toward mainstreaming evolved steadily in the 1960s throughout his mainstreaming campaign, before the phrase became popular with the passage of Public Law 94-142, commonly known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 1975. He was a hard-core oralist and one of the top oral leaders in the country. As the father of a Deaf daughter, Colleen (b. 1954), he was also a powerful voice for oral and mainstream education. According to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf man who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s, no one could match Dr. Bitter's persistent oral/mainstreaming philosophy. At every opportunity, Dr. Baldwin recalled his attacks on residential schools and his adamant opposition to the popular use of sign language in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter campaigned for oral and mainstream education for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students and had a long-standing feud with the Utah Association of the Deaf, especially with Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf community leader in Utah. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson were both recognized as gigantic figures and had animosity toward each other.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, The Utah Eagle, October 1967
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, which was founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to be in favor of this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The dual-track educational system was approved by the Utah State Board of Education on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, which was founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to be in favor of this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The dual-track educational system was approved by the Utah State Board of Education on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
By the time the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Oral Program, according to USD, must have a mindset that is "pure oral." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
All of these changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities, with the exception of sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened.
All of these changes were made without the Deaf students' knowledge or consent for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school rolled around on that seemingly ordinary August day, the students were taken aback by what had transpired at their school (Diane Quinn Williams, personal communication, 2007). The new changes sparked much outrage among older USD students. Furthermore, there was a lot of conflict between veteran USD teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving USD Deaf teacher, explained, "The students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences: classmates were isolated from one another; many teachers lost friendships with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties" (Bass, 1982).
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own set of classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities, with the exception of sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened.
Barbara Schell Bass @ Robert Bonnel
Did You Know?
In 1959, 97% of the Utah School for the Deaf teachers were members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (Christopulos, The Utah Eagle, November 1960).
The Implementation of the The Two-Track Program
In the wake of the 1962 protest, Dr. Bitter and oral advocates suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) was orchestrating the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education looked into the matter but couldn't find any connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which was supervised by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, president of UAD from 1960 to 1963, denied any involvement. He said that the strike was spontaneous, and that it was a reaction by students to conditions, restrictions, and personalities that they felt had become intolerable (7). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, UAD said that they supported a classroom test of the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They were, however, outspoken in their opposition to the attempt at complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, the crippling of the sports program, and the intense pressure placed on the children in the oral department to enforce the "no signing" rule (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). The implementation of Dual Division constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which was supervised by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Ned C. Wheeler
However, parents were not given a clear picture of their child's educational and communication choices (Campbell, 1977). Inappropriate placement tactics were widely practiced, despite policies issued by the Utah State Board of Education in 1970, 1977, and 1998 USDB Communication Guidelines requiring USD to give parents with a full variety of options. Despite the new program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings as well as recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems. Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Over 300 parents who supported oral applauded Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, as they gave a presentation (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings as well as recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems. Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Over 300 parents who supported oral applauded Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, as they gave a presentation (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. UAD Bulletin, June 1973
These parents, under the influence of Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, claiming that it was inconclusive. Because of their dissatisfaction with Dr. Campbell's research findings, they demanded that he be fired from his position (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). In addition to the approximately 300 parents in attendance, there were between 50 and 60 Deaf individuals in attendance as well. Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, proposed three options to Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction: 1. Removing Dr. Campbell from his position, 2. Assigning him to another position, or 3. Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were being intimidated through some of the state's programs. Dr. Talbot responded to Dr. Bitter's appeal by announcing that the State Board had decided to reassign Dr. Campbell to a different position within the State Office of Education. The Deaf group became agitated, stomping their feet on the ground. According to Dr. Bitter, they were very emotional, and the meeting was wild. He was frightened he was going to be killed during the ordeal. Dr. Talbot indicated that those members of the Deaf community would have to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
As a result, Dr. Campbell’s plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). The trend at USD of establishing inappropriate placement procedures continued partly due to unshared information.
As a result, Dr. Campbell’s plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). The trend at USD of establishing inappropriate placement procedures continued partly due to unshared information.
Bias toward Communication Modes and Methodology
Although the Total Communication Program was available at the Utah School for the Deaf, many parents were still unaware of its existence. An Oral Demonstration Panel was convened at the University of Utah by Dr. Bitter, who recruited local oral Deaf adults to participate. Deaf individuals, Dr. Robert Sanderson, Dave Mortensen, Roy Cochran, Kenneth Kinner, and other Deaf individuals were in attendance, as were other hearing folks where the oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the group. Dr. Bitter announced the start of a question-and-answer session. Dr. Sanderson rose to his feet and inquired, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" Dr. Bitter promptly adjourned the meeting, and the crowd dispersed without having received an explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The amusing aspect is that the hostility between Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson became worse over time. At the University of Utah and other venues, such as the McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, Dr. Bitter regularly sponsored Oral Demonstration Panels. When Dr. Bitter observed Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann Campbell, he would speak fast in the audience. He did this on purpose for Dr. Sanderson to become lost and disengaged from the questions that followed the demonstration. Beth Ann was adamant that this would not happen. She signed as quickly as she could. Dr. Sanderson focused on his interpreter, absorbed the information, and was able to participate successfully (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
One of the most disturbing aspects is that Dr. Bitter recruited Deaf oral students who spoke well for his oral demonstration panels. Instead of relying solely on his daughter, Colleen, he used another girl, Colleen Johnson Jones, to display her public speaking abilities to the audience. Legia Johnson, her mother, felt uneasy about the situation. Legia eventually quit her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf to prevent Dr. Bitter from using her daughter as a prop in his demonstrations (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
The amusing aspect is that the hostility between Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson became worse over time. At the University of Utah and other venues, such as the McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, Dr. Bitter regularly sponsored Oral Demonstration Panels. When Dr. Bitter observed Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann Campbell, he would speak fast in the audience. He did this on purpose for Dr. Sanderson to become lost and disengaged from the questions that followed the demonstration. Beth Ann was adamant that this would not happen. She signed as quickly as she could. Dr. Sanderson focused on his interpreter, absorbed the information, and was able to participate successfully (Beth Ann Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
One of the most disturbing aspects is that Dr. Bitter recruited Deaf oral students who spoke well for his oral demonstration panels. Instead of relying solely on his daughter, Colleen, he used another girl, Colleen Johnson Jones, to display her public speaking abilities to the audience. Legia Johnson, her mother, felt uneasy about the situation. Legia eventually quit her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf to prevent Dr. Bitter from using her daughter as a prop in his demonstrations (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson @ Gallaudet University Archives
In the face of the controversy surrounding the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Sanderson stated that he supports the right of parents of Deaf children to choose which program is best for their children. However, the information provided to parents must be accurate. He was opposed to inaccurate, biased, or one-sided information that was not backed up by research (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992).
