Mainstreaming Is Not the
Answer for All Deaf Children
Compiled & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2022
Edited by Bronwyn O'Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2016
Updated in 2022
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.
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.
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.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Dr. Bitter and other parents, who supported oral, were adamant about not sending their Deaf children to the Ogden Deaf Residential campus. As a result, USD created an Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1959, where Deaf students were able to attend classes close to their homes. It paved the way of the mainstreaming movement. Dr. Bitter taught Deaf students in the USD Extension-Salt Lake City program from 1960 to 1962 (Utahn, 1963). He subsequently rose through the ranks of Extension Division Curriculum Coordinator and Curriculum Coordinator for USD, where he pushed for Deaf and hard of hearing students to be mainstreamed (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1969). Extension Divisions were eventually established throughout Utah to provide a day program for Deaf students in more heavily populated areas.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
The demographics of Deaf students at USD began to shift in 1961, as the proportion of Deaf people with additional disabilities climbed. The hearing aids were starting to improve. Deaf people with better hearing aids had the opportunity to interact with hearing people. The number of people who became deaf later in life began to decline, while the number of those born deaf began to rise. Before losing their hearing, half of the Deaf students at USD had acquired a good language foundation. The number of Deaf persons, on the other hand, was increasing, and their language development was being hindered. Prior to the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1965, the Utah Deaf community relied heavily on hard of hearing people who learnt their language before using hearing aids and those who lost their hearing afterwards had acquired good speaking ability. UAD predicted that in the future, there will be fewer such people and more Deaf people with additional disabilities, further complicating the picture (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961, p. 2).
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of Deaf students with disabilities enrolled at the Ogden Deaf Residential Campus steadily increased, parallel to the mainstreaming of more Deaf children without disabilities. The prediction made by UAD proven to be correct. The implementation of USD-managed self-contained deaf classes in local public schools was a common form of mainstreaming. Deaf students who thrived in academics or were on par with their peers chose a different route. They were enrolled in full inclusion programs in their respective school districts. The Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community continued to express their dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the Utah School for the Deaf meetings and at Institutional Council meetings (Bronwyn O’Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of Deaf students with disabilities enrolled at the Ogden Deaf Residential Campus steadily increased, parallel to the mainstreaming of more Deaf children without disabilities. The prediction made by UAD proven to be correct. The implementation of USD-managed self-contained deaf classes in local public schools was a common form of mainstreaming. Deaf students who thrived in academics or were on par with their peers chose a different route. They were enrolled in full inclusion programs in their respective school districts. The Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community continued to express their dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the Utah School for the Deaf meetings and at Institutional Council meetings (Bronwyn O’Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Robert G. Sanderson Defends the Utah School for the Deaf
In the April 20, 1959 edition of the Salt Lake City newspaper, William Smiley authored an article titled "It's Leave Home or Education Ends." His article argued for the establishment of a day school in Salt Lake City for Deaf children using oral approach. Robert G. Sanderson reacted on May 2, 1959, with his own piece, "Ogden School Best for Deaf Children." Sanderson defended the Utah School for the Deaf's use of the manual alphabet and signs for communication in his piece, despite Smiley's negative portrayal. Sanderson recognized that parents of Deaf children in Salt Lake City had the right to request special classes for their children. Sanderson, on the other hand, spoke out against parents being duped and deceived by oralists who prioritized lip-reading and speech output over education. Sanderson stressed that a Deaf child who attended the Ogden residential school received a superior education than a Deaf child who attended an oral day school. He drew a parallel between the School for the Deaf and a typical public school where hearing children attended. Sanderson went on to say that USD offered great academic and vocational training. This was on top of the time students had spent learning how to read lips. When deciding where their Deaf child should attend school, he urged that parents consider their child's education first, then their own emotions. Dr. Sanderson concluded his rebuttal by emphasizing that sign language is a Deaf child's natural and normal mode of communication, and that it is absurd for parents to deny their Deaf children access to it. To summarize, he said that the sooner both [parent and child] learn to spell the manual alphabet, the sooner they will be able to communicate and overcome the language barrier. Speech and lip-reading will come in time, depending on the child's abilities.
Robert G. Sanderson
Sanderson was backed up in writing by USD alumni and UAD members G. Leon Curtis and Ray G. Wenger. Their newspaper pieces were in response to William Smiley's article (above) and Elizabeth H. Spear's "The Case for Oral Education of Deaf," in which she disagreed with Sanderson. Curtis and Wenger underlined in their writings that both voice and manual methods were available for USD. They recommended that anyone who was interested go to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (Curtis, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 1959; Wenger, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1959). A tour of campus could be arranged by Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder. The students' cheerful expressions would be proof enough that the USD was doing an amazing job of developing happy, self-sufficient Deaf adults (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 1959).
Ray G. Wenger
G. Leon Curtis. The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Utah School for the Deaf Forms an Extension Division
for Deaf Students in Oral Deaf Education Placements
for Deaf Students in Oral Deaf Education Placements
In the mid-1950s, parents of Deaf children living in the Salt Lake area expressed a reluctance to send their children to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. As a result, they teamed up on the motivations for the establishment of a "local deaf oral day school." They collaborated with the Stewart Training School, a training school for teachers, which was based at the University of Utah, to start a Deaf Program. In the fall of 1956, the Stewart Training School opened its doors to the oral classroom for students who were deaf. This is the very first concept of mainstreaming, which eventually led to the expansion of outreach programs throughout the state of Utah. One of the parents, Paul Williams Hodson's son, Jonathon, who was 5 at the time, recalled that the school was taught by a teacher named Miss Hunt, who eventually went on to teach at Riley Elementary School (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, January 31, 2022). The Stewart Training School was a research facility that provided Deaf children with early education utilizing speech and listening skills rather than sign language. Aural/oral training, often known as oral deaf education, is a method for improving speaking and listening skills (The Utah Eagle, October & November 1960).
The USD Oral Extension Program at the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School is located at 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utahn, 1960 @ https://science.utah.edu/science-u/stewart/
Dr. Allen E. Bateman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
In the 1950s, a Deaf child could attend USD when he or she turned five years old (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960; Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011). However, the Stewart Training School was quickly overcrowded in the late 1950s, particularly among kindergarten-age students. Parents from Salt Lake City preferred that their children remain at home rather than attend the Ogden residential school (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). Because of overcrowding and the fact that many parents did not want their Deaf child to attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, school administrators were directed to devise a way to accommodate the parents' request to mainstream their Deaf child (The Utah Eagle, October & November 1960). The Administration of the Utah School for the Deaf approached Dr. Allen Bateman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, for assistance in forming a partnership with the Salt Lake City School District to develop the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Allen E. Bateman responded positively and offered his support for the collaboration (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960; The Utah Eagle, January 1968). During this time period, Robert W. Tegeder was the newly appointed superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf. In September 1959, as a result of the efforts of USD Superintendent Tegeder, the first extension classroom for Deaf oral pupils was established. Deaf students who attend public schools in their neighborhoods will be served by the USD Extension Division, allowing them to continue their education at home. Several other extension classrooms were developed throughout the state once the Salt Lake City extension classroom proved to be a success (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).
Robert W. Tegeder, USDB Superintendent. The Utah Eagle, October 1959
At first, the extension program was only open to primary school children. Transferring to a regular public school or the USD in Ogden for high school was another option for students. At the Ogden campus, students received the academic and vocational skills needed for high school graduation (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960). The Extension Division grew from one to more than twenty classrooms in Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, Brigham City, Logan, and Vernal between 1961 and 1970. As part of its "Outreach Programs," USD partnered with a variety of public schools in a range of geographical areas. The Extension team included teachers, nursery teachers, teacher aides, consultants, volunteers, and a curriculum coordinator. Classes were taught at preschool, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).
The teachers in these oral extension classrooms followed the curriculum of the Utah School for the Deaf in the elementary grades. However, in the upper grades the curriculum was gradually adapted to parallel the curriculum of the Salt Lake City School District (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). Students in the Extension Division were moved to the curriculum of their hearing counterparts as early as possible. Many of these Deaf students were able to integrate into regular public school at some point during their education. This integration was carefully planned and allowed the student to move through a gradual transition from intensive work in speech, speech-reading, and listening skills to public school classes--first at lunch and recess and then in low-academic subjects such as Physical Education, Art, Industrial Arts, Homemaking, and then, gradually, into the higher academic subjects, one or more periods of the day (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). USD funded the program and rented space from the local public-school district.
The teachers in these oral extension classrooms followed the curriculum of the Utah School for the Deaf in the elementary grades. However, in the upper grades the curriculum was gradually adapted to parallel the curriculum of the Salt Lake City School District (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). Students in the Extension Division were moved to the curriculum of their hearing counterparts as early as possible. Many of these Deaf students were able to integrate into regular public school at some point during their education. This integration was carefully planned and allowed the student to move through a gradual transition from intensive work in speech, speech-reading, and listening skills to public school classes--first at lunch and recess and then in low-academic subjects such as Physical Education, Art, Industrial Arts, Homemaking, and then, gradually, into the higher academic subjects, one or more periods of the day (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). USD funded the program and rented space from the local public-school district.