According to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Utah State Office of Education, a father of a 14-year-old Deaf son met with him in his office. The father expressed concern that his son, who was enrolling in the oral program, could barely read and write. He turned to Dr. Campbell for advice. Dr. Campbell inquired of the father as to whether he was aware of the Total Communication Program. The father stated that he was unaware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. Campbell was persuaded by this example of parental ignorance that a brochure explaining both programs and their various communication strategies was necessary. Furthermore, he stressed that this pamphlet should be updated regularly to provide summaries of empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Bitter, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the plan. He asserted that the total communication system was only philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Despite Dr. Campbell's best efforts, the plan for the informational booklet came crashing down again.
According to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Utah State Office of Education, a father of a 14-year-old Deaf son met with him in his office. The father expressed concern that his son, who was enrolling in the oral program, could barely read and write. He turned to Dr. Campbell for advice. Dr. Campbell inquired of the father as to whether he was aware of the Total Communication Program. The father stated that he was unaware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. Campbell was persuaded by this example of parental ignorance that a brochure explaining both programs and their various communication strategies was necessary. Furthermore, he stressed that this pamphlet should be updated regularly to provide summaries of empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Bitter, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the plan. He asserted that the total communication system was only philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Despite Dr. Campbell's best efforts, the plan for the informational booklet came crashing down again.
The USD Parent Infant Program Orientation is Formed
In order to give parents of Deaf children with fair and balanced options, the Parent Infant Program (PIP) at USD launched an orientation in 2010 during the administration of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, an oral proponent and a long-serving teacher/director of the Utah School for the Deaf. The new adjustments in the PIP that were finally taking place after being advocated by Dr. Campbell in the 1970s to develop an orientation that Dr. Bitter opposed. Parents, despite the 2010 orientation, nevertheless still had to choose between the two options. It was a "either/or" situation. The new adjustments in the PIP that were finally taking place after being advocated by Dr. Campbell in the 1970s to develop an orientation that Dr. Bitter opposed. Parents, despite the 2010 orientation, nevertheless still had to choose between the two options. It was a "either/or" situation.
On February 10, 2011, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, Jeff Pollock, requested that the guidelines titled, "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" be implemented in USD to help solve the philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. One of the members of the Advisory Council wondered if the Deaf National Agenda was solely based on ASL. He said no, since it looks at the complete child and each child individually, and it supports both ASL and spoken language, rather than "either/or" as the system is currently set up. Pollock then addressed Superintendent Noyce in the eyes and stated that the USD has reverted to the inefficient "Y" system of the last 30-40 years, with oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who desire both. Superintendent Noyce was deafeningly silent on the subject. It wasn't until Michelle Tanner, the future USD Associate Superintendent, was brought in to take charge of this matter in 2014. More information is available in the section below titled "Collaboration Between the Listening & Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual Departments Faces Challenges."
On February 10, 2011, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, Jeff Pollock, requested that the guidelines titled, "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" be implemented in USD to help solve the philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. One of the members of the Advisory Council wondered if the Deaf National Agenda was solely based on ASL. He said no, since it looks at the complete child and each child individually, and it supports both ASL and spoken language, rather than "either/or" as the system is currently set up. Pollock then addressed Superintendent Noyce in the eyes and stated that the USD has reverted to the inefficient "Y" system of the last 30-40 years, with oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who desire both. Superintendent Noyce was deafeningly silent on the subject. It wasn't until Michelle Tanner, the future USD Associate Superintendent, was brought in to take charge of this matter in 2014. More information is available in the section below titled "Collaboration Between the Listening & Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual Departments Faces Challenges."
Jeff Pollock, Deaf Advocate
Despite the Two-Track program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and Deaf Education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since the early 1960s. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. He exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed in 2000, his legacy in the field of Deaf Education continues.
Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alumni were heartbroken to see the school and Deaf Education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our Deaf Education since the early 1960s. Dr. Bitter was the driving force behind it. He exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association of the Deaf to fight him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Despite the fact that Dr. Bitter passed in 2000, his legacy in the field of Deaf Education continues.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group is Formed
When Steven W. Noyce, an oral enthusiast was elected superintendent of USDB by the Utah State Board of Education in 2009, the Utah Deaf community feared he would strive to carry Dr. Bitter's legacy endangering the ASL/English Bilingual program they fought hard to develop. The state board disregarded the protests of the Utah Deaf community.
Noyce was no stranger to Utah Deaf Community. They were aware that he had attended the University of Utah's Oral Training Program from 1965-1972, where he was mentored by Dr. Bitter (LinkedIn: Steven Noyce). On the recommendation of Ella Mae Lentz, co-founder of Deafhood Foundation and well-known Deaf Education advocate, the Deaf Education Core Group was created in April 2010 to safeguard ASL/English Bilingual Education, campaign against inequality of the Deaf Education system through Two-Track Program in Utah, and end Superintendent Noyce's two-year contract.
Noyce was no stranger to Utah Deaf Community. They were aware that he had attended the University of Utah's Oral Training Program from 1965-1972, where he was mentored by Dr. Bitter (LinkedIn: Steven Noyce). On the recommendation of Ella Mae Lentz, co-founder of Deafhood Foundation and well-known Deaf Education advocate, the Deaf Education Core Group was created in April 2010 to safeguard ASL/English Bilingual Education, campaign against inequality of the Deaf Education system through Two-Track Program in Utah, and end Superintendent Noyce's two-year contract.
Steven W. Noyce @ Twitter
Following the USD/JMS merger in 2005, the original Jean Massieu Charter School staff and Utah Deaf community leaders collaborated with several USDB administrators to ensure that the ASL/English Bilingual educational approach, which was a defining part of JMS, was given equal resources to the oral educational approach, which was USD's hallmark approach. At the time, the oral approach was renamed the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approach. JMS had a good working relationship with USDB for a while until the new USDB superintendent Noyce came into the picture, an avowed oralist and a very active member of the national Alexander Graham Bell Association.
Since 1884, when formal Deaf Education began in Utah, there has been a controversy over whether to teach using oral or sign language methods. After the merger, the debate had died down for a while. The ASL and LSL teams were minding their own business and getting along "alright," that is, before Noyce returned to the USDB superintendent position in 2009. Noyce then used his power to influence people, events, and information in order to carry out his LSL education mission. Because of his rigorous manner in which he led USD at the time, it was clear that he actually believed LSL was superior to ASL/English. Noyce's attitude created a battleground with the Utah Deaf community. They saw his hidden agenda and were up in arms. The controversy was awakened again with more vigor than before.
Since 1884, when formal Deaf Education began in Utah, there has been a controversy over whether to teach using oral or sign language methods. After the merger, the debate had died down for a while. The ASL and LSL teams were minding their own business and getting along "alright," that is, before Noyce returned to the USDB superintendent position in 2009. Noyce then used his power to influence people, events, and information in order to carry out his LSL education mission. Because of his rigorous manner in which he led USD at the time, it was clear that he actually believed LSL was superior to ASL/English. Noyce's attitude created a battleground with the Utah Deaf community. They saw his hidden agenda and were up in arms. The controversy was awakened again with more vigor than before.
Ella Mae Lentz, Deafhood Foundation Co-Founder
Julio Diaz, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Jeff Pollock, Dan Mathis, Stephanie Mathis, James (JR) Goff, Duane Kinner, and Jodi Becker Kinner were part of the core group. Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of Deaf children who battled Noyce in the 1990s, eventually joined the group to assist the leaders with their goals. The group planning was done on the spur of the moment.
Utah Deaf community, particularly the Utah Association of the Deaf had long feuds with Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Steven W. Noyce, two local oral leaders. USDB Superintendent Noyce mirrored Dr. Bitter's image. Their actions were strikingly similar. When Jodi Becker Kinner, the website's author, speaks to the Deaf community on "Deaf Education History in Utah," she often references the "Bitter Phase I group" and the "Noyce Phase II group."
Jodi, a core group member and former member of the USBD Legislative Task Force (2007-09), reflected on the developing advocacy group as she remembered Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, age 87 and USD class of 1936, responding to her email on May 16, 2007, to address the Utah Code that regulated the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. She, on the other hand, cannot rely on his direct involvement. He and his wife, Mary, he said, were trying to make the most of their retirement years. "It's up to the young, vigorous, and enthusiastic deaf people like you to carry on," Dr. Sanderson remarked (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, May 16, 2007). The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was picking up where Dr. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Kennth L. Kinner, and others had left off in the campaign for Deaf Education equality in Utah. The issues that the young leaders were dealing with sprang from the past.
Utah Deaf community, particularly the Utah Association of the Deaf had long feuds with Dr. Grant B. Bitter and Steven W. Noyce, two local oral leaders. USDB Superintendent Noyce mirrored Dr. Bitter's image. Their actions were strikingly similar. When Jodi Becker Kinner, the website's author, speaks to the Deaf community on "Deaf Education History in Utah," she often references the "Bitter Phase I group" and the "Noyce Phase II group."
Jodi, a core group member and former member of the USBD Legislative Task Force (2007-09), reflected on the developing advocacy group as she remembered Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, age 87 and USD class of 1936, responding to her email on May 16, 2007, to address the Utah Code that regulated the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. She, on the other hand, cannot rely on his direct involvement. He and his wife, Mary, he said, were trying to make the most of their retirement years. "It's up to the young, vigorous, and enthusiastic deaf people like you to carry on," Dr. Sanderson remarked (Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, May 16, 2007). The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was picking up where Dr. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Kennth L. Kinner, and others had left off in the campaign for Deaf Education equality in Utah. The issues that the young leaders were dealing with sprang from the past.
Robert & Mary Sanderson
Did You Know?
In 1894, when criticizing school administrators for failing to consult directly with Deaf adults, Henry C. White, former USD principal and teacher, said, "What of the deaf themselves?" Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?” (Buchanan, p. 28).
One hundred and seventeen years later, in 2011, the Utah Deaf community was still battling with school administrators who refused to listen to Deaf adults, even when they were also parents. Yes, Deaf Education is "life and death" for them. They grew up in a system that was, and still is, in many aspects broken, inadequate, and oppressive. It's understandable that they were frustrated.
One hundred and seventeen years later, in 2011, the Utah Deaf community was still battling with school administrators who refused to listen to Deaf adults, even when they were also parents. Yes, Deaf Education is "life and death" for them. They grew up in a system that was, and still is, in many aspects broken, inadequate, and oppressive. It's understandable that they were frustrated.
Herny C. White, Utah Eagle, Feb. 1922
At different times, the Utah Association of the Deaf and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group fought Bitter and Noyce in parallel political actions. The famous quote states, "History repeats itself because people don't listen the first time.” It struck a chord with the Utah Deaf community, as the Utah State Board of Education had disregarded their warnings regarding the state's inequality Deaf Education system through Two-Track Program.
This website would not exist if the Utah Deaf community was uninformed of Dr. Bitter's background. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was formed as a result of our historical awareness and the possibility of a repeat cycle under the administration of Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Steven W. Noyce.
Since 1962, when Dr. Bitter and his oral team pioneered a Dual Track approach, the Utah School for the Deaf had been proud of its distinctive program. Furthermore, the USD administration had long boasted that its Dual Track approach was unique, and it was, because only a few other state schools for the deaf in the United States offered something similar. The oral and sign language programs at USD, however, are engaged in an ongoing "internal" conflict.
Not only that, but Deaf Utahns and parents of Deaf children had worked valiantly to ensure that the two programs were promoted equally and to push USD to allow parents to pick both oral and sign language options rather than one or the other. As a result, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, at the time, condemned USD's implementation of the 1962 Dual Track system and did not recommend it to other states.
This website would not exist if the Utah Deaf community was uninformed of Dr. Bitter's background. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was formed as a result of our historical awareness and the possibility of a repeat cycle under the administration of Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Steven W. Noyce.