USD teacher giving student speech training. Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The Extension Division welcomed all educational children with disabilities in the Salt Lake area when they were two and a half years old. After preschool, the Deaf student would be transferred to the Ogden campus or continue their education in the Extension Oral Program. The placement decision would be made collaboratively by the curriculum coordinators, instructors, and parents. The academic performance of the student, the student's home environment, and the student's social development were all taken into consideration when making this educational decision. The majority of the time, the student transitioned from preschool to kindergarten. The student was kept under the supervision of the Extension Division until high school graduation if he or she made good progress in all areas of concern. He or she could be transferred to the Ogden campus if he or she required more intensive training in speech, speech reading, and amplified sound discrimination than the rest of the group of oral Deaf children with whom he or she was placed, because "there are not, at this time, enough sections at each grade level in the Extension Division to allow for wide deviation in performance" in these aural/oral skills. "There are not, at this time, enough sections at each grade level in the Extension Division to allow for wide deviation in performance" in these aural/oral skills." (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
USD Oral class. Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The Oral and Mainstream Education Flourish in Utah
When the first extension classroom opened in Salt Lake City in September 1959, Mary Burch was persuaded to come out of retirement to teach it. She was from Kentucky and a graduate of Northampton, Massachusetts' Clarke School for the Deaf, a private aural/oral deaf school. The extension classroom was deemed a success for the school year from September 1959 to May 1960 (Tegedar, The Utah Eagle, October 1959; The Utah Eagle, October & November 1960). There was an increase in these classrooms as a result of the one short school year.
Mary Burch, USD Extension Teacher. Utahn, 1960
The Utah School for the Deaf added two extra extension classrooms to Riley Elementary School in the Salt Lake City area in 1960. It was desired to assess the effectiveness of teaching Deaf children using speech and listening skills. Grant B. Bitter, Tony Christopulos, Bruce Wallace, Duane Harrison, Thomas VanDrimmenlen, Albert Thurber, and Mary Burch, who stayed on, were the teachers on this project. All of these teachers promoted an oral/aural strategy in which Deaf students were taught to use their residual hearing with amplification while gaining lip-reading abilities. The goal was for the Deaf students to understand spoken conversation and build their own comprehensible speaking abilities. In order to keep the initiative running, these teachers wanted to enlist the help of parents. For that purpose, they invited parents to come in and observe the classrooms as part of the experiment. The aural/oral deaf educators wanted to garner parental support in this way, using 'parental power' as leverage with USD to push on with their agenda (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
The USD Oral Extension Program at the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School on 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Utahn, 1960
In 1958, the state of Utah implemented actual certification standards for teachers of the deaf for the first time (The Utah Eagle, April 1958). The aural/oral teacher-training program was created in 1962 under the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, largely through the collaboration of the University of Utah and the Utah School for the Deaf (Tony Christopulos, personal communication, November 5, 1986). In 1967-1968, this training program was transferred to the Department of Special Education. Their mission was to provide future Deaf oral teachers to the USD (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986). Later, a discrepancy was discovered because no similar teacher-training program for prospective teachers who would teach Deaf students through signs using the simultaneous communication style was planned (Utah State Board of Education, 1973; Campbell, 1977; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986). It would take until 1984 for this inequality to be addressed.
Standing is Mary Burch, teacher and the oral class.
Front row, left to right: Paul Anderson, Sandra Kwawegen, Bryan Monson, Debra Hale, Barbara June Clay and Jonathon Hodson. The Utah Eagle, October 1959
To return to the Aural/Oral educational context, from 1960 to 1962, Grant Bitter taught Deaf students in the USD Extension-Salt Lake City program (Utahn, 1963). From its inception until 1971, when he became a full-time faculty member at the University of Utah, he coordinated the teacher-training program on a part-time basis (Utah Eagle, October 1967; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985). He was still in charge of overseeing and implementing the educational program. The University of Utah provided licensed teachers with an emphasis on aural and oral skills for the school for the deaf, whereas USD provided student teaching facilities, internships, and daily on-site supervision for its student teachers (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Dr. Bitter allowed his own beliefs to influence the university's teacher preparation program. Colleen, his Deaf daughter, was born in 1954, and he wished for her to be able to talk. As a result, he became a driving force in the development of the oral teaching method, and this was the only deaf teacher preparation program in Utah at the time (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Palmer, 1986; Baldwin, 1990). This program's major purpose was to train future teachers how to get Deaf children to communicate and listen to their classes in the same way that hearing children do. No one had trained the teachers how to sign. This curriculum was only open to teachers who had been trained in the oral/aural method. There was no other option.
The University of Utah Student Teachers teaching the oral program at Utah School for the Deaf, 1973
According to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in the UAD Spring 1964 Bulletin, "the University of Utah, under its special education program, was orally oriented" towards Deaf education. He noticed that the USD was accumulating a pool of teachers who were trained in the oral technique of instruction. Many of the older teachers came from well-known oral deaf schools such as Northampton, Massachusetts' Clarke School for the Deaf and Jackson Heights, New York's Lexington School for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964). Likewise, the University of Utah's deaf education program quickly began producing teachers as well.
Standing is Wallace Bruce, an oral teacher with students, Ronald C. Burdett (left) and Thomas Rulon Osmond (right) listening to the music, 1959
Dr. Sanderson wasn't the only one who saw the effect of having so many oral teachers of the deaf coming to USD. The impact on the school was also observed by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, and Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at USD. Because 90% of deaf children have hearing parents, the parents were drawn in as supporters of the oral/aural movement. Hearing parents were often unfamiliar with sign language, and most parents of the time desired that their Deaf children learn to speak (Baldwin, 1975, p. 1). On the other hand, the majority of Deaf adults supported simultaneous communication because it included signs in classroom instruction. The Utah Deaf community wanted the University of Utah's Deaf Education curriculum to integrate simultaneous communication methods (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. UAD Bulletin, June 1973
During the late 1960s and late 1970s, there was a national shift away from aural/oral methods of Deaf Education and toward an approach that included sign language and other visuals. However, it wasn't until 1984, when Dr. William Stokoe recognized American Sign Language (ASL) to be a legitimate language, that Deaf schools began incorporating ASL as the language of instruction (Wikipedia: William Stokoe). Nevertheless, many Utah professionals in the field of Deaf Education continued to advocate the oral/aural approach as a valid instructional method at the time, while the USD Oral Extension Division was getting off the ground.
Dr. William C. Stokoe Jr. @ Wikipedia
A Protest at the University of Utah
Signs were not incorporated into teacher training classes during the early years of the University of Utah's oral training program. After failing to reach out to Alfred Emery, president, and other administrators at the University of Utah, UAD President W. David Mortensen staged two protests: outside the Utah State Office of Education on November 18, 1977, and in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus on November 28, 1977. The protests were held because the University of Utah provided an unequaled oral and total communication preparation program, favored oral-only education, was biased against using the total communication method of teaching, favored day schools, had no Deaf representative on the Advisory Committee, and failed to listen to UAD and the Utah Deaf community on a regular basis (Chaffin, the Daily Utah Chronicle, November 19, 1977, p. 30 A) (UAD letter, 1977; UAD Flyer, 1977). On November 28, a group of about twenty Deaf people gathered in front of the Park Building to protest the university's handling of their concerns (The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977).
W. David Mortensen
During the protest, Dr. Bitter's adherence to the Oral method was brought up. Because of his views on how Deaf children should be educated, Dr. Bitter was perceived as being hostile to the Utah Deaf community. "We are endeavoring to be fair and meet individual requirements," he said in response to the UAD protest (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977). He stated why he preferred an oral-only approach. It was, in his opinion, the finest method to assist Deaf children in becoming functioning members of society (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1). He truly believed that oralism was the finest approach to instill a positive self-concept in Deaf children and prepare them for a regular life in society. He felt that using the oral method liberated them from the need for an interpreter and provided them with the independence they would want as adults.
UAD has released a nine-point list of complaints about the Teacher of the Deaf Training Program @ J. Willard Marriott Library
Dr. Bitter reminded UAD that the University of Utah Teacher for the Deaf Training Program included a basic sign language skills class as well as practicum with the Utah Deaf community. Bitter showed to the protesters that the University of Utah had fulfilled its obligation to the Utah State Board of Education by providing comprehensive communication opportunities as part of its oral curriculum (Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977).