Since 1962, when Dr. Bitter and his oral team pioneered a Dual Track approach, the Utah School for the Deaf had been proud of its distinctive program. Furthermore, the USD administration had long boasted that its Dual Track approach was unique, and it was, because only a few other state schools for the deaf in the United States offered something similar. The oral and sign language programs at USD, however, are engaged in an ongoing "internal" conflict.
Not only that, but Deaf Utahns and parents of Deaf children had worked valiantly to ensure that the two programs were promoted equally and to push USD to allow parents to pick both oral and sign language options rather than one or the other. As a result, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, at the time, condemned USD's implementation of the 1962 Dual Track system and did not recommend it to other states.
Members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Julio Diaz, Jr., Deaf Parent
Dan V. Mathis, Deaf Advocate
Bronwyn O'Hara, Hearing Parent
Duane Kinner, Deaf Parent
|
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Deaf Parent
Stephanie Mathis, Deaf Advocate
James (JR) Goff, Deaf Parent
Jeff Pollock, Deaf Advocate
Jodi Becker Kinner, Deaf Parent
|
After analyzing the broader challenges in other states, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group noticed a trend of involvement by two Utahns who were active LSL campaigners, USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce and Dr. Karl R. White, Director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment & Management. Furthermore, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had previously been aware of the difficulties faced by the Utah Deaf community as a result of the efforts of people like Noyce and White, who were expanding oralism to other states. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group did not want the history of Deaf education in their state to duplicate itself in other states.
Dr. Karl R. White
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was also made aware of LSL staff members' bias in favoring LSL services while restricting ASL services through USD's Parent Infant Program. Parents were often unaware of the ASL option until their Deaf child failed the LSL program, a condition known as oral failure or language deprivation. Furthermore, the LSL team had a long history of dominating the USD.
The "Pro-Choice" Campaign
of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was consisted of ASL/English Bilingual advocates and Deaf parents of Deaf children. They had no choice but to campaign for the "choice" approach, which implied that through the Parent Infant Program, parents have the right to know all of their options, including ASL/English and LSL. As a result, they were branded "Pro-Choice."
Campaigning for pro-choice or parental choice is a red flag, according to the Deafhood Training taught by Marvin T. Miller in 2019. In other words, if both ASL and LSL choices are being implemented in a state school for the deaf, LSL advocates could repress, weaken, or water down the ASL/English Bilingual Program. It was highlighted that we should take a strong stance in support of ASL, similar to what Delaware School for the Deaf and Indiana School for the Deaf did in 2011 when they were opposing the LSL organization for attempting to incorporate the LSL option in their schools. These state schools remained consistent with their ASL/English Bilingual Program. For Utah, however, it's too late. Since 1962, the Dual Track Program at the Utah School for the Deaf has taken root. It was difficult for them to restore USD to its original status, as was the case with the South Dakota School for the Deaf in 2005. As a result, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had little options other than to fight for choice within the system.
Campaigning for pro-choice or parental choice is a red flag, according to the Deafhood Training taught by Marvin T. Miller in 2019. In other words, if both ASL and LSL choices are being implemented in a state school for the deaf, LSL advocates could repress, weaken, or water down the ASL/English Bilingual Program. It was highlighted that we should take a strong stance in support of ASL, similar to what Delaware School for the Deaf and Indiana School for the Deaf did in 2011 when they were opposing the LSL organization for attempting to incorporate the LSL option in their schools. These state schools remained consistent with their ASL/English Bilingual Program. For Utah, however, it's too late. Since 1962, the Dual Track Program at the Utah School for the Deaf has taken root. It was difficult for them to restore USD to its original status, as was the case with the South Dakota School for the Deaf in 2005. As a result, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had little options other than to fight for choice within the system.
Marvin T. Miller, Deafhood Trainer
The mission of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was to collaborate for equal access to quality education through two programs. Their main objective was to promote fair and unbiased communication and educational options to parents to pick from. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was particularly concerned about the mandate that parents had to choose just one program, instead of being able to choose both if desired. They were adamant that all Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families had the right to have the choice of learning ASL in addition to spoken language, together rather than either/or. More information on the Utah Deaf Education Core Group can be found at the following link: https://sites.google.com/site/utahdeafeducation/home
Jill Radford, Principal of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Has Shown Incredible Courageous in the Face of Oralism
Advocates for the ASL/English Bilingual Program strongly felt infants and toddlers should be given more opportunity to evaluate their skills at both signing and speaking so that parents can choose a decision that reflects their child's potential as a visual or auditory learner. Jill Radford, a Deaf and then principal of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, for example, responded to reporter Rosemary Winters via email and asked, 'How do parents know which language the child needs?' I promote choice, but I believe strongly that it needs to be the child’s choice. Often parents will pick what is most convenient for them and their family [which tends to be LSL] because the child needs to be able to communicate with them” (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
The ASL/English Bilingual Program was met with skepticism by the majority of administrators. Several administrators who backed the program quit, leaving Radford to fight Superintendent Noyce alone to protect JMS. Michelle Tanner, then teacher, expressed the impression of being a small army versus a larger army, according to Dan Mathis, a member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Jill Radford still looked like a fighter, but also somewhat bruised up (Dan Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
When the Legislative Education Interim Committee summoned Superintendent Noyce to speak at their meeting on September 21, 2010, he gave a damaging report. In response to Mr. Noyce's deliberately misleading findings, Radford abruptly resigned in front of the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. This report was the final straw after two years of persistent conflicts with Superintendent Noyce. Radford stood up to him and informed him she was concerned about his dishonest report, and she did it in front of everyone, "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche."
The ASL/English Bilingual Program was met with skepticism by the majority of administrators. Several administrators who backed the program quit, leaving Radford to fight Superintendent Noyce alone to protect JMS. Michelle Tanner, then teacher, expressed the impression of being a small army versus a larger army, according to Dan Mathis, a member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Jill Radford still looked like a fighter, but also somewhat bruised up (Dan Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
When the Legislative Education Interim Committee summoned Superintendent Noyce to speak at their meeting on September 21, 2010, he gave a damaging report. In response to Mr. Noyce's deliberately misleading findings, Radford abruptly resigned in front of the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. This report was the final straw after two years of persistent conflicts with Superintendent Noyce. Radford stood up to him and informed him she was concerned about his dishonest report, and she did it in front of everyone, "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche."
Jill Radford @ Idaho State University
Radford's resignation was a devastating blow to JMS and the Utah Deaf community. "It was just one more example of dedicated individuals finally succumbing to the unrelenting paternalistic majority of hearing individuals who do not value or understand the importance of ASL among the [Utah] Deaf community," Purpleterp said in a newspaper story published by The Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2011 (Purpleterp, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Radford's parting strikes came after Deaf Education advocates charged Superintendent Noyce of favoring USD's LSL Program over the ASL/English Bilingual Program. When he targeted JMS, Radford was guarding the school. Superintendent Noyce, who was in his third year as superintendent, asserted that all of the programs had received equal funding (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Superintendent Noyce said, "The listening and spoken language program has become increasingly popular in recent years as the technology for digital hearing aids, and cochlear implants have improved. About 70 percent of parents choose the LSL track for their Deaf and hard of hearing students before they enter preschool. Students learn to listen and speak, and most can return to their neighborhood schools by third grade" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). He also said few students are moved from the LSL to ASL program, but it does happen (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Many 3rd graders with no language skills were, nevertheless, routinely enrolled at JMS after failing the LSL program. Several factors that contributed to JMS students' poor academic achievement were left out of Superintendent Noyce's report.
The ASL/English Bilingual program, like Simultaneous Communication and Total Communication programs in the past, was designated for "oral failures" as well as students with additional disabilities. Due to the concept of bilingual education, many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families were admitted to JMS. These factors, understandably, contributed to their language deprivation. When it came to LSL students, Radford was concerned that parents were enrolling their children in the program regardless of their abilities. Students who do not learn to listen and talk as rapidly as their parents would want are referred to the ASL program as a last resort (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Radford's parting strikes came after Deaf Education advocates charged Superintendent Noyce of favoring USD's LSL Program over the ASL/English Bilingual Program. When he targeted JMS, Radford was guarding the school. Superintendent Noyce, who was in his third year as superintendent, asserted that all of the programs had received equal funding (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Superintendent Noyce said, "The listening and spoken language program has become increasingly popular in recent years as the technology for digital hearing aids, and cochlear implants have improved. About 70 percent of parents choose the LSL track for their Deaf and hard of hearing students before they enter preschool. Students learn to listen and speak, and most can return to their neighborhood schools by third grade" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). He also said few students are moved from the LSL to ASL program, but it does happen (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Many 3rd graders with no language skills were, nevertheless, routinely enrolled at JMS after failing the LSL program. Several factors that contributed to JMS students' poor academic achievement were left out of Superintendent Noyce's report.
The ASL/English Bilingual program, like Simultaneous Communication and Total Communication programs in the past, was designated for "oral failures" as well as students with additional disabilities. Due to the concept of bilingual education, many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families were admitted to JMS. These factors, understandably, contributed to their language deprivation. When it came to LSL students, Radford was concerned that parents were enrolling their children in the program regardless of their abilities. Students who do not learn to listen and talk as rapidly as their parents would want are referred to the ASL program as a last resort (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jacob & Erica Dietz, Parents of Deaf Children
Radford was not alone in this situation. JMS parents and members of the Utah Deaf community were also taken aback by Noyce's narrative. As previously noted, the study did not divulge all of the details as to why JMS's academic achievement outcomes were so low. Superintendent Noyce was suspected of fabricating statistics for personal gain, possibly to discredit both JMS and KBS (Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf in Ogden). Superintendent Noyce said in defense, “It really shouldn’t be a reflection on the teachers, or JMS. We need to find out why the scores are lower and know what we can do to fix that.” “The measure of success for all of our students is how well they can read and write and use math. Our role as educators, frankly, is to teach them to read and write. Whether they speak or use sign language is not the important part” (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). The Utah Deaf Education Core Group disputed Superintendent Noyce's assertions. They suspected that tainted statistics were being used to punish them for speaking up against inequality through Two-Track Program. Radford was praised for sticking up for Deaf children's rights to education, despite her "unprofessional" resignation, as the Utah State Board of Education phrased it. She was a hero in the eyes of the Utah Deaf Community for having the courage to challenge Superintendent Noyce.
Jacob Dietz, a JMS hearing father of two Deaf children said, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids," he said of Radford. "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years and it's hard to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jacob Dietz, a JMS hearing father of two Deaf children said, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids," he said of Radford. "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years and it's hard to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Jill Radford Meets Dr. Martell Menlove,
Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction
JMS parents and the Utah Deaf community were affected by Radford's departure. They'd never seen Jill as someone who put in long hours at work without getting personally invested. She had consistently been involved in every part of JMS, from the top down. JMS had been her entire life, at the expense of her own health and happiness. Following her departure, Radford promised to continue campaigning for the rights and needs of Deaf and hard of hearing children. On the Facebook page, Brittany Watterson, a former USD student, made a great analogy of Mr. Noyce, saying, "When there is a will, there is a way. Noyce is a good example. He is very passionate about his flawed beliefs and even after many battles we have taken out on him, he is still standing strong" (Brittany Watterson, personal communication, August 26, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce stood firm, her reference to Principal Radford and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's ongoing conflicts and challenges with him was spot on.
Dr. Martell Menlove @ usu.edu
After Radford's departure, she made aware Dr. Martell Menlove, Utah Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction, that the Utah Association of the Deaf had formed an Education Committee to demonstrate to the Utah State Board of Education and Utah State Board of Education that all Deaf children can be effectively educated using ASL/English Bilingual education if the 'Y' system mindset and "either/or" approach are eliminated, and parents are brought together rather than divided. Since then, no action or intervention to address the interval issues had been taken until Michelle Tanner, the future USD Associate Superintendent, was brought in to take charge of the matter in 2014. More details can be found further down.