Arnold Moon. The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977
|
Zelma Moon. The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977
|
M. J. Lewis wrote a Letter to the Editor in the Deseret News, believing that "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and put fear into parents that their children will never be able to function as normal human beings" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 28, 1977; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). The Daily Utah Chronicle published two news items about the protest (Hunt, The Utah Daily Chronicle, November 19 and Hunt, The Utah Daily Chronicle, December 16, 1977) as well as a Letter to the Editor by S.C. Sundstrom in response to those articles. There is "...no evidence here that you have investigated the viewpoints or rationale of these [Deaf] individuals," S.C. Sundstrom told Lisa M. Hunt, the author of the Chronicle articles (S.C. Sundstrom, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 6, 1977).
The protests of UAD President Mortensen drew the attention of the Utah State Board of Education. They passed a motion in April 1979 directing the University of Utah to hire a faculty member to teach Total Communication skills to prospective teachers of the deaf (The Silent Spotlight, June 1979; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
More information about the protest can be found in the section titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controvery: Total Communication and Oralism at the University of Utah."
The protests of UAD President Mortensen drew the attention of the Utah State Board of Education. They passed a motion in April 1979 directing the University of Utah to hire a faculty member to teach Total Communication skills to prospective teachers of the deaf (The Silent Spotlight, June 1979; Jeff Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
More information about the protest can be found in the section titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controvery: Total Communication and Oralism at the University of Utah."
Pickets outside state board of education protest teaching methods for Deaf Deseret News, November 19, 1977
A New Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
Finally, as a result of UAD's efforts, the Utah State Board of Regents approved the creation of a new Deaf Education major at Utah State University on April 20, 1982, where teacher candidates would study Total Communication skills. This program was taught Dr. Thomas C. Clark, a hearing son of a Deaf father and Gallaudet's Utah first graduate, John H. Clark, and 2nd cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, the UAD's first female president in 1909 and also the first Utah graduate of Gallaudet. However, there was no funding available until 1985, when Utah State University established a modest preparation program to provide a total communication component.
What a breakthrough for UAD and the Utah Deaf community! For years, the majority of Utah's Total Communication teachers were from outside the state, while the majority of Oral teachers were from the University of Utah.
What a breakthrough for UAD and the Utah Deaf community! For years, the majority of Utah's Total Communication teachers were from outside the state, while the majority of Oral teachers were from the University of Utah.
John H. Clark @ FamilySearch
|
Dr. Thomas C. Clark
|
Elizabeth DeLong @ FamilySearch
When Dr. J. Freeman King took over the Deaf Education program at Utah State University in 1991, he changed it from the Total Communication program to the Bilingual/Bicultural program (UAD Bulletin, October 1991). This program is still operational. Dr. Karl R. White, a professor of psychology at Utah State University, the founder of Sound Beginnings, and the founding director of Utah State University's National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, spearheaded the establishment of the Listening and Spoken Language program in 2007. Initially, this sparked a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program. They are now more tolerant of one another and are concentrating on their own work in the same department.
Dr. J. King Freeman
|
Dr. Karl R. White
|
Utah School for the Deaf is not
like a Traditional Residential School
like a Traditional Residential School
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.
In 2001, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a member of the USDB Institutional Council at the time, recognized that USD was unlike a traditional residential school because it housed the majority of Deaf children in one site and a few exceptional students in public schools. USD was completely reversed, with only a few students living on campus and 90% or more enrolled in local public schools. Self-contained courses led by USD personnel were widely implemented at the local public school system. These mainstreamed Deaf and hard of hearing students were counted separately from those who were put in school districts instead of under USD's umbrella (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; Sanderson, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001).
In 2001, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a member of the USDB Institutional Council at the time, recognized that USD was unlike a traditional residential school because it housed the majority of Deaf children in one site and a few exceptional students in public schools. USD was completely reversed, with only a few students living on campus and 90% or more enrolled in local public schools. Self-contained courses led by USD personnel were widely implemented at the local public school system. These mainstreamed Deaf and hard of hearing students were counted separately from those who were put in school districts instead of under USD's umbrella (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; Sanderson, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001).
Lawrence M. Siegel @ Research at Gallaudet
What made Utah's approach to Deaf students differ from that of other states? IDEA was interpreted either by the state or by the USDB. Many state administrators assumed that the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for these students would be a mainstreamed public school as a result of Public Law 94-142. The oral teaching approach that dominated the USD's programs reflected this viewpoint.
The issue arose when the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team explored educational placement choices, not only in Utah but also in other states. The LRE would naturally be the regular school classroom. Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney who specializes in Deaf Education, remarked in 2000 that a Deaf or hard of hearing student's educational placement decision should be based on communication-driven. The outcome of the IEP placement decision would undoubtedly be affected if the child's preferred way of communication was given top educational priority. The more pressing question would be whether the student's school environment could provide him or her with an accessible language and equal communication opportunities. This, according to Siegel, was a matter of fundamental human rights. Deaf and hard of hearing students, according to Siegel, have the same universal need for language and communication as any other human being. This fundamental requirement should be the starting point for all educational decisions. The deaf school made bad decisions by enrolling a Deaf or hard of hearing student in the public school system, expecting it to be the least restrictive environment. The IEP paperwork was and is a legal document that can be utilized to enforce all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should perform additional research into the student's language accessibility needs before making placement decisions (National Deaf Education Project).
The issue arose when the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team explored educational placement choices, not only in Utah but also in other states. The LRE would naturally be the regular school classroom. Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney who specializes in Deaf Education, remarked in 2000 that a Deaf or hard of hearing student's educational placement decision should be based on communication-driven. The outcome of the IEP placement decision would undoubtedly be affected if the child's preferred way of communication was given top educational priority. The more pressing question would be whether the student's school environment could provide him or her with an accessible language and equal communication opportunities. This, according to Siegel, was a matter of fundamental human rights. Deaf and hard of hearing students, according to Siegel, have the same universal need for language and communication as any other human being. This fundamental requirement should be the starting point for all educational decisions. The deaf school made bad decisions by enrolling a Deaf or hard of hearing student in the public school system, expecting it to be the least restrictive environment. The IEP paperwork was and is a legal document that can be utilized to enforce all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should perform additional research into the student's language accessibility needs before making placement decisions (National Deaf Education Project).
The public school system was seen by the Deaf community as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf students. Many Deaf students experienced isolation from their Deaf peers and a lack of Deaf adult role models as more Deaf children were mainstreamed. They were unable to learn American Sign Language during their school years due to their isolation and deprivation (Erting et al., 1989).
Utah Code 53A-25-104: The Culprit
Because Deaf students' educational placements had historically been handled in this manner at USD, the Utah Deaf community assumed that the school's mainstreaming philosophy, combined with the predominant oral teaching methods, had influenced mainstreamed placement decisions. The true nature of Deaf Education was disclosed during an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) discussion between Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent, and her daughter, Ellen (age 9), Steven Noyce, an oral/mainstreaming proponent and USD Outreach Program Director.
Bronwyn O'Hara
In the fall of 1994, Bronwyn, who became friends with Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, a Deaf renowned leader and future co-founder of Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, advocated the development of a day school for Deaf students where they could be together and share a common language and culture. It would be a place where hearing parents could learn from Deaf adults and would be a place where Deaf adults were valued. Bronwyn wanted this for all Deaf children/families. She also wished for this to be available to all Deaf children and families. She formed the Support Group for Deaf Education with this goal in mind. Her plan was to educate other parents of Deaf children about deafness and Deaf Education. She has three Deaf children of her own and understood the importance of receiving accurate information in order to make informed decisions. At the IEP meeting that day, Steven Noyce emphasized that a deaf day school could not and would not be established since the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind were under the Special Education Department. If we desired a day school, he stated, the Utah Code that regulated USDB needed to be changed (O'Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995). Steven Noyce's insight complemented information Bronwyn'd acquired a few years before during a phone conversation with Steve Kukic, the State Director of Special Education at the time. He explained to her that all Deaf students began their education at his Department of Special Education, rather than in regular schools. As a result, there were specific rules to follow that were codified in Utah law.
Bronwyn's plea during the 1994 IEP meeting sparked the dialogue. She requested that Ellen communicate directly with teachers and peers without the use of an interpreter. Ellen required Deaf persons as behavior and language models, she stated to Noyce. Ellen also needed peers with communication and linguistic abilities comparable to her own. Noyce noted at the time that the law prohibited grade-level or above-grade-level Deaf students from attending USD classes. He went on to say that Ellen's educational options were limited because all Deaf children were classified as Special Education students. Bronwyn was stunned. She asked where the intelligent Deaf students went. He replied with a single word: 'Mainstreamed' (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication).
Bronwyn's plea during the 1994 IEP meeting sparked the dialogue. She requested that Ellen communicate directly with teachers and peers without the use of an interpreter. Ellen required Deaf persons as behavior and language models, she stated to Noyce. Ellen also needed peers with communication and linguistic abilities comparable to her own. Noyce noted at the time that the law prohibited grade-level or above-grade-level Deaf students from attending USD classes. He went on to say that Ellen's educational options were limited because all Deaf children were classified as Special Education students. Bronwyn was stunned. She asked where the intelligent Deaf students went. He replied with a single word: 'Mainstreamed' (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication).
Steven Noyce
Bronwyn implored Noyce to created an IEP for Ellen with gifted student goals so she could receive an education on or above grade level at USD, not wanting to be thwarted and trying to find a way around the current law to achieve the same thing. The rationale was related to how some states were putting their gifted students under the Special Education umbrella so they could fund their gifted programs easier. Bronwyn believed that her daughter's education could not be postponed until the law was changed. Noyce, on the other hand, simply shrugged and stated that it would not happen in Utah. In order for the situation to alter, he stated that the law would have to be changed (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication).
At the time, Bronwyn and her family had been living in Utah for eight years, and she suspected that many USDB educational regulations were never addressed with or explained to parents. She also believed she had gathered all of the necessary knowledge through her own reading, phone calls, and questions at her children's IEP meetings. The USDB's personnel reacted in an intriguing way when Bronwyn demanded answers (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication).
Following the eye-opening IEP meeting, Bronwyn cautioned the Utah Deaf Community about the law that regulated USDB. She felt they deserved to know what was keeping the state from enhancing the Deaf Education (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication). She submitted her letter to the UAD Bulletin in order for them to come up with a plan to modify the law. In the January 1995 issue, she penned a Letter to the Editor. Everything is conveniently gathered in one place below.
At the time, Bronwyn and her family had been living in Utah for eight years, and she suspected that many USDB educational regulations were never addressed with or explained to parents. She also believed she had gathered all of the necessary knowledge through her own reading, phone calls, and questions at her children's IEP meetings. The USDB's personnel reacted in an intriguing way when Bronwyn demanded answers (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication).
Following the eye-opening IEP meeting, Bronwyn cautioned the Utah Deaf Community about the law that regulated USDB. She felt they deserved to know what was keeping the state from enhancing the Deaf Education (Bronwyn O'Hara, August 27, 2009, personal communication). She submitted her letter to the UAD Bulletin in order for them to come up with a plan to modify the law. In the January 1995 issue, she penned a Letter to the Editor. Everything is conveniently gathered in one place below.
Bronwyn O'Hara Writes a Letter
to the Utah Deaf Community
to the Utah Deaf Community
Dear Editor,
Right now, the law says that THE UTAH SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND IS UNDER SPECIAL EDUCATION. BECAUSE OF THAT RESTRICTION, THE ONLY DEAF CHILDREN WHO QUALIFY FOR ATTENDING USDB ARE THOSE WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION…
Does the Deaf community understand what this means?? This means that the deaf children who attend USDB must have delays in some area and need remedial help. This means the intelligent deaf children, on grade level or above, CAN NOT attend USDB. If they do attend USDB, they either are mainstreamed as much as possible or receive a remedial education with the rest of the remedial students (‘Remedial’ means “a special course to help students overcome deficiencies”).
The only way for deaf children to be educated together and for the possibility for a Day school is to CHANGE THE LAW. We need the Deaf community’s political clout to accomplish this. Please help! You accomplished so much last legislative session. You need to do it again.
Sincerely,
Bronwyn O’Hara, Parent
(O’Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3)
Right now, the law says that THE UTAH SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND IS UNDER SPECIAL EDUCATION. BECAUSE OF THAT RESTRICTION, THE ONLY DEAF CHILDREN WHO QUALIFY FOR ATTENDING USDB ARE THOSE WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION…
Does the Deaf community understand what this means?? This means that the deaf children who attend USDB must have delays in some area and need remedial help. This means the intelligent deaf children, on grade level or above, CAN NOT attend USDB. If they do attend USDB, they either are mainstreamed as much as possible or receive a remedial education with the rest of the remedial students (‘Remedial’ means “a special course to help students overcome deficiencies”).
The only way for deaf children to be educated together and for the possibility for a Day school is to CHANGE THE LAW. We need the Deaf community’s political clout to accomplish this. Please help! You accomplished so much last legislative session. You need to do it again.
Sincerely,
Bronwyn O’Hara, Parent
(O’Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3)
O’Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3
The O'Hara family decided to leave Utah when it became evident that the current statute was the stumbling block. Bronwyn didn't want her Deaf child(ren) to be mainstreamed and cut off from Deaf adults and peers in terms of education and socialization. Ellen had a poor interpreter in 4th grade at Scera Park Elementary School, where she was mainstreamed for part of the day. Within the USD system, there was no way to get a better one. Such circumstances repeatedly jeopardized her child's education. The truth was that once these years of education had been mismanaged, they could not be recaptured. It was time for the family to look for a school that shared their values. Ellen enrolled at the Indiana School for the Deaf, which incorporated the Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy curriculum (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Bronwyn & her daughter, Ellen who became the future JMS teacher
Another Parent's Turn to Learn About the Law
Twelve years later, in 2007, it was another parent's turn to learn the Utah's deaf educational system. Jodi Becker Kinner was a Deaf mother with two Deaf children. Bronwyn's familial troubles with USD were unknown to her when she moved to Utah from Washington, D.C. in 2000. Jodi was fortunate enough to be elected to the USDB Institutional Council (later renamed to Advisory Council). Bronwyn applied for a council position but was turned down. Jodi was chosen to serve on the council as a representative of the Utah Deaf community, not as a parent.
When her Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, were enrolled at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, an ASL/English Bilingual program (replaced Bi-Bi), which is part of the Utah School for the Deaf, Jodi found herself unwittingly confronted with the Utah Code that governed USD. Before the 2005 USD/JMS merger, Joshua was easily enrolled at JMS when he turned three in 2004, because it was an independent charter school at the time. It was no barrier for him to be notified for his service through the local school district. Following the 2005 merger, JMS was compelled to comply with Special Education and IDEA regulations when it became a part of USD. These regulations required that a family be referred to their local school district before being registered at USD. Jodi, like Joshua, had opted to send her daughter Danielle to JMS as well. She had just turned three years old in 2006. Danielle's evaluation testing was part of the IDEA process, which required her to go through a lengthy procedure. Danielle was found to be six months behind her hearing peers in school during the initial IEP meeting. This qualified her for educational services at JMS. Jodi wondered if Danielle would be eligible to attend JMS if she was academically on par with her peers. She would not, according to the IEP professionals. As Jodi pressed for further information, she was met with vague responses. She, like most parents before her, let the questions slide. In that one IEP meeting, there was no way she could get to the bottom of the USDB system.
When her Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, were enrolled at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, an ASL/English Bilingual program (replaced Bi-Bi), which is part of the Utah School for the Deaf, Jodi found herself unwittingly confronted with the Utah Code that governed USD. Before the 2005 USD/JMS merger, Joshua was easily enrolled at JMS when he turned three in 2004, because it was an independent charter school at the time. It was no barrier for him to be notified for his service through the local school district. Following the 2005 merger, JMS was compelled to comply with Special Education and IDEA regulations when it became a part of USD. These regulations required that a family be referred to their local school district before being registered at USD. Jodi, like Joshua, had opted to send her daughter Danielle to JMS as well. She had just turned three years old in 2006. Danielle's evaluation testing was part of the IDEA process, which required her to go through a lengthy procedure. Danielle was found to be six months behind her hearing peers in school during the initial IEP meeting. This qualified her for educational services at JMS. Jodi wondered if Danielle would be eligible to attend JMS if she was academically on par with her peers. She would not, according to the IEP professionals. As Jodi pressed for further information, she was met with vague responses. She, like most parents before her, let the questions slide. In that one IEP meeting, there was no way she could get to the bottom of the USDB system.
Jodi Becker Kinner
A year later, in 2007, it all surfaced again when Joshua's yearly evaluation report arrived. Jodi learned during the IEP meeting that he, who was in kindergarten, was just one point away from being mainstreamed. She was taken aback when she learned that any student who scored an 85 or higher on the USDB was “kicked out” for decades. Students who were deaf, blind, or deaf-blind were also affected. Students who scored well on standardized tests were transferred to a mainstreamed setting. The JMS charter school's Utah Deaf Education and Literacy Board anticipated the JMS program to flourish after the merger, but the reverse happened. JMS shrank and lost bright students to mainstreaming. Many students had also transferred to a deaf state school outside the state. JMS, like USD, went through the same cycle. The JMS Deaf parents, Julio Diaz, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and Jodi couldn't figure it out until the USD administrator divulged the Utah Code.
Jodi was startled by what she learned about the Utah Code that governed USDB. Utah Code 53A-25-104 states, in part, that hearing-impaired children need to be found eligible for special education services before an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) could be written and the deaf child educated at USD [Code 53A-25-104(2) (a) and (b)]. Yet, Utah Code 25A-25-103 declared, in its definition of the Utah School for the Deaf, that USD can educate all of the deaf and hearing-impaired children in the state. Jodi felt these two laws contradicted each other (Utah State Legislature: Utah Code 53A-25-104 & Utah Code 25A-25-103).