Superintendent Noyce's Two-Year Contract Ends
Robert Heinlein once observed, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." If we want to become effective advocates for Deaf children's right to communication and language, we must first understand Utah's long history of political controversy about the circumstances surrounding deaf education inequality. Deaf advocates may not be around forever to maintain the ASL/English Bilingual Program intact, but they can pass it on to future generations, like UAD (Bitter Phase) did by passing the torch to the Utah Deaf Education Group Core (Noyce Phase). Both of the USD's programs could be impacted indefinitely. We never know who will govern the USD in the future, and the leaders of the Utah Deaf community do not want history to repeat itself in the third phase. The Utah State Board of Education is in charge of appointing the USDB Superintendent, and they haven't done a good job of listening to the Utah Deaf Community.
The author, Jodi, would want to highlight that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was an activist group, not a radical or fanatic one, as Superintendent Noyce and the LSL group claimed. Fearing that the ASL/English Bilingual program would be compromised, they tried everything they could, as if they were football players, to tackle (prevent) Superintendent Noyce from reaching his aim. Despite their "noise," he had made progress toward his mission by pushing LSL services and mainstreaming opportunities, much like a "football" player sprinting toward the goal line. In the end, he was able to save Dr. Bitter's legacy.
From 2010 to 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group spent a year trying to get Noyce out of his two-year contract. Despite their political outcries, which included a peaceful vigil to await the results that enraged the board members, the Utah State Board of Education voted to extend Superintendent Noyce's contract for another two years after 395 LSL supporters signed a petition and wrote a letter in support of him. The Utah State Office of Education, according to LSL parent, Anissa Wardell's blog, has declared this a victory for LSL families! I Totally AGREE! (Anissa Wardell, Personal Communication, May 5, 2011). Like Dr. Bitter with UAD, Superintendent Noyce was effective in portraying the core group as extremist. After exhausting all other possibilities to terminate his contract, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group sat silent for two years.
The author, Jodi, would want to highlight that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was an activist group, not a radical or fanatic one, as Superintendent Noyce and the LSL group claimed. Fearing that the ASL/English Bilingual program would be compromised, they tried everything they could, as if they were football players, to tackle (prevent) Superintendent Noyce from reaching his aim. Despite their "noise," he had made progress toward his mission by pushing LSL services and mainstreaming opportunities, much like a "football" player sprinting toward the goal line. In the end, he was able to save Dr. Bitter's legacy.
From 2010 to 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group spent a year trying to get Noyce out of his two-year contract. Despite their political outcries, which included a peaceful vigil to await the results that enraged the board members, the Utah State Board of Education voted to extend Superintendent Noyce's contract for another two years after 395 LSL supporters signed a petition and wrote a letter in support of him. The Utah State Office of Education, according to LSL parent, Anissa Wardell's blog, has declared this a victory for LSL families! I Totally AGREE! (Anissa Wardell, Personal Communication, May 5, 2011). Like Dr. Bitter with UAD, Superintendent Noyce was effective in portraying the core group as extremist. After exhausting all other possibilities to terminate his contract, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group sat silent for two years.
Joel Coleman @ Utah Public Education
Superintendent Noyce's contract was terminated two years later, in 2013. The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously in open session on January 10, 2013, not to extend Noyce's appointment. The state school board's chairperson, Debra Roberts, declined to reveal why the board decided not to extend Noyce's contract, citing privacy concerns. She went on to say that there had been no misconduct and that the board had been debating the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). Noyce was taken aback by the news. He explained, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). As of today, no one knew why his contract had ended.
Jodi can't help but question what might be a better course of action. Should they take a more active or passive role in the movement? Contemplate what could have happened if the Utah Association of the Deaf had not battled to safeguard sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Is it feasible that ASL would have died out totally if the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained subservient? Would ASL/English Bilingual Bilingual Education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu and Kenneth C. Burdett Deaf Schools still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept Utah? In such circumstance, there was no win-win situation.
It wasn't until 2013-14 that the rightful USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman, a former member of the Utah State Board of Education, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner joined forces to address the long-overdue need for equal ASL/English Bilingual and LSL options, as well as an equitable deaf educational system.
Jodi can't help but question what might be a better course of action. Should they take a more active or passive role in the movement? Contemplate what could have happened if the Utah Association of the Deaf had not battled to safeguard sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Is it feasible that ASL would have died out totally if the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained subservient? Would ASL/English Bilingual Bilingual Education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu and Kenneth C. Burdett Deaf Schools still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept Utah? In such circumstance, there was no win-win situation.
It wasn't until 2013-14 that the rightful USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman, a former member of the Utah State Board of Education, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner joined forces to address the long-overdue need for equal ASL/English Bilingual and LSL options, as well as an equitable deaf educational system.
Did You Know?
Joel Coleman, who joined the Utah State Board of Education in November 2010, is a brother-in-law of Rachel Coleman, who developed the “Signing Time” videos.
Utah's Unequal Deaf Education System
With a long history of political strife dating back to 1962 over concerns that resulted in inequity in Deaf Education in Utah through Two-Track Program, the parents and Utah Deaf community will not settle anything less than Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's dream being a reality!
The Utah Deaf community has solely strived to provide parents with equitable and fair information. The Utah School for the Deaf still has a long way to go in terms of improving the quality of its services and education for Deaf and hard of hearing kids. For years, teaching methods, communication methods, programs, educational philosophies, and LRE concerns have been used to divide the Deaf and hard of hearing students.
Dr. Sanderson's dream, in my opinion, has the potential to bring all sides together to achieve his goal of serving Deaf and hard of hearing students.
The Utah Deaf community has solely strived to provide parents with equitable and fair information. The Utah School for the Deaf still has a long way to go in terms of improving the quality of its services and education for Deaf and hard of hearing kids. For years, teaching methods, communication methods, programs, educational philosophies, and LRE concerns have been used to divide the Deaf and hard of hearing students.
Dr. Sanderson's dream, in my opinion, has the potential to bring all sides together to achieve his goal of serving Deaf and hard of hearing students.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
“MY DREAM”
“This is my dream and only mine. I’ll share it with you, even though some of you may think it’s more like a nightmare.
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992).”
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
- A top-quality comprehensive residential school for deaf children who live far from urban schools;
- A high quality day school with proper grading K-12 in a central division location in each of the major cities, SLC, Ogden, and Provo—in which children who are deaf may interact freely with their peers;
- Schools in which communication philosophies fit the child, and not the child to the philosophies.