Jodi soon realized that USDB was forced by law to classify Deaf and hard of hearing students as Special Education students. An IEP was a mandate in Special Education. Only students with special needs or delays were eligible for educational services at USDB because it was categorized as a Special Education school. If these students were experiencing academic delays, they would require an IEP. A Deaf student who was on or above grade level would be ruled ineligible and would be unable to attend any USD/JMS classrooms.
Jodi was startled by what she learned about the Utah Code that governed USDB. Utah Code 53A-25-104 states, in part, that hearing-impaired children need to be found eligible for special education services before an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) could be written and the deaf child educated at USD [Code 53A-25-104(2) (a) and (b)]. Yet, Utah Code 25A-25-103 declared, in its definition of the Utah School for the Deaf, that USD can educate all of the deaf and hearing-impaired children in the state. Jodi felt these two laws contradicted each other (Utah State Legislature: Utah Code 53A-25-104 & Utah Code 25A-25-103).
Jodi soon realized that USDB was forced by law to classify Deaf and hard of hearing students as Special Education students. An IEP was a mandate in Special Education. Only students with special needs or delays were eligible for educational services at USDB because it was categorized as a Special Education school. If these students were experiencing academic delays, they would require an IEP. A Deaf student who was on or above grade level would be ruled ineligible and would be unable to attend any USD/JMS classrooms.
Joshua & Danielle at the Utah State Capitol rally for a new school building @ KSL.com, July 8, 2008
This is what Bronwyn discovered many years ago, and it was rearing its ugly head once more. A grade-level Deaf or hard of hearing student was removed from the state school environment that provided adult Deaf role models and Deaf peers. This posed a dilemma for the student in terms of education, linguistic, and socialization. The USD student would be sent to a mainstream program, where the Deaf student's access to numerous aspects of education would be severely limited.
Bronwyn's Deaf mentor, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, was aware of the regulations, but it wasn't until 2007 that she realized how contradictory they were. At her daughter, Briella's IEP meeting, she learned how the law would be applied, much like Jodi. Because of Briella's outstanding academic achievement, the IEP team informed her that her daughter would not be eligible for services at the Jean Massieu School. It came as a shock to her when she learned that her daughter would be unable to continue her education at JMS. To reiterate, JMS gave up its autonomy in accepting any and all Deaf and hard of hearing students from across the state in exchange for being governed by the State Department of Special Education and its laws.
Bronwyn's Deaf mentor, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, was aware of the regulations, but it wasn't until 2007 that she realized how contradictory they were. At her daughter, Briella's IEP meeting, she learned how the law would be applied, much like Jodi. Because of Briella's outstanding academic achievement, the IEP team informed her that her daughter would not be eligible for services at the Jean Massieu School. It came as a shock to her when she learned that her daughter would be unable to continue her education at JMS. To reiterate, JMS gave up its autonomy in accepting any and all Deaf and hard of hearing students from across the state in exchange for being governed by the State Department of Special Education and its laws.
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
This law alarmed Jodi since it had the potential to jeopardize her children's education, as well as the education of all Deaf and hard of hearing students. This was not an option she was willing to accept. Jodi had the credentials to assess the matter on her own. She credited her awareness of education, educational legislation, and educational policy to Gallaudet's Social Work program. As a member of the Institutional Council, she also had access to people in positions of authority. She presented her findings to the Institutional Council on Utah Codes 53A-25-104 and 25A-25-103 on May 23, 2007 (Institutional Council Minutes, May 23, 2007). Her presentation demonstrated that these two laws were in direct contrast to one another. She used her own children's situations as examples of the laws' inconsistencies and deleterious effects on their education as part of her demonstration.
To conclude, Jodi requested that the Institutional Council support an effort to amend Code 53A-25-104 to align with current national Deaf Education trends and to remove the restrictions in Utah. As allowed by Utah Code 25A-25-103, the statute should be amended to make it clear that USD can serve both delayed and non-delayed Deaf or hard of hearing students. Students with academic delays could still have their educational needs satisfied if special services were included in their IEPs. Students who were on or above grade level could take advantage of Section 504 of the federal statute to receive educational services. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates that students with disabilities be provided with appropriate educational accommodations. USD would be able to provide services to any Deaf or hard of hearing student in the state who attended their programs if the federal statutes were implemented in this manner (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
Finally, Utah Code 53A-25-104 was found to be the cause of USD losing an increasing number of students to mainstreaming. This regulation was the "Number One" cause for the state's poor educational quality for Deaf and hard of hearing students. Over time, the consequences of this law have proven disastrous. As a result of minimal advancement in educational delivery and procedures, many academically advanced students were mainstreamed or transferred out-of-state, which was a high price to pay (Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008).
This Utah Code would have made it impossible for the school to keep up with current educational trends. The fact that this Code hampered USD's ability to serve the Deaf and hard of hearing student population was in direct conflict with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007). According to Seaver, "Where IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, it incorporated, for the first time, specific language that addressed the need for special considerations when the student was deaf or hard of hearing" (2006). When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, a full continuum of alternative placements was required to meet the communication, linguistic, social, personal, and cultural needs of Deaf children (CEASD's Position Paper on the Full Continuum of Educational Placements for All Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 2007). The Utah Code was clearly out-of-date and in need of updating.
To conclude, Jodi requested that the Institutional Council support an effort to amend Code 53A-25-104 to align with current national Deaf Education trends and to remove the restrictions in Utah. As allowed by Utah Code 25A-25-103, the statute should be amended to make it clear that USD can serve both delayed and non-delayed Deaf or hard of hearing students. Students with academic delays could still have their educational needs satisfied if special services were included in their IEPs. Students who were on or above grade level could take advantage of Section 504 of the federal statute to receive educational services. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates that students with disabilities be provided with appropriate educational accommodations. USD would be able to provide services to any Deaf or hard of hearing student in the state who attended their programs if the federal statutes were implemented in this manner (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
Finally, Utah Code 53A-25-104 was found to be the cause of USD losing an increasing number of students to mainstreaming. This regulation was the "Number One" cause for the state's poor educational quality for Deaf and hard of hearing students. Over time, the consequences of this law have proven disastrous. As a result of minimal advancement in educational delivery and procedures, many academically advanced students were mainstreamed or transferred out-of-state, which was a high price to pay (Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008).
This Utah Code would have made it impossible for the school to keep up with current educational trends. The fact that this Code hampered USD's ability to serve the Deaf and hard of hearing student population was in direct conflict with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997 (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007). According to Seaver, "Where IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, it incorporated, for the first time, specific language that addressed the need for special considerations when the student was deaf or hard of hearing" (2006). When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, a full continuum of alternative placements was required to meet the communication, linguistic, social, personal, and cultural needs of Deaf children (CEASD's Position Paper on the Full Continuum of Educational Placements for All Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 2007). The Utah Code was clearly out-of-date and in need of updating.
Olive Osmond home-schooling her sons, Thomas (left) and George Virl (right) @ The Hearing Fund UK website
Teachers who have completed Deaf Education courses that highlight American Sign Language as the language of instruction see their Deaf and hard of hearing students as regular students in a deaf school. These students may be behind in school, but it's possible that it's due to a lack of communication at home. These teachers adapt their curriculum courses to the needs of traditional education and encourage their students to thrive academically. Student achievement was found to be linked to higher instructor expectations. These mainstreamed Deaf and hard of hearing students, on the other hand, found themselves in a Catch-22 predicament. There would be no academic peers with whom they could learn if they wished to return to a USD classroom or program. This occurred because the Utah Code mandated that students who were at or above grade level be transferred out of USD. For everyone involved, this loop resulted in a nauseating downward spiral of frustration (Jodi Becker Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2007).
The Oral, Total Communication (it was available at the time), and ASL/English Bilingual programs at USD, as well as the mainstreamed setting, were all affected by Utah Code 53A-25-104. Code 53A-25-104, with its emphasis on special education, posed a substantial barrier to promoting quality education at USD/JMS. Due to this stumbling block, USD concentrated solely on placement options. There could be no effective communication or language-driven educational goals set for the students as a result of this approach. It was impossible to increase the quality of Deaf Education, either at the state or district level, with this statute mandating remedial education.