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
- Administrators who know who to motivate and get the best out of their teachers;
- Top-quality professional teachers who not only understand the subjects they teach, but deafness as well, and who will earn salaries commensurate with the special skills they have;
- That all graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf will score in the top 20% of all high school graduate statewide, and will qualify for higher education if they so desire.
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992).”
Robert G. Sanderson. MY DREAM. UAD Bulletin, July 1992
The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
Since 1962, parents had requested both oral and sign language options for their Deaf children, but the Bitter/Noyce administration refused. Under the guidance of Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, it was finally approved in August 2016.
Dr. Sanderson's long-held dream was for us to all come together to achieve his four main goals. After more than fifty years, the Utah School for the Deaf has finally found the necessary administrators in Joel Coleman, Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent, who are committed to providing an equal deaf educational system.
Under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, Dr. Sanderson's dream was realized twenty-four years later with the creation of the "Hybrid" Program, which enabled "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language (Replaced oral) Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, better known as a personalized deaf education placement.
Coleman and Tanner both play an important role in achieving Dr. Sanderson's goals. We can make a bigger impact if we work together to promote deaf education equity for all Deaf and hard of hearing students in Utah.
Dr. Sanderson's long-held dream was for us to all come together to achieve his four main goals. After more than fifty years, the Utah School for the Deaf has finally found the necessary administrators in Joel Coleman, Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent, who are committed to providing an equal deaf educational system.
Under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, Dr. Sanderson's dream was realized twenty-four years later with the creation of the "Hybrid" Program, which enabled "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language (Replaced oral) Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, better known as a personalized deaf education placement.
Coleman and Tanner both play an important role in achieving Dr. Sanderson's goals. We can make a bigger impact if we work together to promote deaf education equity for all Deaf and hard of hearing students in Utah.
Michelle Tanner, USD Assoc. Supt; Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent; Carolyn Lasater, USB Assoc. Supt @ Twitter.com
Collaboration Between the Listening & Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual Departments Faces Challenges
Michelle Tanner, a long-serving teacher and director at the Utah School for the Deaf (USD), was named Associate Superintendent in 2014. She works under Superintendent Joel Coleman, who was appointed by the Utah State Board of Education in 2013.
During Tanner's first year as an Associate Superintendent, she began to seriously contemplate the "Y" system mentality that had been in place in the USD for years. Many parents were baffled as to why they had to choose one option over the other. Tanner wondered if the long-running dispute over the education of Deaf and hard of hearing youngsters could ever be settled. "Will this fight ever end?" she pondered. The battle has been well documented throughout history on numerous continents. She thought aloud, "Can the two factions ever get along?" Tanner realized as she contemplated these issues that she had the capacity and authority in her current position to try to do something different for the state of Utah. In this case, she might have some influence. But how do you go about doing it?
Tanner, as a strong advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, wondered how she could get Listening & Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English to work together. Her goal was to break free from the "Y" system mindset. She recognized that in today's culture, we like options and the ability to create the option that best suits our needs. Tanner was aware that the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual departments at Salt Lake City and Ogden shared a campus. As a result, she started by changing policies to eliminate the "either/or" mindset.
Tanner spoke with the educational directors and emphasized that in the preschool program, parents would no longer have to choose between the two options, and instructors would be able to stick to their educational philosophy. Students would be the ones to go from class to class based on the IEP team's decision. Teachers would be able to maintain true to their methodology approach while students would be able to get education in both programs. At the same time, Tanner informed parents of students transferring to Part B services about the change, explaining that they no longer had to choose between LSL and ASL/English options; they could attend both classes.
The ASL/English teachers were very accepting and supportive of the change. The LSL teachers, on the other hand, were fiercely opposed, and they used subterfuge throughout the first two years of implementation. Some teachers met with parents, who had chosen both ASL/English and LSL options, to convince them to just attend the LSL program. Lying enraged some parents, who took their complaints to the Utah State Board of Education. Others requested for data to verify whether or not the program worked before making a decision.
During Tanner's first year as an Associate Superintendent, she began to seriously contemplate the "Y" system mentality that had been in place in the USD for years. Many parents were baffled as to why they had to choose one option over the other. Tanner wondered if the long-running dispute over the education of Deaf and hard of hearing youngsters could ever be settled. "Will this fight ever end?" she pondered. The battle has been well documented throughout history on numerous continents. She thought aloud, "Can the two factions ever get along?" Tanner realized as she contemplated these issues that she had the capacity and authority in her current position to try to do something different for the state of Utah. In this case, she might have some influence. But how do you go about doing it?
Tanner, as a strong advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, wondered how she could get Listening & Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English to work together. Her goal was to break free from the "Y" system mindset. She recognized that in today's culture, we like options and the ability to create the option that best suits our needs. Tanner was aware that the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual departments at Salt Lake City and Ogden shared a campus. As a result, she started by changing policies to eliminate the "either/or" mindset.
Tanner spoke with the educational directors and emphasized that in the preschool program, parents would no longer have to choose between the two options, and instructors would be able to stick to their educational philosophy. Students would be the ones to go from class to class based on the IEP team's decision. Teachers would be able to maintain true to their methodology approach while students would be able to get education in both programs. At the same time, Tanner informed parents of students transferring to Part B services about the change, explaining that they no longer had to choose between LSL and ASL/English options; they could attend both classes.
The ASL/English teachers were very accepting and supportive of the change. The LSL teachers, on the other hand, were fiercely opposed, and they used subterfuge throughout the first two years of implementation. Some teachers met with parents, who had chosen both ASL/English and LSL options, to convince them to just attend the LSL program. Lying enraged some parents, who took their complaints to the Utah State Board of Education. Others requested for data to verify whether or not the program worked before making a decision.
Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent @ Twitter
Many LSL teachers were adamant about not collaborating with ASL/English teachers. Tanner was highly involved in weekly meetings with all of the teachers at the time, addressing questions and resolving conflicts. Each year, the USD team readjusted and strengthened what they were doing. They also reorganized how students were shared. They also implemented a strict policy prohibiting one teacher from speaking with a parent without the involvement of the partnering teacher from the other teaching philosophy. Some teachers had to be removed from these cooperation tasks and replaced by teachers who were more open-minded.
For six years from 2014 to 2020, the USD team has gone a long way and made great progress. Tanner no longer had to attend weekly teacher meetings in these settings since the teachers were much more collaborative. To reflect this collaboration between classes, the term "hybrid" was coined in August 2016. In essence, it was an ASL/English Bilingual program, but since it wasn't the traditional ASL/English Bilingual Program at USD and required collaboration between two faculties, people created the term, the "hybrid" program. Tanner prefers to call it as a "collaboration" between the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual programs, or even a personalized deaf education placement.
In 1st grade, the collaboration comes to an end. As a result of these improvements, several parents expressed an interest in extending this opportunity to older grades. The USD team is examining its options. According to their findings, students either return to a district program (if they are more oral) or stay in their ASL/English Bilingual Program. Parents want the USD to keep providing this structure for students in the upper grades who need it.
The ultimate goal of providing Deaf and hard of hearing students with education in this manner is for parents to be open to all options and not feel obligated to pick a very limited choice in their child's education. Because students don't have to struggle for a long period in a placement that isn't functioning before we can introduce ASL, this strategy also helps to reduce language deprivation. Tanner concluded that parents are ecstatic that the USD team has ditched the "Y" system approach in favor of collaborating to fulfill the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021).
During the Coleman/Tanner administration, the LEAD-K (Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids) Policy was launched in 2018, and a brochure was created. The goal of LEAD-K is to ensure that Deaf children are Kindergarten-ready by promoting language equality and acquisition. The USD Language and Communication Policy was amended in 2021 to ensure that each LSL and ASL/English program has clear standards, that parents are provided with accurate information about communication and educational options, and that students have access to communication and language needs.
Despite the fact that Dr. Sanderson passed away in 2012, Jodi Becker Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children and a former Deaf Education Advocate, believes he is delighted and appreciative to Tanner for making his dream a reality. Her study on this website undoubtedly helped her in coming up with solutions and plans for collaboration with the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments. Otherwise, both programs will continue to battle to no avail to appropriately serve parents and students. It's taken a long time to get here, but better late than never!
For six years from 2014 to 2020, the USD team has gone a long way and made great progress. Tanner no longer had to attend weekly teacher meetings in these settings since the teachers were much more collaborative. To reflect this collaboration between classes, the term "hybrid" was coined in August 2016. In essence, it was an ASL/English Bilingual program, but since it wasn't the traditional ASL/English Bilingual Program at USD and required collaboration between two faculties, people created the term, the "hybrid" program. Tanner prefers to call it as a "collaboration" between the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual programs, or even a personalized deaf education placement.
In 1st grade, the collaboration comes to an end. As a result of these improvements, several parents expressed an interest in extending this opportunity to older grades. The USD team is examining its options. According to their findings, students either return to a district program (if they are more oral) or stay in their ASL/English Bilingual Program. Parents want the USD to keep providing this structure for students in the upper grades who need it.
The ultimate goal of providing Deaf and hard of hearing students with education in this manner is for parents to be open to all options and not feel obligated to pick a very limited choice in their child's education. Because students don't have to struggle for a long period in a placement that isn't functioning before we can introduce ASL, this strategy also helps to reduce language deprivation. Tanner concluded that parents are ecstatic that the USD team has ditched the "Y" system approach in favor of collaborating to fulfill the specific needs of each student (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021).
During the Coleman/Tanner administration, the LEAD-K (Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids) Policy was launched in 2018, and a brochure was created. The goal of LEAD-K is to ensure that Deaf children are Kindergarten-ready by promoting language equality and acquisition. The USD Language and Communication Policy was amended in 2021 to ensure that each LSL and ASL/English program has clear standards, that parents are provided with accurate information about communication and educational options, and that students have access to communication and language needs.
Despite the fact that Dr. Sanderson passed away in 2012, Jodi Becker Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children and a former Deaf Education Advocate, believes he is delighted and appreciative to Tanner for making his dream a reality. Her study on this website undoubtedly helped her in coming up with solutions and plans for collaboration with the LSL and ASL/English Bilingual Departments. Otherwise, both programs will continue to battle to no avail to appropriately serve parents and students. It's taken a long time to get here, but better late than never!
Deaf Representatives Make Up 51% of USD Committees
Under the administration of USD Associate Superintendent Tanner, the LEAD-K Policy was formed by a committee comprised of more than 51% Deaf individuals, similar to the approach taken by Gallaudet University's Board of Trustees following the 1988 Deaf President Now protest. USD adopted the California law's recommendations for team members and goals for LEAD-K. USD also made certain that the Communication & Language Policy Committee (along with all other committees) was set up in the same way. Tanner believed it was necessary for all policy changes and everything that would have an effect on Deaf and hard of hearing students and employees.
The LEAD-K Committee was composed of ASL and LSL Deaf representatives who collaborated with USD ASL/LSL administrators to develop the policy. The Deaf representatives on the LEAD-K were Philippe Montalette, Leanna Turman Gale, Brooke Grossinger, Jared Allebest, Stephanie Morgan, Lori Ruth, and Jamie Warengo. When Philippe and Jared were on the LEAD-K Committee, they were also members of the USDB Advisory Council (AC).
The LEAD-K Committee was composed of ASL and LSL Deaf representatives who collaborated with USD ASL/LSL administrators to develop the policy. The Deaf representatives on the LEAD-K were Philippe Montalette, Leanna Turman Gale, Brooke Grossinger, Jared Allebest, Stephanie Morgan, Lori Ruth, and Jamie Warengo. When Philippe and Jared were on the LEAD-K Committee, they were also members of the USDB Advisory Council (AC).
Philippe Montalette– AC Member/Deaf Adult – ASL/English
|
Jared Allebest – AC Member/Deaf adult – LSL
|
Brooke Grossinger – Parent – ASL/English
|
Stephanie Morgan – Director of PIP
|
Leanna Turman Gale – Educator of the Deaf – ASL/English
|
Jamie Warengo Threet - Deaf Mentor Coordinator – ASL/English
Lori Ruth – Parent Advisor in PIP – LSL @ Utah Valley Magazine
|
I will update the references later.
Personal Communication
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
References
Sanderson, R.G. (1992, July). My Dream. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 8.
Personal Communication
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
References
Sanderson, R.G. (1992, July). My Dream. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 8.