The Oral, Total Communication (it was available at the time), and ASL/English Bilingual programs at USD, as well as the mainstreamed setting, were all affected by Utah Code 53A-25-104. Code 53A-25-104, with its emphasis on special education, posed a substantial barrier to promoting quality education at USD/JMS. Due to this stumbling block, USD concentrated solely on placement options. There could be no effective communication or language-driven educational goals set for the students as a result of this approach. It was impossible to increase the quality of Deaf Education, either at the state or district level, with this statute mandating remedial education.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Deseret News, March 18, 1974
Dr. Bitter is believed to have had a key role in the development of Utah Code 53A-25-104 in the late 1970s (Bitter, 1977). Public Law 94-142 was passed by Congress on November 29, 1975. The goal of Public Law 94-142 was to integrate students with special education into regular public schools. The language in this Utah Code appears to be written with the goal of mainstreaming Deaf and hard of hearing students.
When parents of Deaf children and the Utah Deaf community discovered about the impact of Utah Code 53A-25-104 on USD, they were taken aback. They were outraged and spoke out against it passionately. Most members of Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc., who operated JMS as a charter school and lobbied for the USD/JMS merger in 2005, were uninformed of these regulations. This law harmed all Deaf and hard of hearing students by restricting their opportunities for education.
Not only did the law have flaws, but USD and local Utah school districts were also ignorant that Utah Code 53A–25–104 had been superseded by the new federal law, IDEA. Both remained in compliance with the preceding code, i.e. Utah law. The language and communication needs of Deaf and hard of hearing students were not given the necessary consideration during IEP sessions because they were not up to date on the re-authorized IDEA's norms.
The majority of USD's programs and classrooms lacked critical mass, and the value of education was undervalued. The majority of USD students were mainstreamed, despite the unsatisfactory results. A 'Language Rich Environment' was not properly considered. Instead, the least restrictive environment for Deaf and hard of hearing students was placed in a public school setting to ensure PL 94-142 compliance. The mainstreamed setting had never been challenged as the most restrictive environment for these students.
When parents of Deaf children and the Utah Deaf community discovered about the impact of Utah Code 53A-25-104 on USD, they were taken aback. They were outraged and spoke out against it passionately. Most members of Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc., who operated JMS as a charter school and lobbied for the USD/JMS merger in 2005, were uninformed of these regulations. This law harmed all Deaf and hard of hearing students by restricting their opportunities for education.
Not only did the law have flaws, but USD and local Utah school districts were also ignorant that Utah Code 53A–25–104 had been superseded by the new federal law, IDEA. Both remained in compliance with the preceding code, i.e. Utah law. The language and communication needs of Deaf and hard of hearing students were not given the necessary consideration during IEP sessions because they were not up to date on the re-authorized IDEA's norms.
The majority of USD's programs and classrooms lacked critical mass, and the value of education was undervalued. The majority of USD students were mainstreamed, despite the unsatisfactory results. A 'Language Rich Environment' was not properly considered. Instead, the least restrictive environment for Deaf and hard of hearing students was placed in a public school setting to ensure PL 94-142 compliance. The mainstreamed setting had never been challenged as the most restrictive environment for these students.
Mainstreaming Is Not the Answer for All Deaf Children
While sitting on the USDB Institution Council in February 1992, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 USD alumnus, learned that the Utah School for the Deaf had been designated as a State Institutional Resource. "Children should be mainstreamed to the utmost extent possible," the Institutional Council agreed. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson reviewed the Council's two-page statement on mainstreaming and expressed his concerns in the UAD Bulletin, claiming that mainstreaming is not the answer for all Deaf children. He expressed his concerns with a number of issues:
1. USD’s practice of mainstreaming the majority of their deaf students,
2. Inappropriately biased educational placement, and
3. Improper, biased, and one-sided educational information for parents that lacked a research base.
In the UAD Bulletin of 1992, Dr. Sanderson stated that not all deaf children should be mainstreamed. Over the course of his professional career as an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he had the privilege of working with and for hundreds of Deaf people. He saw the results of every educational program and philosophy firsthand. He saw the successes and failures of teenagers and adults, and he assisted many of them further their education and training, as well as place them in jobs.
1. USD’s practice of mainstreaming the majority of their deaf students,
2. Inappropriately biased educational placement, and
3. Improper, biased, and one-sided educational information for parents that lacked a research base.
In the UAD Bulletin of 1992, Dr. Sanderson stated that not all deaf children should be mainstreamed. Over the course of his professional career as an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he had the privilege of working with and for hundreds of Deaf people. He saw the results of every educational program and philosophy firsthand. He saw the successes and failures of teenagers and adults, and he assisted many of them further their education and training, as well as place them in jobs.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson @ Gallaudet University Archives
He was fully aware of Deaf parents' emotional investment in their children. He understood that parents wanted their Deaf children to be educated "normally" in schools close to their homes, just like their hearing children. He was also aware that many parents, not just a few, were aware that their children had been underserved educationally and socially in public school programs that were not designed for them to begin with.
Furthermore, according to Dr. Sanderson, the state of Utah has made little effort to investigate the outcomes of oral or total communication in mainstreamed programs. He saw that the word "research" sent off alarm bells among students and parents while working as a researcher at Gallaudet University, and he was both shocked and alarmed that so many people seemed to be deathly afraid of facts. He believed that further research should be conducted to learn more about the USD's programs. If research reveals that a program is having problems, whether it be complete communication, oral communication, or a mainstreamed version, the state will be in a better position to face and solve the problem.
Furthermore, according to Dr. Sanderson, the state of Utah has made little effort to investigate the outcomes of oral or total communication in mainstreamed programs. He saw that the word "research" sent off alarm bells among students and parents while working as a researcher at Gallaudet University, and he was both shocked and alarmed that so many people seemed to be deathly afraid of facts. He believed that further research should be conducted to learn more about the USD's programs. If research reveals that a program is having problems, whether it be complete communication, oral communication, or a mainstreamed version, the state will be in a better position to face and solve the problem.
Robert R. Sanderson. Mainstreaming was not the answer for ALL deaf children. UAD Bulletin, March 1992
Dr. Sanderson stressed that he does not dispute parents' right to choose a program for their deaf children based on fair information. He was adamantly opposed to inaccurate, prejudiced, and one-sided material that was not supported by study. His heart ached for parents who were forced to make difficult decisions based on contradicting advice from so-called experts.
Dr. Sanderson openly referred himself as a "mainstreamed failure" or "integrated failure." He was in the seventh grade when he was diagnosed with spinal meningitis at the age of eleven. He was returned to the same class he had been attending before to his illness because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada at the time. His classmates attempted to help; his teachers tried to help; he was given a lot of attention and still couldn't seem to make it work. He was sent to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, on the advice of his teachers and principal. He stated that his time at the USD in the residential atmosphere, as well as his time at the USD from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to be a serious and disciplined student.
Dr. Sanderson openly referred himself as a "mainstreamed failure" or "integrated failure." He was in the seventh grade when he was diagnosed with spinal meningitis at the age of eleven. He was returned to the same class he had been attending before to his illness because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada at the time. His classmates attempted to help; his teachers tried to help; he was given a lot of attention and still couldn't seem to make it work. He was sent to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, on the advice of his teachers and principal. He stated that his time at the USD in the residential atmosphere, as well as his time at the USD from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to be a serious and disciplined student.
Robert G. Sanderson, USD Senior Class of 1936
As a result, Dr. Sanderson believed that if the Deaf child was given an education that was suited to his or her natural abilities and perceptive positioning, as well as parental and teacher support, the Deaf child may have a good educational experience. He stressed the need of not limiting the child by prolonging unsuitable situations once it becomes clear that the child is not hacking it.
Dr. Sanderson was backed by the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) in 2007, that stated that a "least restrictive environment" was not a generic or "one-size-fits-all" concept, but rather one that could be used based on each child's individual communication, language, and educational needs, not the other way around.
Bronwyn agreed with Dr. Sanderson on the research part of the results for improvement and said it was time to peel away the cloak of “omniscience” from USD. Their programs looked great but didn’t have desirable outcomes. Administrators didn’t have answers to legitimate questions. The professionals didn’t use the information they had been given or used so little of it that there was no real improvement in their programs for Deaf students. They were not on the cutting edge of educational philosophies and strategies in Deaf Education. Their traditional oral approach to teaching the Deaf had to be knocked off its pedestal (Bronwyn O’Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Dr. Sanderson was backed by the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) in 2007, that stated that a "least restrictive environment" was not a generic or "one-size-fits-all" concept, but rather one that could be used based on each child's individual communication, language, and educational needs, not the other way around.
Bronwyn agreed with Dr. Sanderson on the research part of the results for improvement and said it was time to peel away the cloak of “omniscience” from USD. Their programs looked great but didn’t have desirable outcomes. Administrators didn’t have answers to legitimate questions. The professionals didn’t use the information they had been given or used so little of it that there was no real improvement in their programs for Deaf students. They were not on the cutting edge of educational philosophies and strategies in Deaf Education. Their traditional oral approach to teaching the Deaf had to be knocked off its pedestal (Bronwyn O’Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
CEASD emphasized the importance of providing a full continuum of alternative educational placements as required by IDEA, including special schools (i.e. Deaf schools) for Deaf and hard of hearing students. CEASD found that the recent trend in our nation to remove special schools from the continuum to be unacceptable and potentially harmful to the child’s human development. They believed the trend to be clearly counter to the spirit of IDEA.
When people hear the term "least restrictive environment," they often assume it means placing a Deaf or hard of hearing student in a classroom with other students who do not have disabilities (Meeting Educational Needs of Underserved Students (MENUS) Manual, 2002). However, LRE could also mean "Language-Rich Environment" under the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA (DesGeorge, Johnson, & Brown, 2004). CEASD's February 2007 Position Paper endorsed this definition.
When people hear the term "least restrictive environment," they often assume it means placing a Deaf or hard of hearing student in a classroom with other students who do not have disabilities (Meeting Educational Needs of Underserved Students (MENUS) Manual, 2002). However, LRE could also mean "Language-Rich Environment" under the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA (DesGeorge, Johnson, & Brown, 2004). CEASD's February 2007 Position Paper endorsed this definition.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin
According to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a former Total Communication Division curriculum coordinator for both the Utah School for the Deaf and the extension program in three different cities, the Commission on Education of the Deaf ruled in 1988 that the "least restrictive environment" (LRE) needed to be clarified by the federal government, particularly by the Department of Education. LRE has been the most hotly debated topic in the field of Deaf education. Both the mainstreamed public school and the Deaf residential school considered the other to be the "most restrictive environment" for its Deaf and hard of hearing students (Baldwin, 1990).
CEASD, along with other organizations, recognized that communication should drive educational decision-making for Deaf and hard of hearing students throughout the IEP process. This would include decisions on where to put things. CEASD goes on to say that deaf schools are specifically created to educate children who have hearing loss. These schools are the best fit for many students, including those who are on grade level. In many cases, a deaf school would be the least restrictive setting in which a child might attain successful educational outcomes.
CEASD, along with other organizations, recognized that communication should drive educational decision-making for Deaf and hard of hearing students throughout the IEP process. This would include decisions on where to put things. CEASD goes on to say that deaf schools are specifically created to educate children who have hearing loss. These schools are the best fit for many students, including those who are on grade level. In many cases, a deaf school would be the least restrictive setting in which a child might attain successful educational outcomes.
Deaf Residential Schools As the
State's "Treasure Resource"
State's "Treasure Resource"
Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney, stated in 2000 that special schools play an important role. He underlined that the state's educational agency, the State Office of Education, should designate an equitable placement option, which he defined as Deaf residential and/or day schools managed by deaf residential schools, as the state's "treasure resource." As a result, appropriate funds should be allocated to the state residential and day schools so that each school district has direct access to them. Special schools would also provide expertise in explaining Deaf children's communication and language development, the importance of communication-proficient staff, and the critical mass of student size, as well as serve as a model for an educationally comprehensive and communication-rich academic environment (Siegel, 2000).
Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney @ Child Law Group
USD's status shifted dramatically after the JMS Charter School implemented an ASL/English Bilingual curriculum in 2005. JMS aimed to establish a school that could house classes from preschool through high school. A student athletic program was also a priority for JMS. Other state schools for the deaf provide comparable services to their students. The question remained, though, "How to do it under the current USD system?" Rethinking the day school concept was one method to get around the drawbacks of USD being a state agency. Keeping in mind that the Utah School for the Deaf was intended to be a statewide school serving all Deaf and hard of hearing students, it was only natural that the school entity would be located on a school site. Now that the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf was a part of USD, there was a channel through which a day school program for the children could be provided. USD had to promote and persuade the State Board of Education and the legislature that, for the first time, a permanent building was required to accommodate JMS's rising student population.
Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Salt Lake City, Utah
Deaf Leaders Speak at the Utah State Board of Education
Parents and members of the Utah Deaf community were blindsided by the law. They finally understood that the Utah Code, which governed USDB, was reframed by USD administrators and oral proponents as a tactic to promote the mainstreaming drive with a purposely vague hidden agenda while working with families. For example, before Bronwyn and her family moved to Indiana, USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson told her, "I won't lie to you, but I won't necessarily tell you everything." It was at this point that she realized that Noyce was following the example of Superintendent Robinson (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Dr. Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Utah State Board of Education received twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, from September 18, 2007 until October 2, 2007, urging them to revise the statute that governed USD, particularly the mainstream section. At the time, Dr. Bitter had died, and Steven Noyce had relocated out of state for a job opportunity. Parents and the Utah Deaf Community didn't have any walls between them. They were finally able to make headway after years of stumbling blocks. USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith was a big advocate of amending the Utah Code throughout his administration.
At that state education board meeting on October 5, 2007, four Individuals were in attendance to hear the USDB Legislative Workgroup report. They were as follows:
Dr. Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Utah State Board of Education received twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, from September 18, 2007 until October 2, 2007, urging them to revise the statute that governed USD, particularly the mainstream section. At the time, Dr. Bitter had died, and Steven Noyce had relocated out of state for a job opportunity. Parents and the Utah Deaf Community didn't have any walls between them. They were finally able to make headway after years of stumbling blocks. USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith was a big advocate of amending the Utah Code throughout his administration.
At that state education board meeting on October 5, 2007, four Individuals were in attendance to hear the USDB Legislative Workgroup report. They were as follows:
- Dan Mathis, a grandson of USD Alumni, Jack and Vida White,
- Jeff Pollock, Coordinator of Deaf Services/Advisor,
- Julio Diaz, the husband of JMS co-founder, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and
- Jodi Becker Kinner, a Deaf representative on the USDB Institutional Council
Dr. Patti Harrington @ KSL.com
Dan expressed his dissatisfaction with Utah's Deaf Education programs. He has seen better Deaf children's programs throughout the United States. He agreed that the services should be improved, and he backed the recommended code revisions. He believed that legislative changes were needed to allow USDB to provide better options and services to parents of Deaf, blind, and Deaf-blind children. Jeff added, “We can’t stop [with] changing the law. There [are] systematic problems throughout USD that affect Deaf Education in Utah. Deaf students [are] not being prepared for college” (Utah State Board of Education minutes, October 5, 2007).
A large number of Deaf parents and members of the Utah Deaf Community were in favor of changing the Utah Code to allow students who were at or above grade level to attend USD. As a result, not all USD children would have an IEP. It was clear that the twenty-eight letters had a positive effect on the Utah State Board of Education. Finally, the State Superintendent Harrington brought the legislators' attention to the concerns voiced in those letters (Utah State Board of Education: USDB Legislative Workgroup Report, October 5, 2007).
A large number of Deaf parents and members of the Utah Deaf Community were in favor of changing the Utah Code to allow students who were at or above grade level to attend USD. As a result, not all USD children would have an IEP. It was clear that the twenty-eight letters had a positive effect on the Utah State Board of Education. Finally, the State Superintendent Harrington brought the legislators' attention to the concerns voiced in those letters (Utah State Board of Education: USDB Legislative Workgroup Report, October 5, 2007).
Dan Mathis
Julio Diaz, Jr.
|
Jeff Pollock
|
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Legislative Workgroup Is Formed
Legislative Workgroup Is Formed
Karl White @ Utah Public Education
Karl Wilson, USDB supervisor from the Utah State Office of Education, convened the USDB Legislative Workgroup on August 17, 2007, which included stakeholders and lawmakers.The purpose of the workgroup was to update the Utah Code, which regulates the USDB. From the beginning until June 1, 2008, they met every every month. This workgroup included Dennis Platt and Jodi Becker Kinner, the two Deaf representatives on the Institutional Council. Jill Radford, the principal of JMS at the time, also joined the workgroup. They represented the state school's interests and objectives. The workgroup's main concerns were: 1. USDB's future administrative structure, 2. Students' eligibility and admissions to USDB, including placement options, 3. USDB's funding, and 4. USDB's relationships with local education agencies, all of which became hot discussion subjects.
Dennis Platt
Jill Radford @ Idaho State Univesity
Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
Signs Senate House Bill 296
Signs Senate House Bill 296
After two years of meetings to amend the bill known as House Bill 296 sponsored by two legislators, Kenneth W. Sumsion and Jennifer Seelig, the proposed bill was unanimously passed by the legislature. On April 30, 2009, Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. held a press conference in the Gold Room of the Capitol building to sign House Bill 296. With this huge legal victory, funds and resources were directed toward ensuring that all Deaf and hard of hearing students at USD were placed in the appropriate grade level. The teachers at JMS and USD agreed that bringing the students up to such levels would take time. It was achievable marked the beginning of a new era in Utah's Deaf Education. The new shift was on educational options centered on language-and- communication-driven access. All students at the school now have complete access to the core curriculum. This would result in a breakaway from restrictive or ineffective placements such as mainstreaming into local schools. This new law also met with the amended Federal IDEA law by utilizing Section 504 for students who were on grade level and need accommodations, and IEPs for students who were not on grade level and required accommodations.
Kenneth W. Sumsion @ KenForSenate14
The twenty-eight letters from parents and the Utah Deaf community to Dr. Patti Harrington, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, were instrumental in changing the direction of Deaf Education. Thanks to Deaf advocates, Dan Mathis and Jeff Pollock for speaking before the Utah State Board of Education about the needs of Deaf and hard of hearing students around the state. Their standing among State Board members, as well as their courage in speaking out on this critical matter, underlined the law's inequality. It was encouraging to see legislators realize the value of Deaf and hard of hearing students staying at USD to meet their linguistic and social needs. The USDB Institutional Council and USDB Legislative Workgroup received approval from the legislature, as detailed below.
Jennifer Seelig @ Utah Democratic Party
"Code 53A-25-104 needs to be amended to fit current Deaf Education trends and to lift the restrictions. USDB should serve both delayed and non-delayed students as stated in 25A-25-103. This can be done by having IEPs written for those with a delay and utilizing Section 504 for services provided to students who are on level. This indicates that the students still need accommodations in the form of direct communication and instruction. This way, USDB can provide services to any Deaf or hard of hearing student (Kinner, personal communication, April 14, 2007).”
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Utah Governor.@ Wikipedia
On April 30, 2009, legislators, the Utah State Office of Education, members and staff of the USDB Institutional Council, parents, and JMS students gathered at the Utah State Capitol to watch Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman sign House Bill 296 into law
July 8th Rally on Capitol Hill
While House Bill 296 was being worked on, approximately 100 parents and the Utah Deaf community rallied for a new permanent school building on the Utah State Capitol site on July 8, 2008. Every year over the previous ten years, the Utah State Legislature denied the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind's request for a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area. Given that the majority of Deaf students were mainstreamed into their local school systems, it was possible that the State of Utah thought USDB just needed an administrative office facility to carry out its goal. Perhaps the legislators were unaware that USD and JMS served real students on real school campuses. Another problem was about to surface. USDB was formally recognized as a state agency under the law. This had caused a slew of issues, as USDB functioned as an educational organization with restrictions on its ability to do its job due to its status as a state agency. While many other state schools for the deaf were also classified as agencies, there are some drawbacks to doing so in Utah. USDB was not only at risk of financial cuts as an agency, but it was also not recognized as an academic setting in its own right.
Triplets Abby, Ben and Colin Poole &
Keith Johnson, Deseret News, July 9, 2008
Parents and supporters for Utah's Deaf students were no longer able to tolerate the poor educational conditions that their children and teachers were forced to endure. They hoped that state legislators would take an interest in the issue and take action to address it. It has been disregarded for far too long. A rally was organized on the steps of the Capitol. In order to acquire money for a permanent school building in Salt Lake County, the group set a target.
The rally's purpose was to persuade legislators to place USDB at the top of their priority list when allocating financing for construction projects during the 2009 legislative session, which was held in January. The establishment of a stand-alone school would accommodate 350-450 Deaf students from throughout the Salt Lake Valley. The parents and campaigners hoped to turn the children's frequent failures into a positive experience (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
The rally's purpose was to persuade legislators to place USDB at the top of their priority list when allocating financing for construction projects during the 2009 legislative session, which was held in January. The establishment of a stand-alone school would accommodate 350-450 Deaf students from throughout the Salt Lake Valley. The parents and campaigners hoped to turn the children's frequent failures into a positive experience (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
Thomas Edison @ Wikipedia
Following the demonstration, Jodi Becker Kinner, along with other [hearing] parents, were given the opportunity to meet with Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. The meeting was attended by two of his cabinet colleagues as well as a representative from the Utah Department of Facilities and Construction Management. This Department was in charge of locating buildings for use by government entities. As Jodi walked into the Governor's office, she was taken aback by the presence of Thomas Alva Edison's original light bulbs. She wondered if these politicians were aware that Edison was deaf. During the discussion, the Governor discussed proposals that were still in the early stages of development. With the Governor's implied support for a permanent school building, the outlook appeared to be bright.
10 Points for the Demonstration
Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. Signs Senate Bill 201
During the 2008 legislative session, USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith secured a popular vote from the Utah State Board of Education and legislators under his leadership. Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. signed Senate Bill 201 on March 23, 2009, authorizing the issuing of bonds to allow the state to purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School building in Salt Lake City, Utah. On March 15, 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony took place. After ten years of frustrating, constantly declined petitions, they finally had a home to call their own.
As wonderful as the new Utah Code and the new USDB school campus in Salt Lake City, it became clear that not only local school districts but also USDB itself had misinterpreted the federally mandated IDEA. It is still widely believed that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated mainstreaming. IDEA does not utilize the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion" in practice. What IDEA requires is that every educational state agency and school district provide a “continuum of educational placement options” from a regular classroom to a special day class to a special school to institutional and hospital placements (34 C.F.R. 300.551;20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)). These can be translated into these examples of placement options. State Residential Schools for the Deaf, Day Schools for the Deaf, Mainstream Classrooms, including Self-Contained Classrooms, Private Schools, Resource Rooms, Inclusion Models, Itinerant Teacher Services, and Charter Schools are some of the options available to Deaf students (Meeting Educational Needs of Underserved Students (MENUS) Manual, 2002; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
As wonderful as the new Utah Code and the new USDB school campus in Salt Lake City, it became clear that not only local school districts but also USDB itself had misinterpreted the federally mandated IDEA. It is still widely believed that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated mainstreaming. IDEA does not utilize the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion" in practice. What IDEA requires is that every educational state agency and school district provide a “continuum of educational placement options” from a regular classroom to a special day class to a special school to institutional and hospital placements (34 C.F.R. 300.551;20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)). These can be translated into these examples of placement options. State Residential Schools for the Deaf, Day Schools for the Deaf, Mainstream Classrooms, including Self-Contained Classrooms, Private Schools, Resource Rooms, Inclusion Models, Itinerant Teacher Services, and Charter Schools are some of the options available to Deaf students (Meeting Educational Needs of Underserved Students (MENUS) Manual, 2002; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
Timothy W. Smith, USDB Interim Superintendent
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Salt Lake City, Utah @ USDB Website
In conclusion, USD has made significant progress in improving the overall quality of education for Deaf and hard of hearing students since the 2005 USD/JMS merger. HB 296 intends to remove roadblocks such as restricted educational options and language and communication access. We also anticipate that this law helps USD provide high-quality education, full language, and communication accessibility and develop a critical mass for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students to continue progressing and flourishing.
However, there was one major drawback: Steven Noyce came back and was appointed as USDB Superintendent, in 2009, shortly after House Bill 296 was passed. When parents and Deaf advocates entered the battleground, they were back to square one, as documented on the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage. Despite the fact that the ship had sailed, Superintendent Noyce must have been dissatisfied with the prevailing regulations. During the IEP meeting, Jodi was informed that he had rejected Section 504 and that only an IEP was required. As a result of the new law favoring the ASL community, JMS eventually triumphed and flourished in a permanent new school building for which parents and the Utah Deaf Community pushed vigorously.
If House Bill 296 and Senate Bill 201 had not been passed, three deaf schools, Jean Massieu School, Kenneth Burdett School, and Elizabeth DeLong School, would not have been created or thrived. USD had come a long way in terms of providing educational placement options for Deaf and hard of hearing students and their parents, just like the other two program options outlined in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" section.
However, there was one major drawback: Steven Noyce came back and was appointed as USDB Superintendent, in 2009, shortly after House Bill 296 was passed. When parents and Deaf advocates entered the battleground, they were back to square one, as documented on the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage. Despite the fact that the ship had sailed, Superintendent Noyce must have been dissatisfied with the prevailing regulations. During the IEP meeting, Jodi was informed that he had rejected Section 504 and that only an IEP was required. As a result of the new law favoring the ASL community, JMS eventually triumphed and flourished in a permanent new school building for which parents and the Utah Deaf Community pushed vigorously.
If House Bill 296 and Senate Bill 201 had not been passed, three deaf schools, Jean Massieu School, Kenneth Burdett School, and Elizabeth DeLong School, would not have been created or thrived. USD had come a long way in terms of providing educational placement options for Deaf and hard of hearing students and their parents, just like the other two program options outlined in the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" section.
References
I will update the references later.
Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD)’s Position Paper. (2007, February). (Online) Available HTTP: http://www.ceasd.org/acrobat/continuum.pdf
Sanderson, R.G (1992, March). Mainstreaming was not the answer for ALL deaf children. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 10, p. 3.
I will update the references later.
Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD)’s Position Paper. (2007, February). (Online) Available HTTP: http://www.ceasd.org/acrobat/continuum.pdf
Sanderson, R.G (1992, March). Mainstreaming was not the answer for ALL deaf children. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 10, p. 3.